Egoism and Moral Skepticism

James Rachels

 

Review Questions: 

 

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?

The legend of Gyges – is about a shepherd who found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. It is said that the ring would make its wearer invisible and thus would enable him to go anywhere and do anything undetected. Gyges used the power of the ring to gain entry to the Royal palace where he seduced the Queen, murdered the King, and subsequently seized the throne. 

The legend makes me conclude that by the power of this kind, human tend to behave against the norms of morality and tend to participate once behavior or action for his own advantage. It is also noticeable that Human tends to be selfish in every way that they do and lead it for them to not see the real purpose of being a human being.

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything they do, and that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interest while Ethical egoism is a normative view about how men ought to act. Here, human have no obligation to do anything except what is in their own interest. For the latter, action are determine by making a commitment out of something that they commend. They feel like by virtue they are bound in favor of the other to render something by doing a certain act.

3. Rachel’s discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them?

The First Argument demystify that if we describe humans action’s as selfish, and another person’s action as unselfish, we fail to notice the crucial fact that in both cases, and by assuming that the feat is done of great accordance, then it is merely doing what he most want to do.

Rachel’s counter the argument by resting on the premise that people never willingly do anything except what they want to do, he falsify it by saying that at least the argument are generalize into two exceptions. One is that the set of action we may not want to do, but which we do anyway as a means to end what we wanted to achieve. And the other set of action is about those which we do, not because we wanted to, nor even because there is an end which we wanted to achieve, but because we feel otherwise that under an obligation we have to do them.

The mere fact that that human act on what they want does not mean they are acting selfishly but defends on what it is that they want. If once only do something for his own good, and care nothing of others, then he is selfish; but also if one acts for his own desire, then any action is not selfish.

The Second Argument upshot the unselfish actions that produce a sense of self-satisfaction that is a pleasant state of consciousness, it follow the point that actions is really about bringing about any good for others. For that reason, the action should be unselfish only at a superficial level of analysis.

The argument suffers from the same defects as the previous one, said Rachel. He shares that why would Human think that merely because someone derives satisfaction from helping others makes his selfish? Isn’t it the unselfish man that precisely does derive satisfaction from helping others, while the selfish man does not?

While a great number of Human actions are motivated entirely or in part by self interest, only by a deliberate distortion of the facts can we say that all conducts motivate.

 

4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachel’s detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

1. Selfishness with self-interest.
2. Assumption that every action is done either from self interest or from other regarding motives.
3. False assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachel’s accept this argument?

Certainly it is to everyone’s advantage to preserve a stable society that people’s interests are protected. It is conflicting because it cannot be advocate universally for the world in which his interest are maximized; and if other adopted the egoistic policy of pursuing their own interest to the exclusion of his interest, as he pursue his interest to the exclusion of others, then such a world would be impossible. Egoist would not be such a bad man; he would be as kindly and considerate as anyone else, because he would see that it is to his own advantage to be kindly and considerate.

 

6. According to Rachel’s, why shouldn’t we hurt others and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?

The reason one ought not to do actions that would hurt other people is that, other people would be hurt. The reason one ought to do actions that would hurt other people is that other people would be benefited. The welfare f human beings are something that most of us value for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of something else. Therefore, when further reasons are demanded for valuing the welfare of human beings, we cannot point to anything further to satisfy this demand. It is not that we have no reason for pursuing these policies, but that our reason is that these policies are for the good of human beings.

Discussion Questions: 

1. Has Rachel’s answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?

Yes, it is important that the assumptions underlying our moral practice should not be confused with particular judgments made within that practice. To defend one is not to defend the other; the virtue of beneficence does occupy an important place in the moral institution of life; and yet we may make constant and miserable errors when it comes to judging when and in what ways the virtue is to be exercised.

2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachel’s claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even people they don’t know?

 Egoist might be indisputable singular, but the fact that morality in today’s environ causes me to think that they are quite spreading. As humanity evolves on being progressive and self-reliant they tend to forget the people whom they are working with.

 

3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

Depraved interest are things that we should think not, it is quite unrealistic. Morality is more of having the right conscience on the precise understanding of the world. People tend to forget that they have Social responsibility to others the same with what others expected in return.

 

Religion, Morality and Conscience

John Arthur

Review Questions:

1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?

Morality as stated in article refers to feeling in society’s moral code that such would never feel guilt or resentment, that discrimination would be unfair on the basis of such society. Concept of duty, rights and obligations would not be present, except perhaps on legal sense. As a conclusion, people would have no tendency to neither evaluate or criticize the behaviors of others, nor feel remorse about their behavior.  Morality tend to evaluate the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions when we perform them. It involves attitudes toward various forms of behavior (lying and killing) that is typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights and obligation.  On the other hand, Religion involves belief in the supernatural powers that created and perhaps also control nature, the tendency to worship and pray to those supernatural being build structural, institutional and authoritative text.

2. Why is religion necessary for moral motivation?

As stated in the article, Religion play in morality that relates to what people motives are, it is necessary so people do right. It emphasized that less self-interested ways in which religious motives may encourage people to act rightly.

 

3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge?

Human understanding is simply inadequate to this difficult and controversial task; morality involves immensely complex problems, and so we must consult religious revelation for help. The argument was contradicted by Arthur; he concluded that it is far from providing a short-cut moral understanding, looking to revelation for guidance often creates more questions and problems.

4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?

Divine Command Theory mean that God has the same sort of relation to the moral law as the legislature has to statues it enacts: without God’s commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statues. Also, it is that only be assuming God sits at the foundation of morality can we explain the objective difference between right and wrong.

Arthur rejects the argument by implicating this reason, suppose we are grant that the divine command theory is correct, so that actions are right just because they are commanded by God. The same can be said about those deeds that we believe are wrong. If God hadn’t commanded us not to do them, they would not be wrong. Hence, it is more appropriate to say that those things cannot be done than that God cannot be done.

 

5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?

Morality being attach with religion for the simple fact that, the latter involves with the societies persuasion over its culture while the other tend to evaluate the behaviors over moral code and average that people tend to associate with their spirituality.

 

6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?

The existence of Morality assumes that we possess a socially acquired language within which we think about our choices and which alternatives we tend to follow. Morality is social in that it governs relationships among human, defining our responsibilities to others and theirs to ours. It provides the standard we rely on in gauging our interactions with family, lovers, friends, fellow citizens and even to strangers. And lastly, morality is social in the sense that we are subject to criticism by others for our actions.   

 

Discussion Questions:     

1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?

Arthur stated that even if we agree that God loves justice or kindness because of their nature, there still remains a sense in which God could change morality even having rejected the divine command theory. It is plausible that morality depends on which part we reason, we desire and need and the circumstances in which we find ourselves then will still be under God’s control since God could have constructed us to our environment very differently. The fortitude of God is impossible for humans to comprehend since the society defends on what God wants us to do.

 

2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?

Obligations as stated is a law that bind virtue in favor of another to render something – and this may consist in giving a thing, doing a certain act or not doing the certain act. In this regard, I wanted to retort to the statement philosophically that just like Human beings, animals – may it be dogs, birds, centipede or a snake – we, as rational beings should be compelled to protect them as an aid for our environs progress.

 

3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?

Home is the first place where a child learns its first lessons of ethics. Thus, moral education should at least be apprehended under the fresh years of growing up. Here, the public and media help on strengthening the moral support that every human must attain. 

 

Master and Slave Morality

Friedrich Nietzche

Review Questions:

1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?

A healthy society is said to allow superior individuals to exercise their will to power, the drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior follows a master-morality that emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom as distinguished from a slave-morality that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love. It is apprehended that the masters or superiors will be responsible of the greater things unlike the slave or inferiors where the will is weaker and demoralized.

2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation and put one’s will on par with that of others, may result to a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given. It is the will for the rejection of life that the suspension of life’s decay is emphasized. The very basis and resist of all sentimental weaknesses is that life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms and exploitation.

3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.

 
In the first case, when it is the ruler who distinguishes the conception of good, it is exalted, proud disposition display itself the proud disposition which is regarded as an order of the rank. Splendid man thinks of himself as a personality who order the values and he does not necessitate approval of anybody because he is an initiator of principles. Master-morality has the idea of good and evil as similar to the righteous and wicked.

On the other hand, Slave-Morality has the idea of the cowardly, the timid and the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised, morality of utilities says that evil men arouse fear in the contrast to the master-morality who sees good man as the arouser of fear. It is also fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are truthful.

 

4. Explain the Will to Power.

It is elucidate that Will to Power endeavor to grow, to grain ground, attract itself and acquire ascendency – not owing to any morality or immorality but because it lives and because life itself is a Will to power. Here, the Will to Power is innate to every one of us that we tend to distinguish morals to our persecution.

Discussion Questions:

1. Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?

For me, Nietzsche’s form of writing seems to be more of an accumulation of cultural beliefs that eliminates our beliefs as Christian; with a thorough milieu in culture and history can we come with the same justification. Nazism is not inspired by him since it’s widely known that the revolution was misshapen by a manic head, which derive to their destruction.

2. What does it mean to be “a creator of value”?

Creator of values expresses condemnation of man, together with his situation. It is highly regarded by the master class since they have the ability to set their own grounds. Hence, making them answerable to this indignation.

 

 

Trying out ones new Sword

Mary Midgley

 

Review Questions:

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

It consists of simply denying that we can never understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments of it. It is a view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand; it is a doctrine of immoralist because it forbids any moral reasoning. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed out of many influences.

2. Explain the Japanese custom of Tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?

Tsujigiri is a custom that the Japanese do when they get a new katana. They will use the new katana on an innocent traveler to see its spirit in battle. They expect the sword to be able to slice through a person in a single blow.

Midgley’s first query states: Does the isolating bar work both ways? The next question is Thus the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? And lastly, “What is involved in judging?”

3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?

We would have to stop using the mirror which anthropology so helpfully held us up. Moral isolationism lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. Essentially, this is the programme of immoralist and caries a distressing logical difficulty.

4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?

The obstacles which often prevent it are simply those of ordinary ignorance, laziness and prejudice.

 

Discussion Questions:

1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?

I can say that Midgley overreacts on her assumptions since Nietzsche does not fall on the category of being an immoralist but rather regurgitate the culture of the Vikings and other warrior cultures. He showed moral values that was simply a diverse point of view from the Christian beliefs. 

2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claimed that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer.

I believe not, base on my experience many human exposes cultures that are unlike to what there upbringing reiterate s it. The fact that cross-cultural marriage is widely acceptable, people tends to achieve cultures that are practice by their parents that might not be the same in essence 

 

 

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill

Review Questions:

1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing.

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Great Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion to the promotion of happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, it does not only considers the thing that are desirable to which happiness would be achieved at one point, it is more on the desires that would lead to an end that would give greater pleasure and happiness to a person or to a majority. It could be used to validate what would be conservatively viewed as wrong since according to this principle it is alright to steal or lie as long as you do not hurt anyone and as long as it would bring happiness to the preponderance.

The idea is best instances with a Student who cheat in class, it is morally unacceptable for us to cheat especially with things that are more important for our success, but the fact that even if we conduct this heinous crime and not be caught, we will definitely care less about the norms since we already benefited by doing so.

2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?

Human being have faculties more elevated that the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification, a swine is mortifying since the pleasure of an animal would not be enough to satisfy a human beings concept of happiness. Quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.

3. How Does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?

The Lower pleasures are those that can be easily be satisfied therefore they are easily attained like those of an animal and the lower classes. On the other hand, Higher pleasures are those that would be harder to achieve and usually associated with those pleasures that would be attained by a highly brilliant being.

4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?

The happiness of the individual concerned should be the one considered.

No matter which to avoid that might be imposing twinge or discontentment to a person is considered to be good, in these events the termination would bring more pleasure to the majority when the accomplishment done was good.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure and the absence of pain? What do you think?

 

On my own opinion, happiness without pain is shallow.  It is by pain we learn to struggle and think of ourselves as dignified beings; it is by experiencing pain we learn to find our true happiness. A life without pain is said to be a boring life because we couldn’t find the true meaning of having an alternative that could actually be the real destine for our own good.

 

2. Does Mill convince you that the so called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones?

I say that Mill’s wasn’t able to induce that the higher pleasures are better than the lower kind. He equate the lower bliss to those pleasures of a beast or animal which are easily consummate, these are the basic things people find as simple pleasure in which we have forgotten with our techs life. Besides, I would not look lowly to a person who would somewhat accepts the lower type of pleasure since they are the once who appreciate those simple things in life that majority of humanity have already taken for granted

3. Mill says “In the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of utility.” Is this true or not?

I affirm it to be acceptable. The Golden Rule states that “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself.”  As a devote catholic, utilitarianism usually deem that we avoid pain in order to be happy.

4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the principle of Utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

We can say that some of Mill’s conclusion about Utilitarianism is flawed, but it is also justified the mere fact that no one is hurt in the process of achieving what makes us feel happiness then it should be considered, In justifying stealing and lying as adequate basically is erroneous and deplorable.