Alvis-Jybran A.

Alih BSCEN 2 GEC107(TFr 9:00 – 10:30)

Instructions:

Same instructions with the last time. Answer in exactly 300 words. Answer the one
required question and pick two from the other list, for a total of three question.

Questions:

Required:

(1) Pick one criticism against utilitarianism from Bernard William's lecture and expound on
it.

Pick Two:

(1) Explain how the concept of pain and pleasure is connected to the idea of doing the right
thing

(2) What reasons do we have to justify using a person, from the consequentialist tradition?

(3) Explain how Thomas Aquinas conceived of "natural". What did he mean by natural law
and why should we follow it?

(4) What role does the concept of "virtue" play in Aquinas' ethical framework?

(5) From the Natural Moral Law perspective, why is homosexuality or abortion (just pick
one) morally impermissible?
Answers:

1. Pick one criticism against utilitarianism from Bernard William's lecture and
expound on it.

One of the criticism against utilitarianism from Bernard William’s lecture is that
“We don't all agree that the claims or rights of minorities simply don't count in order to add
into maximum preference satisfaction we sometimes think that we don't care down about
increasing the satisfaction majority of people if it involves sacrificing the legitimate rights
of some group we have notions of defensible justifiable rights of a minority and this is one
of the ideas we have too it's no good saying even because we disagree about what those are
we've all got to fall back on this one notion of preference maximization because it's the one
currency we can all get our hands on”, based on these ideas, we humans tend to do what we
actually enjoy based on our preferences, sometimes without regard for others or sometimes
by following the majority's lead. It is in our nature to follow what the majority says or does,
despite opposition of some minorities. It happens all the time around us, we may not feel it
but it is there. One example I can think of with this kind of situation is in the elections. We
live in the Philippines, which has a democratic form of government, where people can vote
freely according to their preferences and where whoever receives the majority of votes is
elected to the office, regardless of the rants or whatever of someone or a group of people
who is in the minority. Some of the people within that minority may object to whoever is
elected by the majority, but what can they do if the majority of the people voted for
someone they don't want to hold that position? None, because it is what the majority
desires, and nothing would change regardless of what they do.
2. Explain how Thomas Aquinas conceived of "natural". What did he mean by
natural law and why should we follow it?

Everything in this world, according to Aquinas, is created by God and equipped

with a nature that determines what each type of being is in its essence. A thing's nature can
be discerned not only by looking at it, but also, and more crucially, by the natural
inclinations that lead it to act in accordance with the nature it possesses. God's authorship
and active engagement in prescribing and preserving the many natures included in creation,
according to Aquinas, can be rightly considered a law. The natural law is the only viable
basis for morality and politics because it is the "rule and measure" of human action. Simply
said, the natural law directs human beings toward the inherent perfection that God, the
architect of the natural law, desires for them through their fundamental dispositions.
However, as we've seen, human submission to the natural law is always accompanied with
some consciousness of the law that binds him. In Aquinas' opinion, this awareness is
critical. The natural law would lose its legal status if human beings did not have the
principles of that law imprinted in their minds, as one of the main components of law is to
be propagated. As a result, Aquinas believes the natural law to be a habit, not because it is a
habit in and of itself, but because the principles of the natural law are retained in our minds
by an intellectual habit. Aquinas believed that a well-informed conscience is more
important than the law. No one should obey a law that they believe is unjust, because laws
that defy logic are not laws. Furthermore, rules must be flexible enough to be waived when
necessary for the greater good. Natural law accommodates a variety of cultures and
religions, but unjust societies contain rules that contradict natural law.
3. From the Natural Moral Law perspective, why is homosexuality or abortion (just
pick one) morally impermissible?

Abortion is the same as murdering a fully grown human. Abortion is a form of

murder, and as such, it is ethically wrong. It’s also a selfish act because the person only
thinks about himself/herself, abandoning the child that the creator has entrusted to them. As
I learnt from the professor's explanation, natural moral law refers to God's laws and that is
what we should follow. As I grew older, I noticed that every holy book that has been passed
down to people has a section that constantly says that murdering is banned and
inadmissible, that life is a gift from God to us humans, and that no matter what we do, we
should always act morally properly. In this way, one should avoid executing this morally
prohibited conduct because, aside from what has been fated to happen for them, for others,
they must accept what happened because it is the result of their mating. Well, what got me
thinking about this is that there have been examples of unintended pregnancies caused by
rape and other factors; is it ethically improper for them to terminate the child as a result of
what happened? Still, because the parents' guilt is not the child's responsibility, why should
the youngster be blamed for what happened? But we can't blame them if they wanted to
abort the child; they don't want it to happen to them, and I believe even God would allow
them to do so because they have been wronged, because it's not what they set out to do with
their lives. For others, who have not been wronged, should bear responsibility for what they
have done since it is good for them. It’s morally inadmissible for them to just abort the
child for whatever reason; it’s wrong and always will be.