TEXTAREA_ID

Annette Baier: The need for more than justice

In this particular chapter, Annette Baier points out the theory of justice. But before that, I will be first defining what justice really is. Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity. Justice concerns itself with the proper ordering of things and people within a society. As a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection and debate throughout our history. A number of important questions surrounding justice have been fiercely debated over the course of western history: What is justice? What does it demand of individuals and societies? What is the proper distribution of wealth and resources in society: equal, meritocratic, according to status, or some other arrangement? There are myriad possible answers to these questions from divergent perspectives on the political and philosophical spectrum. For me, I think that in this world today, there really is a need for more than justice. Why did I say that? Look around the environment. There are multiple corruptions, there are multiple poverties around the planet every single day. With these powerful people standing within the government, we, as an ordinary people will have difficulties in attaining justice. For me, it is really immoral. A person who did something wrong or unjust should get punished or should suffer the consequence, not that if a particular attorney and judge are being paid by a powerful person, the case will be forfeited or will belong to the accused. We need fairness in this world.

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

In this particular chapter, John Rawls points out the two principles of justice. The first principle is the equal basic liberties and the second principle is the arrangement of social and economic inequalities. For me, this talks about the free and the rational types of people. The first principle points out that in order for that person to be respected, he/she should also respect the others. It is so for them both to attain equal amount of liberty and respect for one another. The second principle is the same for me. For a person to be respected, he or she should also respect others so that there will be no discriminations. There will be no inequalities. Everyone will be equal. Everyone will chase liberty or will have liberty. My concrete example for both this principle is what happened to Haiti. It is the earthquake that occurred and destroyed a lot of houses and infrastructures. The relation of the theory of justice there is that all were destroyed by the earthquake. When I say all, I meant by the poor and the rich. No one survived, even if you are rich or the poor ones. The relation is that during the time of calamities, not only are the poor ones who are in need of help but also the rich people. The rich and the poor need to work together to survive and begin a new life. They need to cope up with each other for them to rise. No discriminations. There is respect. They are equal.

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights seriously

In this particular chapter, Ronald Dworkin particularly talks about how a person or why a certain person needs to take rights seriously. Ronald Dworkin also points out the government in this situation. Why government? I said that because it is from the government where rights, law and justice start. They are the mentors of these said terms. For me, we need to take rights seriously because we own it. It is for our own benefit. It protects us from any harm. For me, we people are not the only ones who should take it seriously, the government also and must do and take it seriously. It is because the government controls the wealth of a country. If they know how to handle it properly, then that country for me will be a productive, top and rich country. Here in the Philippines, we really need to take rights seriously. It is because poverty, corruption is/are all over the country. That is why we need to speak. We need to tell the crap that is/are happening within the government. We can do that because it is our right and we have a right to speak because this is a democratic country. We have the right to speech. To sum it all up, we, as a human being should follow rules and regulations wherever we are. We should take all of our rights seriously. It is for our own good. We ourselves will be benefiting from it. No one can interfere us people.

Joel Feinberg: The Nature and value of rights

In this particular chapter, Joel Feinberg talks about the nature and value of rights relating to the Nowheresville people and for me which should also relate to the people in the world or the people who live into the world today. As stated in the story, people who are in Nowheresville do not exemplify or does not have any rights at all which should be very unethical for me. I said that because relating from the previous topic which is happiness and virtue, how can one person or how can that person achieve happiness if he or she does not have any rights at all? How can one person live life to the fullest if he or she does not have rights? Am I right? For me, like here in the Philippines, once a person is born, he or she has rights already. The same thing should happen to Nowheresville. People should be equal. Another part of the story discussed was duty. Duty for me is an obligation which should be fulfilled. It should be fulfilled morally or correctly. My example for rights and duty is that when a person is studying in school, it is his or her duty to pay back his/her parents by giving good grades. It is his/her duty because their parents are paying for their education. It is their duty to study and at the same time they have the right to play, sleep and do what they want to do. For me, this makes a person equal.

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

In this particular chapter, Aristotle discusses the principle or his principle of happiness and virtue. I will be first discussing happiness. Happiness in this story talks about that it is a cycle. It is a long cycle or a long process that each and every human being is desiring to achieve. As stated in the book, it is an activity of the soul. I believe with what Aristotle is saying. It is because based from personal experience, I really am looking and wanting for something good, which definitely is related to happiness. My concrete example for is this is when a student is studying. In our lives, all people are required to finish elementary, secondary and college level of study. When that particular person graduated from college, then definitely that person will celebrate and will be very happy. That is how this story is related. When a person achieves something, then they get to be happy. Next topic is about virtue. Virtue is related and a part of happiness. For me, virtue can be an act which pushes a person in achieving happiness. Before you attain nirvana, there are actions which will lead you to gaining that happiness, and for me, that is the virtue. In this story, Aristotle mentioned two parts of virtue. It is the intellectual and moral virtue. To sum up, I agree with what Aristotle was saying. Happiness and virtue will be depending on us humans. It depends on our faith. It depends on our decisions.

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

In this particular chapter, basically it talks about the categorical imperative and the good will. I will be starting with the good will first. The good will for me is a natural act which leads us human into the doing of the right, correct or the moral act. It is not important in this world if you are rich, it is not in this world if you are powerful or you are in authority. What is important is that even if you are rich or if you are poor, you do the right acts. You do things accordingly. You follow the law. For me that is the good will. An example of a good will is that when you are walking along the streets, then you accidentally saw an old lady who will be crossing the street toughly, you, as a human being will not think twice or thrice if you will be helping the old lady or not to cross the street. As a human being, you will do what is right. That is to help sincerely. That can be for me a concrete example of the good will. Next topic is about the categorical imperative. In Wikipedia, The categorical imperative helps us to know which actions are obligatory and which are forbidden. Hypothetical imperatives are conditional: ‘If I want x then I must do y’. These imperatives are not moral. For Kant, the only moral imperatives were categorical: ‘I ought to do x”, with no reference to desires or needs. To sum it all, whatever these philosophers believing in, as a person, we should do our duties at all cause. We should do moral things and act correctly.

James Rachels: The debate over Utilitarianism

In this content, I will just be telling or I will just be sighting example. For me, the overall story of utilitarianism is all about happiness. This is the start of the story. I have a friend who is so much in love with this girl. With his love for that girl, he was doing all his best just to court that girl. Examples of his doings are treating the girls to a fine dining restaurant, giving gifts which are too expensive, following whatever the girl says or whatever the girl commands and many more. With that love and with whatever the boy does, for me it is not love anymore. It is obsession. Why obsession? It is because the boy is becoming a follower of that said girl. He follows whatever the girl says or commands, which for me is definitely wrong or incorrect. We can follow them, for as long as it is not abusing. It does not degrade the capability of a man or a boy. For me, there is no love and definitely there will be no happiness in there. I know that the boy is happy and in love, but how about the girl? Is she really happy? Or is she just enjoying due to the benefits that she gets from the guy? I think that was really wrong. There is no happiness in there as related to the story until the part of the debate. In life, we should know when things are to be done in a correct manner. We should know that and treat others fairly.

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

In this particular content, the topic discussed by John Stuart Mill was the concept of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ideas that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase the greatest good for the greatest number of sentient beings, and is also known as the greatest happiness principle. Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance. Utilitarianism can be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics and virtue ethics, as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. For me, what I have learned and to make life easier, utilitarianism simply says that when a people does an action, that is the only time that there should only be an outcome. As said earlier, the moral worth of an action should be determined by its outcome. In this content, aside from utilitarianism, there were also two terms which have been discussed. They are the rule utilitarianism and the act utilitarianism. The difference between them for me is the action that they will be doing. Its consequentialism.

Mary Midgley: Trying out one’s new sword

In this particular content, Mary Midgley had focus on the term moral isolationism and judgment. Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism. In my personal opinion, what I have understood based from it is that in moral isolationism, we really can or we can never understand the culture of other race or the culture of other people besides from our culture itself. We people tend to make judgments about it. Of course for me, we should not make any judgments if we do not have any knowledge on a particular race or a particular culture unless we gained or we had an experience with it. Another term discussed in this context is the term judgment. The term judgment generally refers to the considered evaluation of evidence in the formation of making a decision. For me, isolationism and judgment are interconnected. They are interconnected because you make a decision at a critical point of time. As I have said a while ago and what Mary Midgley said, we should never judge or make any conclusion if we have not yet experienced or we have no idea about a particular thing. It will be unethical and immoral if we judge without any stated facts, which lessen or dissolves our credibility as a person or as a student. The chapter explained that ethical relativism is internallly self-contradictory. We as a human being should prioritize those things because all of those are important matters.