Carlitos Jeric C.

Corpuz
Rivero

General Ethics

AB in Communication
2016

12:30 2:00

Prof.
January 7,

1st Question: What part of the story struck you the most?
The part of the story that struck me the most is when it said that, Each person is
thrown into a particular society by accident of birth. I remember when I read in
the Bible that before we were born, we are already in large debt to God because He
saved us from eternal damnation. I realized that we do not have the option to
choose our race, parents, environment, way of living and et cetera. We are only
capable of enjoying our lives once we are born because we are being taken care of
our parents. But once we become a functional part of the society, we are then
inclined to contribute to its growth and development. We do not choose our fate
before we are born but after that, we are compelled to have our part in societys
betterment. Therefore, once we are thrown into a particular society, we
automatically become catalysts of change.
2nd Question: Which part of the article you find intriguing or difficult to
understand?
Meanings without a meaning to life are precisely what suffering is all about.
Animals can be in pain. But suffering is a human privilege. -- I think non-human
animal rights are being ignored here because I think we do not only unnecessarily
abuse and kill billions of non-human animals on factory, family, and fish farms, and
yet, the philosophy here has the nerve to suggest that their sufferings are somehow
less legitimate, less tragic, less real than ours. This is human privilege at work.
In a word, we are speciesists. While we have made strides against racism, sexism,
exploitation, and other forms of prejudice and discrimination, we continue to hold as
fact that humans are more important than all others and can use non-humans as we
please.
I honestly think that we are in a state of cognitive dissonance. We all understand
that animals have feelings and self-awareness and are like us in most respects. I
hope people will understand how truly horrible our use of animals is, how much
suffering it truly causes. I hope that people will begin to understand that they are
contributing to that suffering and change their behavior. I hope that they begin to
recognize their human privilege.
3rd Question: What does the article say about ethics?
The article develops a theory of social ethics grounded in the decisive question of
how good persons are possible. The writer disavows an abstract ethics of rules, so

he/she does not build an ethical system but observes the lives of good persons. The
writer focuses on healthy everyday lives rather than constructing an essentialist
human nature. The key issue in social ethics is dynamic justice with three
dimensions: (a) optimal possibility for developing natural capacities to the
maximum, (b) active involvement as a citizen, and (c) emotional intensity in close
personal attachments. The writer refuses to discount the rational and radical and
contributes a fresh understanding of liberating practice to social justice.