BLOGERERO

What Annette Baler is stating in her article is that it lays in the government’s hands the need for more than justice. If our government takes care of the people, then there is no need for more than justice. Criminal rates will go lower since the government sees to it that the people are taken good care of. People will not be forced to do bad stuff because they are in good hands. Of course, the government should see to it that the people would not be abusive. The government should still limit things so that people will no tend to be very dependable in the government. If the government allows the people to abuse them in the first place and suddenly limits them that might cause the people to go against the government and force them to commit crimes again.

John Rawls wants to express that every people should be treated equally. No one should be favored. Now a days, we are living in a world wherein it is very unjust. Government official or sometimes in the Judicial Court favors people who are known in the business world; in short, rich people. In reality, Money is being a source of judgment among people. If you have lots of money, you are respected and treated nicely, but if you are just a normal person, or unfortunately, a less fortunate person, you are not treated equally like how they treat the richer people.

John Rawls stated two principles of justice. The first principle is that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Secondly, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all. These two principles mean just one thing. Every person should be treated equally.

In my opinion, Ronald Dworkin shares that, it is unethical for a person to interfere with one’s rights for we are made differently. Ronald Dworkin believes that we should only focus on our rights rather than messing with other people’s rights. I strongly agree with Ronald Dworkin because we really are made uniquely. We have our rights, so why mess with others? A good example that I can illustrate is when Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos ruled the Philippines. He took away the rights of the Filipino People. What is the result? The Philippines’ economy fluctuated and chaos began in the Philippines. Our foreign investors started to lessen. No one wanted to invest in the Philippines anymore because of it. After Ferdinand Marcos’ reign, many presidents gave back the people’s rights. Now the Philippines is trying to improve step by step.

Joel Feinberg created a world called Nowheresville in order for us readers to understand more the concept of rights and duties. Nowheresville is a made-up world created by Joel Feinberg wherein he wanted us readers to visualize a world like our own, except the people who are living there has absolutely no RIGHTS. In this way, we can determine how important rights are. Joel Feinberg also discussed this so-called “logical correlativity of rights and duties “. This has two (2) parts. The first part is about all duties entail other people’s rights; and secondly, all rights entail other people’s duties. Feinberg believes that the first part is the one that needs concern.

Aristotle’s happiness is way different form a normal person’s perception of happiness. Aristotle made it clear that happiness for him is not accompanied by pleasure; what most of us think is right, but happiness is being happy without doing something bad. It should always be something good. There are a lot of things that can make a person happy, but not all of those things are good. A good example of this is doing drugs. For some people, taking drugs can make them feel happy, but as we all know, it is definitely not good to take some. Of course there are still other ways to become happy by doing something nice. For me, it makes me feel very happy inside when I get to teach and play with little kids. This makes me feel happy and it is not a bad deed as well.

For others, the things that might be good for me might be bad for them. So, I believe that what really is the basis for real happiness is what the people think of a good deed. What their perceptions about it. We people are created differently. We have our own perceptions and ideas. We think different from others. Some other things that I do you think might be bad but might be good in my opinion vice-versa.

In my opinion, Immanuel Kant rejects utilitarianism because he believes that it is not good that the minorities are left behind. He does not care even though the majority is happy. It is still unjust for the person who stands up for what they believe in even though the majority believes that that thing is right. Immanuel Kant came up with the Categorical Imperative to correct the mishaps of what Utilitarianism talked about. Categorical Imperative states that we are allowed to act upon our own desires which will benefit not only us but also for the others; not only for the majority, but also for the minority as well.

Immanuel Kant believes that the highest form of good is good will. He said that a good will is based from a person’s duties which are done without asking for anything in return. It is done because that person just wants to do it; because he just wants to make someone or everyone happy.

According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism focuses on the majority and Happiness is the most important thing. Well, I believe that James Rachels does not think so. James Rachels does not agree that Happiness is not something that is known as excellent and required for its means of bringing it about. What James Rachels think of happiness is merely a reaction whenever something good happens. He also believes that the Principle of Hedonism dates back a long, long time ago. He does not believe that it still exists now a days.

Classical Utilitarianism is defined as to maximize utility is the sole moral obligation according to Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mills. But for other anti-utilitarian’s, they believe that the basic idea of this theory is correct, they even want to preserve that idea. All it needs is some modifications. Though many are anti-utilitarian, it was shocking for them that the theory is still alive though there was a proposal to ditch the theory. I believe that they still did not take it out because the idea is good.

My understanding of Utilitarianism is that, Utilitarianism means that the important perception is the perception of the majority. Whenever you do something, you should see to it that it should make the majority happy regardless of what the minority thinks. Your focus is the perception of the majority.

Utilitarianism believes that whatever the majority thinks is what is good for everyone. In this world, all of us may have similar perceptions, some may have different perceptions. Those people with similar perceptions may end up getting same answers when they are asked. Let’s say 100 randomly chosen people we asked to answer a survey, of course, to decide who wins, it is the answer made by the most number of people or better yet, the majority.

I myself am a believer of this Utilitarianism. Some maybe choose to become different, but as for me, whenever I am faced with a tough decision, I usually ask a lot of people first of what they think; and whatever answer the majority says, that will be my answer.

I really enjoyed reading this article. I was clueless at first on how Mary Midgley connected a story about a sword to moral issues. I must admit, she did quite well. I had fun learning about tsujigiri. It is an act practiced by the Japanese wherein the Japanese Samurais test their swords with human beings regardless if they did something bad or not. If I were to ask my own opinion, I totally disagree with their culture. But who am I to judge them right? For them, this is a good thing because this helps the Japanese Samurais test their swords. In their culture, if Japanese Samurai were to used “tsujigiri” and their samurai was not able to slash a person with just one blow, that Japanese Samurai is a disgrace to his family and to his country. Back to my opinion, I still do not get why do Japanese have to sacrifice a life just to test his/her own sword? I truly believe that there are a lot of ways to test it, like using it against a tree, etc.

Mary Midgley believes that a person has no right to criticize one’s culture if that person has not yet tried to live and apply that culture to his/her life. I agree to what Mary Midgley said because we really have no right to judge other people’s culture because we had no experience of applying it whatsoever.