hikaru.i.blog

is-ebiz o0a

Chapter 1- Ethical Theories- Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave- Morality February 28, 2009

Filed under: itethic — hikaru011 @ 11:37 am
Tags:

Otsuka Hikaru

ITETHIC

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Book Review: Chapter 1- Ethical Theories- Friedrich Nietzsche: Master- and Slave- Morality

Library Reference: N/A

Internet Reference: N/A

Learning Expectation:

  • I expect to learn Master- and Slave- Morality

  • A good and healthy society

  • Will to power

  • Nietzsche’s writings

Quote:

“Nietzsche argues that a healthy society should allow superior individuals to exercise “will to power,” their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person 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.”

Book Review:

A master and slave morality, for me, is like of those Master and servants relationship. As for the master, since he is the superior, he has the power to command task to the inferior ones. A good or healthy society, as described by Nietzsche, should allow superior individuals to exercise their will to power with the inferior. For me it means that a society to be healthy, the higher people should practice and exercise their powers over the smaller people. I think an example if that of the president over the country which he governed. A president is considered as the superior, he has the right to command task and those who are inferior to him should follow. Exercising his power or the “will to power” includes making decisions for his people. As the superior being, he has the job or task to control his people and anything under his constitution. A healthy society can be produced if the inferior ones allow the superior to handle or to command them.

Nietzsche’s only explained a healthy society with this master slave morality. Exercising the will to power is a key to obtain one. I think all of us are entitled to our own opinion. And as what I’ve read, his writings are not harmful and dangerous. Charges against him are not justifiable because I think he just explained what he think and believe.

Integrative Questions:

  1. What is will to power?
  2. What is a healthy society?
  3. What is master morality?
  4. What is slave morality?
  5. Does Nietzsche’s writings really harmful?

What I have learned:

I have learned about master- and slave- morality. For me, this master- slave relationship is not immoral. I believe that it is a key in obtaining a healthy society. The superior ones has the authority over the inferiors.

Review Questions

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

A good and healthy society can allow their superior to exercise their “will to power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.

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

Injury, violence and exploitation, according to Nietzsche avoid us to experience the sense of good conduct among individuals when there are necessary conditions given.

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

Master morality is the value creator. Slave morality illustrates the virtue of sympathy, kindness and humility.

4. Explain the Will to Power.

Will of Power is precisely the will to life. It can be achieved thru creative activity.

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?

Nietzsche’s only explained a healthy society with this master slave morality. Exercising the will to power is a key to obtain one. I think all of us are entitled to our own opinion. And as what I’ve read, his writings are not harmful and dangerous. Charges against him are not justifiable because I think he just explained what he think and believe.

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

“What is injurious to me is injurious in itself; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honor on things; he is a creator of values.”

Advertisements
 

Chapter 1- Ethical Theories- John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Filed under: itethic — hikaru011 @ 11:35 am
Tags:

Otsuka Hikaru

ITETHIC

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Book Review: Chapter 1- Ethical Theories- John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience

Library Reference: N/A

Internet Reference: N/A

Learning Expectation:

  • I expect to learn the if religion is the basis of having morality

  • Difference of Morality from Religion

  • Divine Command Theory

Quote:

“To have a moral code, then, is to tend to evaluate (perhaps without even expressing it) the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions when we perform them. Religion, on the other hand, involves belief s in supernatural powers that are created and perhaps also control nature, the tendency to worship and pray to those supernatural forces or beings, and the presence of organizational structures and authoritative texts.”

Book review:

I believe that because of all the beliefs that we have, we got to know what is right and wrong. Morality is about right deeds and wrong doings. But in the reading, it is said that religion is not the base foundation of our moral beliefs. For me, religion may not be the center on how morality evolves but religion plays a part. We believe that stealing and killing are immoral. These two acts can harm and destroy others. Thou shall not steal and thou shall not kill are two commandments of God. We know that this is immoral; these are violations of the moral law. I believe that these two came from our religious beliefs. But man motives for doing the right thing have nothing to do with religion. It is explained in the reading that if someone do good, it is because he does not want to harm others, or does not want to embarrass his family and friends. We need religion to act morally is said to be wrong. I think someway this is true. Most people are not religious at all yet act morally. For example, if he does not pray the rosary and does not hear the mass every Sunday, it doesn’t mean the he is immoral. Immoral acts are based on how people react to his society. Like stealing, for example, there are people who listen to mass, pray often, yet capable of stealing or doing wrong deeds.

Divine Command Theory is “claim that something is right because God wills it. It is shows that morally right are determined by the will of the single supreme deity. “Arthur rejects it because this theory says that all the things that God command are right, if it isn’t commanded by God, therefore it is wrong. I believe that what God commanded is right for Catholics and for non- Catholics, it may be wrong. For those who don’t believe in God, for pagans, may be the divine command theory is some what irrelevant to them. It is because not all of us believes and listens to the word of God. By not listening and believing is not an act of immorality. Catholicism is not the only religion exist in the world. All of us have different beliefs.

Integrative Questions:

  1. Is religion the basis of morality?
  2. What is Divine Command Theory?
  3. Did Arthur reject this theory?
  4. What is religion?
  5. How religion does differ from morality?

What I have learned:

I have learned that religion is not the basis of morality. What might right and moral for you might not be moral for others. Some of us don’t do immoral things because we don’t want to hurt or harm others not because of our religious beliefs.

Review Questions:
1. According to Arthur how are Morality and Religion different?

Morality is all about what is right from wrong. What actions that our society consider as proper and etiquette. Religion, on the other hand, involves beliefs in supernatural powers, like God.

2. Why isn’t religion necessary for moral motivation?

When we do things properly, religion has nothing to do with it. We act based on our instinct. For example, we don’t hurt others not because we’re scared that we might end up in hell but because we know that it is wrong.

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

Religion, basically, teaches us what is right and wrong. I think religion is not necessary as a source of moral knowledge because there are many religions in the world. What is right for the Catholics may not be right for the Muslims. It became unnecessary because we all have different beliefs. Moral knowledge comes from within.

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

According to divine command theory, religion is necessary for morality because without God there could be no right and wrong.

Arthur rejects this theory because, as the definition above stated that God dictates us what is right from wrong. But the expressions “commanded by God” and “morally required” do not mean the same. If one thing is not commanded by God it does not automatically immoral.

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

In some way they are connected, but truly, morality and religion are independent from each other.

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

Arthur stated his four ideas. These are:

  • The existence of morality assumes that we posses a socially required language within which we think about our choices and which alternatives we ought to follow.

· Morality is social in that it governs relationships among people, defining our responsibilities to others and theirs to us. Morality provides the standards we rely on in gauging with family, lovers, friends, fellow citizens and even strangers.

· Morality is social in the sense that we are, in fact, subject to criticisms by others of our actions. We discuss with others what we do, and often hear them concerning whether our decisions were acceptable.

· Idea depends on appreciating the fact that to think from the moral view point.

Discussion Questions:

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

Arthur is against the divine command theory. He explained what he think why he does not support this theory.

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

For me, animal is also a living thing that God created. We should respect the animals and also their way of living.

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

A moral education teaches us how to act morally in accordance to the common law. I think an ethic class in considered as a moral education since it teaches us the morals of well human being.

 

Chapter 1- Ethical Theories- James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism

Filed under: itethic — hikaru011 @ 11:31 am
Tags:

Otsuka Hikaru
ITETHIC

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems
Book Review: Chapter 1- Ethical Theories- James Rachels: Egoism and Moral Scepticism
Library Reference: N/A
Internet Reference: N/A
Learning Expectation:

• I expect to learn the definition of Egoism

• I expect to learn what is Moral skepticism

• Psychological egoism

• Ethical Egoism
Quote:
“The legend of Gyges is about a shepherd who was said to have found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. The ring would make its wearer invisible and thus would enable him to go anywhere and do anything undetected. Gyges use 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.”
Book Review:

The reading starts with this story, the legend of Gyges. It was about a shepherd who found a ring. The powerful ring would make the wearer invisible. He used this opportunity to enter the Palace. He killed the king and seduced the queen. He grabbed the king’s throne. Glaucon says that no one its commonly believed that would have an iron strength of mind to stand fast in doing right or keep his hands off other men’s good when he could go to a market place and grab anything that he want with the powers of a God. This explains that all of us are believed to have an ability to do wrong things if we are powerful. We will do anything that is pleasurable for us. If we know that we can have anything that we want, surely, we will grab it. Of course it can make us happy and it can make our life pleasurable. Glaucon also explains his skeptical views. These are psychological egoism, which means men are all selfish in everything that they do and the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self interest, and Ethical egoism, which means, a normative view about how men ought to act. I think psychological egoism is more likely practiced in our society today. All men are selfish. For example, we work hard to earn money. The money that we earned is for our own pleasure. Nowadays, there are less people who share their blessing with charities, and the like. It is because; we believe that what we earned is the fruit of our labor. There are also arguments for psychological egoism. First is that people never volunteer themselves unless they want to, and with unselfishness comes self satisfaction. Ethical egoism, for me, means it is like a law on which how mean supposed to act. For example, when we saw some one who’s dying and in pain, we should help him because the society tells us to do so.

Integrative Questions:

1. What is Psychological Egoism?
2. What is Ethical Egoism?
3. The legend of Gyges is all about what?
4. How many arguments does psychological egoism have?
5. Who is Gyges?

What I have learned:

I have learned about psychological egoism and ethical egoism. These two are the skeptical views suggested by Glaucon. I believed that of these two, psychological egoism can best describe most people.

Review Questions:

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

The legend of Gyges is about a shepherd who was said to have found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. The ring would make its wearer invisible and thus would enable him to go anywhere and do anything undetected. Gyges use 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.
A question about morality has been raised after the story. Assume that there were two rings. The one who given to a man of virtue and the other one is given to a man of rouge. A man of rouge will take advantage to the rings power. A man of virtue will also do the same. “No one, it is commonly believed, would have such iron strength of mind as to stand fast in doing right or keep his hands off other men’s good, when he could go to the market place and fearlessly help him to anything he wanted with the powers of a god.”

2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self interest. Ethical egoism is a normative view about how men ought to act.

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

The first argument rests on the basis that people never voluntarily do anything except what they want to. The second argument says that the unselfish actions always produce a sense of satisfaction.

4. What three common place confusion does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?

The first is the confusion of selfishness with self interest. Second, the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other regarding motives. Third, the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is a incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

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

Ethical egoism is a standard way of man obliged to act. According to ethical egoism, the only person I need to think of is myself.
6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply?
“Why shouldn’t you do actions that will harm others? Because, doing those actions will harm others”. According to Rachels, the welfare of human beings is something that most of us value for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of something else.
The egoist doesn’t care about other people, whether he help or hurt others.

Discussion Questions:

1. Has Rachels answered the questions raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly his answer?

Rachels answered this by explaining psychological and ethical egoism.

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

Rachels claim that the genuine egoist is rare. Genuine egoist is the people who care for others before themselves.

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?

It is good to also think about others but to think about others before you is not right. It is not immoral but I can say it’s unjustifiable.

 

webdevt midterm February 22, 2009

Filed under: webdevt — hikaru011 @ 1:55 pm
Tags:

http://hikaru011.site90.com/social/ –> hi sir! this is an open source social networking software PHPizabi

http://hikaru011.site90.com/drupal/ –> drupal activity

Thanks sir! 🙂

 

Form validation/ Google APIs February 11, 2009

Filed under: webdevt — hikaru011 @ 11:27 am
Tags:

beta-testing

http://hikaru011.site90.com/validation/

http://hikaru011.site90.com/beta_testing/email.html

hikaru011.site90.com/googleapi

 

webdevt. February 4, 2009

Filed under: webdevt — hikaru011 @ 9:59 am
Tags:

http://hikaru011.site90.com/crud/example.php — > AJAX CRUD

http://hikaru011.site90.com/scaffold/ –> PHPSCAFFOLD =)

 

phpscaffold February 2, 2009

Filed under: webdevt — hikaru011 @ 12:30 pm
Tags:


http://hikaru011.site90.com/phpscaffold/