CMP Review & Case Study 3.0

A
Contemporary Moral
Problems Book Review
by
Evan Severino
Copyright © 2009
Evan Severino
All Rights Reserved
THIS WORK IS LICENCED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTIONNON-

COMMERCIAL-NO DERIVATIVES WORKS 3.0 PHILIPPINES LICENCE
Table of Contents
I. James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Skepticism
II. John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience
III. Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slavery Morality
IV. Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
V. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
VI. James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism
VII. Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
VIII. Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue
IX. Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights
X. Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
XI. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
XII. Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice

Contemporary Moral Problems
Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:
James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Skepticism
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-
White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1
Quote: “the agents merely doing what he most wants to do”
Basically, this is the first argument for psychological egoism. This is actually an unselfish act
because the agent only does what he wants to do. All voluntary actions are motivated by agents.
Learning Expectation:
I would definitely want to learn what Egoism and Moral Scepticism is because this is actually
the first time in my life I have ever heard of such term. It really sounds esoteric in a way that it makes
me don’t want to hear about it. Obviously I am not much of a fan of philosophy. But for the sake of
knowing what it means, I can bear it.
Review:
So this part of the chapter is all about Egoism and Moral Skepticism. To tell you or to give you
a brief introduction of the author, James Rachels, he is a University Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is also the author of several books about philosophy.
So what is Egoism? Egoism is actually divided in to two, which are psychological and ethical egoism.
The first one is where one acts very selfish. They only do things that would benefit themselves.
They’d do things that they want. Men are selfish in everything that they do. On the other hand, ethical
egoism is the contrary. It is an unselfish act. People do things or do what they have interest in only.
Regardless of what it may be, just as long as they love what they are doing, they don’t care about
others. Plus, they have no obligation to do anything but their interest.
What I’ve learned:
I have learned what egoism finally is. Egoism is an act of man, which is selfish. This means that
a man is selfish in everything that he does. This falls under the first division of egoism, as there are
two. The other one is ethical egoism, which states that a man has no obligation to do anything but his
own interest.
Questions:
1. Does anybody actually even think of these things asides from philosophers?
2. Is this a big deal?
3. Can it even help change the world?
4. What’s the relation of this to our course?
5. Why do we need to study these philosophies?
Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience
Amazon:
Quote: “Without religion or religious motivation, people could not be expected to do the right thing;
that religion is necessary to provide people guidance in their search for the correct course of action;
and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong”
Although this is not all agreed by other people, this is basically somehow true. Religion is our
guidance and it lets us know whether our actions are either right or wrong. In my experience, religion
is my guidance in my life. And I could say honestly that without religion, I could be lost forever. I think
that a person like me can’t live without a religion and so does other people, regardless of what religion
they believe in.
From the title of the chapter, obviously, this chapter will be talking about religion, morality and
conscience. Although I may already have an idea of what these three things mean, I want to further
increase my knowledge about these three things. Specifically on morality and conscience, since I am
very comfortable already with religion.
Review:
As I have said in my learning expectation, this chapter I all about religion, morality and
conscience. It is interesting to know that if morality needs religion. This question was actually raised in
the beginning of the chapter. It is also very very interesting to take note in this chapter is when Arthur
mentioned or stated that without religion or religious motivation, people could not be expected to do
the right thing; that religion is necessary to provide people guidance in their search for the correct
course of action; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong. With that said,
Arthur claims that Morality is actually social. Although morality is like our instinct, it would also depend
on our own morality and judgment.
I have learned that morality is social. Although it is social, religion plays a great role in morality.
In relation to that, I have also learned that without religion people would not survive. Not physically
though but rather more on the inside of a person. Religion is everyone’s guide and if ever religion
were not to be present, everyone would be lost. Chaos could break through and we could have
endless war against our own race.
Questions:
1. Can morality exist without religion?

2. Can religion exist without morality?
3. Can religion not vanish?
4. Is there a person without any religion?
5. Could there be peace when there is no religion.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slavery Morality
Amazon:
Quote: “Exploitation does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to
the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to
Power, which is precisely the Will of Life.”
What this means is that, exploitation is not something bad or evil, but exploitation is actually
good when used in the right way. Just as long as it’s appropriate to do exploitation because there are
times wherein exploitation could be like invading privacy. So I think that it is a must to know when to
exploit and when not to.
Based on the title of the chapter, this chapter will be definitely talking about a master and a
morality of a slave. Of course this is the first notion that I get since I haven’t read the chapter yet, so
based on my understanding of the title or whatever it is that may be here in this chapter, I want to
learn it as it will increase my knowledge about these things.
Review:
To tell you a little bit about who the author is, Friedeich Nietzsche was a German philosopher
and poet who is often viewed as a source of modern existentialism and deconstructionism. The Birth
of Tragedy, The Gay Science, and Thus Spake Zarathustra are some of Nietzsche’s works. Nietzsche
argues that a healthy society should allow people with power to exercise their “will to power,” their
drive toward domination and exploration of the poor. People with power or what Nietzsche calls the
superior person follows a master-morality who emphasizes power, strength, egoism, and freedom, as
compared to the poor people which Nietzsche calls the inferior is said to be calls for weakness,
submission, sympathy, and love.
I have learned that “Exploitation does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive
society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence
of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will of Life.” Also, I have learned that how a good
and healthy society should be, and I think that we can use it to make the world better.
Questions:
1. Will Nietzsche’s view of a healthy society fit today?

2. How would it impact our world today?
3. What advantage does it have?
4. Will everyone understand it?
5. How can we apply it?

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword
Amazon:
Quote: “we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand”
In my point of view, I would think that it would be really wrong for us to criticize one’s culture,
especially if we do not understand or even know the culture. It is so easy for us to make fun and laugh
at certain cultures that may seem awkward to us but to be honest; it is not right to do so. The best
thing to do whether we like other cultures or not is to respect them.
I would want to know what Mary Midgley means by “Trying Out One’s New Sword”. Obviously,
at first, it sounds off topic, but it shouldn’t be because it is some kind of ethical theory of some sort. So,
I want to know what Midgley has to say.
Review:
In this chapter, Mary Midgley talks about her ethical beliefs. But before anything else, lets
discuss a brief introduction on Mary Midgley. Mary Midgley taught philosophy at the University of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England for twenty years and is now retired. She was the author of
numerous books, including Animals and Why They Matter (1984), Beast and Man: The Roots of
Human Nature (1995), and many more.
Midgley attacks moral isolation, the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize
cultures that we do not understand. The following example will explain about why the title is called
trying out one’s new sword. She said that in the older Japanese culture the Japanese had their
practice of trying out a new samurai sword on a chance wayfarer. She argues that moral isolationism
is essentially a doctrine of immoralism 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.
According to Mary Midgley, Moral Isolationism is a position that further holds that the world is sharply
divided into separate societies, sealed units, each with its own system of thought. But she said that
Moral Isolationism is wrong because it defies or contrast the moral values we know and believe.

I have learned that we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand. Moreover, I have
learned what Mary Midgley means by trying out one’s new sword and as well as other things like
moral isolationism.
Questions:
1. Asides from Midgley, who thinks that Moral isolationism is wrong?

2. How does it affect us?
3. Is it adaptable to us?
4. Why do people have to criticize other cultures?
5. Who is for Moral Isolationism?

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Amazon:
Quote: “Utilitarian standard is the greatest happiness of all.”
I think this is a good thing because happiness should not be just for a portion of people but for
everyone here on earth. All of us humans must be happy. It is a must and asides from being a must,
being happy is also part of our health. If we are always depressed and stressed, it wouldn’t be good
for our health. So, we really need to be happy.
I want to know who John Stuart Mill is. Moreover, I want to learn his moral and ethical beliefs
and what he has to say. I also would like to learn what Utilitarianism is all about. It is said that in this
chapter, Mill will explain some principles regarding utilitarianism, so I want to know what’s it about and
if it does matter.
Review:
Before anything else, here’s a brief introduction about the author John Stuart Mill. As said in
the book, John Stuart Mill was one of the most important and influential British philosophers. He lived
during the eighteen hundreds from 1806-1873. His most important works in ethics are On Liberty
(1859) and Utilitarianism (1861), from which the reading is taken.
Mill brings us the basic principles of utilitarianism, including the Principle of Utility (of the
Greatest Happiness Principle) and the hedonistic principle that happiness pleasure. Mill explains to us
the theory by replying to various objections and connections and concludes with an attempt to prove
the Principle of Utility.
It has been discussed by Mill that Great Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in
proportion, as they tend to promote happiness, wrong, as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. Lying and Stealing are wrong and it is in our religious beliefs that it is wrong, that's why it
doesn't brig happiness. But with regards to who’s happiness should be considered, he stated that
Utilitarian standard is the greatest happiness of all.

I have learned that Utilitarian standard is the greatest happiness of all. Asides from that, Great
Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion, as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong, as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Lying and Stealing are wrong and it is in our
religious beliefs that it is wrong, that's why it doesn't brig happiness. But with regards to who’s
happiness should be considered, he stated that Utilitarian standard is the greatest happiness of all.
Questions:
1. Does all accept Utilitarianism?

2. What is the reaction of different philosophers with this matter?
3. Is there anything wrong with Utilitarianism?
4. What are the benefits of Utilitarianism?
5. Is it adaptable today?

James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism
Amazon:
Quote: “happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable”
In my opinion, this fact is somehow true. Or if you really think about it, it is really true. I mean
people usually desire things that would make them happy. I don’t think there is a person here that
desires something that would make them sad.
As we have discussed in the previous chapter, we have talked about John Stuart Mill’s
Utilitarianism. We have discussed principles regarding utility of utilitarianism and happiness. In this
chapter, we are going to have discussion on James Rachels take on Utilitarianism and the debates
that have took place. Basically, I want to know what other philosophers, including James Rachels
about Utilitarianism. Do they agree with Mill or do they have rejections?
Review:
The utilitarianism doctrine is that happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable, as an
end; all other things being desirable as means to that end. In this chapter, the Resilience of the
Theory will be discussed. These theories consist of the Classical Utilitarianism, which are summarized
in three propositions. The First, Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their
consequences. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of
happiness or unhappiness that caused. And third, in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be
caused, no one’s happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else.
It is also discussed here in this chapter if happiness is the only thing that matters. In addition
Hedonism is also discussed. Hedonism is a perennially popular theory that goes back at least as far
as ancient Greeks. It is the belief of a good thing, which they called happiness. Happiness is a
response as goods, independently and in their own right. In order to defend utilitarianism, they must
make use resources which makes them happy, to be happy.
It is interesting to take note of the rule and act utilitarianism. The new version of Utilitarianism modifies
the original theory so that individual actions will no longer be judged by Principle of Utility. Instead,
rules will be established by reference to the rules. Rule Utilitarianism is actions conforming to the
rules that will lead to the greater good while on the other hand; Act Utilitarianism states that the right
action is the one that will give happiness to a person.
So basically, this chapter is all about the discussion on the debate over utilitarianism and some other
concepts.
I have learned that there is a new and old version of the Utilitarianism. Moreover, I have learned
other things about happiness and other things like justice. Overall, I think it was a good read. The
most interesting part to read in the chapter is when asked about if happiness is the only thing that
matters, which makes you really think.
Questions:
1. Is it possible for us to desire something that would make us sad?

2. Is it true that happiness is the only thing desirable?
3. How many actually believes in this?
4. Is it safe to follow this belief?
5. Are topics like these worth debating for?

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
Amazon:
Quote: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never as simply as a means, but always at the same time as in an end.”
I think that this ought to be the most striking quote from Immanuel Kant’s chapter. It has so
much into it. Based from what I understood from the quote itself, I think what this means is that, you
must always be human. Act human, which means you should do what humans are supposed to do, in
a good way or based on your religion. Love, care, share, and other things good, depending on your
religion.
This is actually the first time I have ever heard of The Categorical Imperative. It really sounds
esoteric to me, as I am not much into philosophy. With that said, I have no idea what the categorical
imperative is all about, so I want to learn about it and how does it connect to ethics and as well as the
other philosophical theories.
Review:
Before discussing the categorical imperative, let’s begin with a brief introduction of the author.
For this chapter, the author would be Immanuel Kant. Kant is a German and was one of the most
important philosophers of all time. He made significant contributions to all areas of philosophies,
which I find very amusing. For a philosopher who contributes to all areas of philosophy is something.
Probably not something but it is a great achievement for him and as well as philosophy itself. Kant
had written many books; the most important ones are Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to All
Future Metaphysics, and many more.
Immanuel Kant believes that our moral duty can be formulated in one supreme rule, which is
none other than the main topic of this chapter, The Categorical Imperative. It is known as from where
all our duties can be derived. Although he has stated that there is just one rule, which he gives
different versions of. Two of the rules seem to be distinct though. He concludes that the supreme rule
or rules by considering the nature of good will and duty, which is actually discussed in this chapter.
Asides from good will and duty, the categorical imperative will be discussed and be
elaborated to give us an understanding of what it is all about. There’s also the distinguishment of
hypothetical and categorical imperative. So basically, this chapter is all about Immanuel Kant’s
philosophical theories and his beliefs.
I have learned in this chapter that Immanuel Kant is one of the most important philosophers of
all time. It seems to amaze me how one person could contribute to every area of philosophy, which if
you ask me to do is a headache. I think if you are not a philosopher fan or trying to be a philosopher,
it’s hard to do these deep thinking and wonderings with all the things and mental aspects in this world.
Questions:
1. Is Immanuel Kant the greatest philosopher?

2. Was al his contributions in favour of all?
3. How do his contributions affect philosophy?
4. Does his philosophical belief change the world?
5. Did it change the world for the better?

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue
Amazon:
Quote: “all human beings seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but
an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue”
This is somehow true. Although, some people mistakenly think of happiness as a pleasure
and wealth. Although I do not think that is how it’s supposed to be but I think with the people today, it
really depends on them. But I do agree with Aristotle that happiness is an activity of the soul in
accordance with virtue.
This chapter will be talking about Aristotle’s philosophy on Happiness and Virtue. So, I want to
learn on what Aristotle has to say about Happiness and Virtue. We all have our different views and
insights regarding happiness and virtue, but it is very interesting to find out or to know how
philosophers like Aristotle sees.
Review:
Aristotle is not a name that sounds esoteric to us because Aristotle is really a popular
philosopher and we always here his name. To give you a brief background, Aristotle made important
contributions to all areas of philosophy, including the formulation of traditional logic. Along with his
teacher Plato (who is also popularly known to most people), Aristotle is regarded as one of the
founders of Western philosophy.
Aristotle argues that all human beings seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure,
honour, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. As we have discussed in the
previous chapter that happiness is the one thing and the only thing desirable. I think that it somehow
relates with the happiness Aristotle is pointing out. Aristotle also pointed out that there are two kinds
of virtue, which is moral and intellectual.
Aristotle explains moral virtue, which comes from training and habit, and generally is a state
of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. One example of Aristotle
would be courage, as a mean between extremes of rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). So,
this is what Aristotle means by a moral virtue. These are things that we believe in and are based on
how we were raised as a person.
So basically, this chapter is all about how Aristotle makes his point regarding happiness and
virtue, in which Aristotle said that they are connected.
I have learned that happiness is happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.
Moreover, I have learned that happiness and virtue is related and that there are two kinds of virtue,
which is the moral and intellectual.
Questions:
1. How many people actually believe that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with
virtue?
2. What do other philosophers say?
3. Why can’t people see this truth?
4. Why does even one take happiness as pleasure?
5. Is it a sin to take it that way?

Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights
Amazon:
Quote: “deserving something good is different from the right of having something good”
I agree with Feinberg regarding this. I think it is really true that deserving something good is
totally different when you have the right to have something good. Having the right to deserve
something good is a right where in you must have it. It is your right to have something good and no
matter what comes in your way, it is your right. No one can take it from you unlike when deserving
something good, which you do not have the right to claim it. Yes, you deserve it, but you don’t have
the right to totally deserve it.
In this chapter, the author, Joel Feinberg will be discussing about the nature of rights and it’s
values. Sometimes, we tend to disregard the value of rights and not value it the way it is supposed to
be valued and fought for. Moreover, Feinberg will be discussing the nature of rights. This will be
interesting, as we will get a philosophers’ point of view rather than a non-philosopher. This way, we
would be able to get philosophical insights and discussions.
Review:
To give you a brief background of this chapter’s philosopher, Joel Feinberg is a professor of
philosophy at the University of Arizona. Like many philosophers, he also wrote books, which are
Doing and Deserving, Social Philosophy, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, and many more.
Joel Feinberg wants to demonstrate that rights are morally important because there are
people who actually don’t realize for a fact that it is morally important. To be able to point out his point,
he used a technique wherein he imaginably created this place that he called Nowheresville. Feinberg
discusses Nowheresville as a world where in people have no rights and are not treated equally.
Nowheresville is different from ours because we have rights and we have equality.
In this chapter, Feinberg also discusses to us the doctrine of the logical correlativity rights and
duties. He states that all duties entail other people’s rights and all rights entail other people’s duties.
The doctrine is alleged entailment from duties to rights. Feinberg states that “In a sense yes and in a
sense no.” Moreover, Feinberg discusses about the concept of personal desert. Feinberg explains
that the concept is when a person deserves something good, he deserves it. Although Feinberg
stated that deserving something goof is different from the right of having something good. And I agree
with Feinberg.
I have learned that deserving something goof is different from the right of having something
good. This is a very interesting statement by Feinberg himself because it has a lot of truth in it and it is
a powerful line.
Questions:
1. Do people actually realize the right of deserving something good that just deserving it?
2. How many people actually know about this?
3. Do people believe in this or do they reject it?
4. Why are other people so sensitive about their rights while others don’t care?
5. What’s the nature of people with rights?

Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
Amazon:
Quote: “if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them”
This is abuse if someone else interferes with your right. It is a violation of your right and you
have the right to file a case against the violator.
As we have discussed in the previous chapter, rights are morals and they are supposed to be
valued and it is in their nature to be valued and fought by people. For some reason, there are actually
people who don’t really bother or care about some rights they have as compared to people who are
so paranoid about their rights. It is very interesting to see how this chapter would be discussing taking
rights seriously.
Review:
Like what I have said in my learning expectation, there are actually people who don’t really
bother or care about some rights they have as compared to people who are so paranoid about their
rights. This is morally wrong because rights are rights. They are like treasures or they are like a part of
the family. People tend to only concentrate on those rights that are valuable to them but they don’t
fully value all their rights. They just let some rights of theirs pass away and let other people inherit
what they neglected. On the brighter side of the one who’s going to inherit it, they are lucky to have
escaped or accumulated whatever it is they got from the victim. But basically, everyone should take
rights seriously.
The author of this chapter is Ronald Dworkin. A University Professor of Jurisprudence in

Oxford University, and professor of law in New York University. Just like the many philosophers,
Dworkin wrote books like A Matter of Principle, Law’ Empire, A Bill of Rights for Britain, and many
more.
Dworkin says that if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. This
is actually true and I agree with Dworkin on this. Not to mention, a right is a right. Interfering with it is
violating that right. Dworkin believes that this notion of rights rest on the Kantian idea of treating
people with dignity as members of the moral community, and also on the idea of political quality.
I have learned that you must not interfere with someone else’s right unless it is for a reason that
will harm you for example. Rights are supposed to be valued and taken seriously. People should I
think start learning this because as I have said, there are many who just let their right be abused or
violated.
Questions:
1. Does everyone belief in Dworkin’s belief?

2. How does his belief affect people?
3. Do philosophers agree?
4. What made Dworkin write this?
5. Is this common sense or what?

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Amazon:
Quote: “principles are there to ensure that no one is to take any advantage or have disadvantage
over situations.”
The principles are actually a good thing. It serves as a guidance and security in a way. In that
case, we have justice and this explains part of the theory.
This chapter will be discussing about the Theory of Justice. Many actually think that justice is
justice. It serves as a peace and a fair settlement in the most respectable manner. People usually
take justice as it is because I think that its mostly philosophers who expound things, just like justice.
So basically, in this chapter, I want to learn all about this theory of justice and how it does affect the
world. Of course, not all theory is taken into account because after all, they are just theories and not
facts. So it would also be interesting to see how this turns out.
Review:
As I have mentioned in my learning expectation, many actually think that justice is justice. It
serves as a peace and a fair settlement in the most respectable manner. People usually take justice
as it is because I think that its mostly philosophers who expound things, just like justice. Of course,
not all theory is taken into account because after all, they are just theories and not facts.
To give you a brief introduction and background on the author, John Rawls, Rawls is actually
a professor also, just like the many philosophers who also are professors. Rawls taught at the
Harvard University. And just like many philosophers who taught, Rawls is the author of books, namely
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, and The Law of Peoples. This reading though is taken from his
book called A Theory of Justice, which he wrote even before the two books mentioned.
Rawls theory states that there are two principles of justice, which is involving equal right to the most
extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others and the other principle is the
arrangement of social and economic inequalities. As what Rawls said, these are the principles that
free and rational persons would accept in a hypothetical original position where there is a veil of
ignorance hiding from the contractors all the particular facts about themselves.

I have learned that there are principles, which are actually there to ensure that no one is to take
advantage of situations, which is actually good.
Questions:
1. Can the principles make justice?

2. What do other philosophers say?
3. Do people believe this?
4. Are these principles effective?
5. Are they being used today?

Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice
Amazon:
Quote: “justice perspective by itself is inadequate as a moral theory, it overlooks inequalities between
people (parent-child relationships), it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and she says that it
ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love”
The fact that she stated that it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice and ignores love, I
think that it is wrong, because I very much value love.
As we all know it, even though there are laws and rules and even courts that will make
justifications, sometimes, that justice given is just not even enough. Sometimes, justice doesn’t even
prevail. Injustice is so strong and hard to stop without everybody cooperating. If only everybody
coordinates then that will only be the time when real justice can prevail.
Review:
This is the last sub-chapter of chapter one, which is all about Ethical Theories. In this chapter,
more things and philosophies regarding justice will be taken into discussion. Funny cause as I have
said that justice is just not enough, I guess that the discussion of justice in one sub-chapter is just not
enough.
In this chapter, Annette Baier will be talking us through about the need for more justice. To give you a
background on the author, Baier is another professor who teaches philosophy at the University of
Pittsburgh. She is the author of A Progress of Sentiments: Reflection on Hume’s Treatise and Moral
Prejudices: Essays on Ethics.
Following another philosopher named Carol Gilligan, Baier distinguishes between the justice
perspective of philosophers such as Kant and Rawls and the care perspective Gilligan found in her
studies of the moral development of women. It is said that Baier argues that the justice perspective by
itself is inadequate as a moral theory. She said that it overlooks inequalities between people (parent-
child relationships), it has an unrealistic view of freedom of choice, and she says that it ignores the
importance of moral emotions such as love, which I find important in my opinion. Although some
philosophers don’t actually believe in love and have their own philosophical theory. There are actually
two perspectives, which is care and justice. Baier stated that women would most likely choose justice
perspective rather than care because care is a woman's role in life. Women give birth and all women
take care of their child. Well, that excludes those who abort or abandon their child.
So basically this chapter is also about justice but in a different perspective as it tackles more on
the women’s side.
Questions:
1. Why does justice perspective have an unrealistic view (e.g. love)?

2. Will justice be enough?
3. What if it is not justice that we need but something more than justice?
4. Why does that Kantian view states that reason should control unruly passions?
5. Is Kantian wrong?

Book Copyright Process
(Use Case / Narrative and Activity Diagram)
Existing vs. Proposed
Existing Use Case Diagram
Sign in at Front Desk
Submit Application Form &
Book Copyright
Personnel
Return Approved
Application Form
Writer
Pay Copyright Amount due to
the Cashier Cashier
Claim Stamp from the Stamp

Personnel
Stamp
Personnel
Submit Application Form &
Show Payment Receipt
Title: Copyright Process
Description: This use case shows how a writer can publish his/her works at the Philippine National
Library.
Actor/s: Writer, Copyright Personnel, Cashier, Stamp Personnel
Creation Date: February 27, 2009
Version: 1.0
Pre-condition:
• The writer must download a copy of the Copyright Application form and fill it up. After, he or
she must have it notarized.
Main Success Scenario:
• The writer successfully copyrights his book.
Alternative Sequence/s:
• The writer gets a form in the library and come back with the completed and notarized form.
Post Condition/s:
• The writer can show his or her work that have just been copyrighted or publish it (if it hasn’t
been published yet.)
Existing Activity Diagram
Writer Copyright Personnel Cashier Stamp Personnel
Sign in at
Front Desk
Proceed to
Copyright Office
(5th flr.)
Submit Receive Form

Application Form and Book
and Book
Receive Return
Application Application
Approved/Reje Form for
cted Form Payment
Proceed to the
Cashier at the
1st flr.
Pay
Receive
Copyright
Payment
Amount
A
Writer Copyright Personnel Cashier Stamp Personnel
Receive O. R. Give Official

Receipt
Proceed to
Cafeteria/Stam
p Office (6th
flr.)
Present Check
Application Application
Form & O.R. Form & O.R.
Receive Notice Ask for the

to Pay Amount Stamp Amount
Pay Stamp Receive

Amount Payment
Receive Stamp Give Stamps
Present O.R. Check O.R. and

and Stamp Collect Stamps
Receive O. R. Return O.R.
Leave Library ☺
Proposed Use Case Diagram
Online Copyright System
Login/Register
Nat.
Library
System
Fill up Copyright
Application Form
Online
Writer Bank
Pay Online via
System
Credit/Debit Card
Confirm Payment
Confirmation
Notice Copyright
Personnel
Submit Book
Title: Online Copyright System
Description: This use case allows the company to get the final payment for the project
Actor/s: Writer, Nat’l. Library System, Online Bank System, Copyright Personnel
Creation Date: February 27, 2009
Version: 1.0
Pre-condition:
• The Writer must first register in the Library’s Website
Main Success Scenario:
• The writer successfully copyrights his/her book online and submits it to the National Library.
Alternative Sequence/s:
• The writer does the manual process.
Error Sequence/s:
• The customer doesn’t have the sufficient amount in the bank to pay the amount due.
• The writer fails to register
Post-condition/s:
• The Library must assure the writer his/her work was copyrighted and sends a notice.
Proposed Activity Diagram
Writer Library System Bank Copyright Personnel
Receive
Register Registration
Request
Receive Grant
Confirmation Request
Login
Fill up
Copyright
Application
Form
Submit Form Process Form
Fill up Prompt for

Credit/Debit Payment
Card Details
Process
Pay Amount Transaction
Receive
Receive Payment Store Book
Notice Confirmation
Confirm
Submit Book Grant
Copyright
to the Copyright
Library
Receive
Confirmation
Copyright Official Receipt
Reference:
7th Edition
James E. White

CMP Review &amp; Case Study 3.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMP Review &amp; Case Study 3.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

THIS WORK IS LICENCED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTIONNON-

I. James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Skepticism

II. John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience

III. Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slavery Morality

IV. Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

V. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

VI. James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism

VII. Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

VIII. Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

IX. Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights

X. Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

XI. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

XII. Annette Baier: The Need for More Than Justice

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Skepticism

Library Reference: N/A

Quote: “the agents merely doing what he most wants to do”

What I’ve learned:

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

John Arthur: Religion, Morality and Conscience

Library Reference: N/A

What I’ve learned:

1. Can morality exist without religion?

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

Friedrich Nietzsche: Master and Slavery Morality

Library Reference: N/A

What I’ve learned:

1. Will Nietzsche’s view of a healthy society fit today?

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One’s New Sword

Library Reference: N/A

Quote: “we cannot criticize cultures that we do not understand”

What I’ve learned:

1. Asides from Midgley, who thinks that Moral isolationism is wrong?

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Library Reference: N/A

Quote: “Utilitarian standard is the greatest happiness of all.”

What I’ve learned:

1. Does all accept Utilitarianism?

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

James Rachels: The Debate Over Utilitarianism

Library Reference: N/A

Quote: “happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable”

What I’ve learned:

1. Is it possible for us to desire something that would make us sad?

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Library Reference: N/A

1. Is Immanuel Kant the greatest philosopher?

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

Book Review Chapter 1: Ethical Theories:

Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue

Library Reference: N/A

What I’ve learned:

Citation: (James E. White, St. Cloud State University, 2003)

CMP Review & Case Study 3.0

CMP Review & Case Study 3.0