1

GEC ETH (Ethics) Module

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page Number

How to Use the Module ------------------------------------------------ 3

Module I -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
The Scope and Meaning of Ethics

Module II ------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
The Ethical Dimension Of Human Existence

Module III ------------------------------------------------------------------ 30

Utilitarianism

Module IV ------------------------------------------------------------------ 36
Deontology

Module V ------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
Virtue Ethics

Module VI ------------------------------------------------------------------ 51
Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions

References ----------------------------------------------------------------- 67

Rubric ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 68
 3

How to use this Module

Hi student. Welcome, this is your module for GEC ETH (Ethics). This a Self-
Learning Module. The content of this module is all Ethics and part of your General
Education Course.
This self-learning module is composed of six modules with Six different topics about
Ethics. Each module has the following parts: (1) the lesson objectives, (2)
introduction, (3) learning activities and, (4) assessment. Please follow the following
steps for you to be guided properly:

1. Begin with the module by reading the objectives and the introduction to have
a brief knowledge on what to expect.

2. Read and internalize the learning activities. It is the meat of each module.
Each learning activities are pre-lude to the next level of learning and
springboard for the next activity. It is very important that you must read
instructions carefully before proceeding and answering the activity. You may
contact your instructor/ professor in case you need some clarifications.

3. All learning activities are graded (see attached rubrics) and should be
submitted on time on a specified date to be given by your instructor. Do not
leave learning activities unanswered. Use yellow pad paper as your answer
sheet. Label each according to subject, the module number, activity number
and arrange your answer sheet per module and per activity. Write your name,
course year and section in every answer sheet.

4. For the submission of this module and answer sheet, placed it inside a plastic
envelope and seal it. Wait for the instruction on the manner of submission of
your envelope.

5. Activities must be done honestly and vigorously. Take time, exert effort, and
put your heart in it. Rest if you must, but don’t you quit.

6. All learning activities are graded and it will be recorded as part of your
individual output. While, assessment will be recorded as test. Assessments are
vital as to how much you got hold of the lessons. Take them seriously. They
must be done honestly and vigorously as well. Remember, cheating is for
losers; once you cheat, you have already accepted defeat.

7. After completing all the modules, take the post test.

 4

Module I

The Scope and Meaning of Ethics

I. Learning Objectives:
At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
1. Define ethics;
2. Explain the relationship of ethics to other sciences and phases of human life; and
3. Enumerate the importance of the study of ethics.

II. Introduction:

Man alone of all earthly creatures is a moral being. He endowed with the great
gift of freedom of choice in his actions, yet he is responsible for his own freely
chosen acts, his conduct. He distinguishes between right and wrong, good and bad in
human behavior. He can control his own passions. He is the master of himself, the
sculptor of his own life and destiny. This moral power in man is the most distinctive
features of the human personality . For MAN is principally and primarily a human
person whose highest faculty is moral power, his willpower, his freedom. Viewed in
this perspective , everything Human has naturally a moral bearing, reference and
relevance . Thus, to be truly human, is to be moral which is the essence of ethics.

Ethics is the philosophy of life. It delves into the deepest whys and wherefores of
human existence, men’s actions, problems and destiny. To live well and happy we
must know what we are living for. This is taught to us by Ethics, that investigates the
meaning and purpose of human life. According to Socrates the unexamined life is not
worth living for a man. Plato proclaimed ethics as the supreme science, the highest in
the hierarchy of human values, as it is Ethics that is concerned with the attainment of
life’s greatest Good and Goal-- HAPPINESS. We will discuss ethics further in this
chapter.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

Definition of Ethics

Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also
described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which
can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. From this etymological meaning,
ethics is taken to mean as a philosophical science that deals with the morality of
human conduct or human acts.

General Ethics is a philosophical inquiry concerning norms of morality, its

clarification, justification, and application in relation to good life.We derive
from the this definition the following elements of general ethics:

First, general ethics is a philosophical inquiry. It is based on reason and not on

 5

divine revelation. Meaning, it establishes its claims and justification through the aid
of human reason alone.

Second, it is about an inquiry on moral norms or standard of what is good and

what is evil, what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, and tries to find
out the strengths and weaknesses of moral positions and the arguments of ethical
proponents. The principles in general ethics will help in resolving moral problems
arising in the practice of the profession.

Third, it is about the formation of moral character that can promote good life of
the individual and of the society as as whole.

Ethics is merely concern in laying down the different moral perspectives. It is

necessary to inquire to know the moral justification of an ethical theory. Since ethics
is a branch of philosophy and philosophy is concerned with reason, we must direct
our endeavor in searching for a reason towards ethical theories’ moral justification. It
is a widely held definition that ethics is the study of the morality of human acts. It is
also significant to study the moral basis why a human act is said to be moral or
immoral. Ethics concerns not only the basis of what is good or bad but also the basis
of our being as well because our moral perspective reflects the kind of character we
have.

The study of ethics aims not only to give students information but also guide
them on things they want to change in themselves. It is not merely information but
transformation of one’s character and giving individual a moral paradigm in making
moral decision. It aims also to widen student’s in looking of reality.

The Idea of Good

“Good” has been given various meanings and justification by several

philosophers . According to proponents a situation or an action may have two moral
spectrums: the first considered that goodness lies in an action itself which is the
position of the so called deontologist and the second considered that goodness lies in
the consequences of an action, which is the position of the so called consequentialist.
Let’s consider the instance when we were children, parents do usually tell their
children not to hit other kids because according to them hitting or spanking is bad.
Hitting is bad, and that’s it, period. Other parents would rather focus on explaining
the consequences of the action. They would tell their children that hitting or spanking
is bad because the other child gets hurt, physically and emotionally. When do we say
that an action is good?

According to Aristotle, the goodness of an action lies in the action itself

whatever consequences it may occur. For instance, the act of “truth telling”, whatever
consequences it may incur, is good itself. What is essential is you do the right things
base on your deliberation on what is good. It is very important to understand this idea
of good because there are situations where some of our actions accrued negative
consequences even though we have good intention in performing an action. Let’s
consider this situation: A teacher defends the school which he works for from his co-
teachers badmouthing and engaging in activities degrading the school’s integrity. The
 6

teacher tells his colleagues not to bite the hand that feed them. He believes this is the
right thing to do- to defend his school, to show loyalty. However, his colleagues got
offended and later resort to being unfriendly and indifferent to the teacher. They even
conspire to make a sinister move against the teacher. Reflecting on this situation, is
the teacher’s action good because loyalty is good in its nature or it is wrong because
of its consequences?The human good can be achieved through and by action,
especially when it is a good action.

The good for Aristotle is attainable by action. It is not something beyond the
practical life of man. As Plato conceived it, the good lies in the other realm and
possesses independent existence. It is a thing as such. The problem here is how it is
connected to the world, to the practical life of man. For Aristotle, however, the good
is a human act and not an abstract idea.

Aristotle also mentioned the good of a man which can be further understood in
his theory of the Ergon which states, that “So the goodness and performance of man
would seem to reside in whatever is his function” (Ostwald, 1962). Everything in the
universe has a function and because everything has a function, man has a function as
well. There is purpose in being human. That’s why it is significant to know precisely
the proper function of man and whatever we do that can flourish out ability to act
rationally is good for man.

Value

Is the value of something intrinsic or is something valuable because it is valued?

This is a question regarding values. According to the voluntarist conception, valuing
is the ground value. A thing can only be valuable when it is valued; therefore, it has
no intrinsic value. As a consequence there are no other considerations to account on
value so long as something is that being valued is valuable. For instance, studying
has no intrinsic value unless it is valued by an individual. We can observe that there
are people neglecting their studies. Is that because they are lazy or because it is not
valuable for them?

On the contrary, if value are will, choice or desire independent, how can it be an
action guiding? How can it stimulate action if it is not valuable to a person?

That’s why it is very important to look again at the definition of good in relation
to value.

Good is everything that is desirable but we know for a fact that there are things
that we do not value but valued by others. In other words, not just because a thing is
not desirable for me, it does not have value. On the other hand, the value of
something may not be intrinsic but int the state potentiality which can be actualized
and achieved through valuation.
 7

Virtue

Imagine a person being lectured by his teacher on how to drive a bicycle. After
the lecture, do you think the student would have learned driving a bicycle?
Imagine another student being taught of driving a bicycle with his teacher
holding the bicycle seat while running along with the bicycle. The student keeps on
falling but the teacher never stopped guiding him. Do you think the student would
learn driving?

The same with virtue, it is formed through action, by performing an action. The
student who actually rides a bicycle will most likely learn how to run a bicycle.
Likewise, a person learns how to be generous by performing a generous act and
learns how to be courageous by performing courageous act.

Virtue is a disposition or character that enables it’s possessor to perform a noble

or good action according to the mean as determined by practical wisdom.

1. It is a character realized in an action according to the mean. It is character

formed and integrated in us when we do good actions (eupraxia) repeatedly (habit),
as much as when a bad action is done over and over it gradually becomes a vice.

2. Virtue enables its possessor to perform a noble or good action. It is only in

having a good character that a person performs a good action according to the mean.
That’s why it is very important that a person is taught of good during childhood.

3. It is through practical wisdom that a person can become virtuous because it is

through practical wisdom that we may have a clear understanding of what is good
and it is the enabling virtue that put us into action.

It is a character. For even a vicious person may perform an action the way
it was done by virtuous person. So an action may vary depending on the person’s
character performing the virtuous action. Therefore, if an action is done by a person
of good character, that action can be called virtuous action. That’s why it is important
that we know that virtue is a character. It is not a capacity because capacity comes
from nature, but virtue is formed through habit. If virtue comes from nature, there is
no way to change it. It is not a capacity for even a person may have the capacity to
perform a virtuous action but opt not to do so. It is not a feeling for we cannot be
praised nor blamed for our feelings.

Virtue is a character and a person who has a virtuous character performs a good
action and performs for the sake of performing good action, not for other reason. For
instance, a person may perform a generous act nut intends other people to see his
action. However, to a virtuous person, what is significant is the performance of good
action and not the reaction of other people towards the action.

Virtue enables its possessor to determine the end and practical wisdom guides
our character to move towards the end. Because even if we know that our end must
be the good, if we are not able to prepare the way towards it we cannot be virtuous.
That’s why Aristotle says, “It is impossible to be good in the full sense of the word
 8

without practical wisdom or to be a man of practical wisdom without moral

excellence or virtue” (Ostwald, 1962). Practical wisdom is not only a guide to our
character but it is united with it.

Different Applied Fields in Ethics

There are different ethical fields wherein the provision of general ethics can be
applied. It is not enough to be acquainted with different ethical theories without
gaining knowledge about their application in actual situations that we confront in our
daily lives. We can come up with the realization of the significance of the different
moral principles into their application in the setting of the different ethical fields. We
can also come up with the realization of how valuable it is that an individual or
groups have knowledge about moral principles and apply them in performing an
action.

1. Bioethics/Biomedical Ethics - concerned with the rightness or wrongness

of procedures that are performed in the practice of medicine and the provision of
health care systems. Let us try to understand this description of bioethics in the
light of this situation.

“Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public as “Baby

Theresa” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa had anencephaly, on of
the worst genetic disorders. Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to
as “babies without brains”, but that is not accurate. Important parts of the
brain --the cerebrum and cerebellum are missing , as is the top of the skull. The
brain stem, is still there, and so the baby can still breathe and possess a
heartbeat. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are detected during
pregnancy, and the fetus are usually aborted. Of those aborted, half are
still born. About 350 are born alive each year, and then they usually die within
days.

Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents made an

unusual request. Knowing that their baby would die soon and could never
be conscious, Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for immediate
transplant. They thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and eyes should
go to other children who could benefit from them. Her physicians agreed.
Thousand of infants need transplants each year, and there are never
enough organs available. But Theresa’s organs were not taken, because
Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the
time Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late-her organs
deteriorated too much to be harvested and transplanted.

Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should she have been killed so
that her organs could have been used to save other children? (Rachels &
Racchels, 2012).

2. Environmental Ethics - it covers acceptable or unacceptable actions

affecting the environment (De Castro & De Villa, 2012). As what one of the
green movements’ slogan is saying, “harm to the environment will bring harm to
 9

the people.” So this particular ethical field promotes the welfare of human beings
by promoting the well being of the environment since we are part of it. Here is a
simple example of an environmental ethical concern.

There was a news that the Mayor in one of the municipality was trying to
catch the endangered species Butanding in their seas because Butandings were
eating small fishes in their bodies of water which was causing lost of income to
the townspeople. Are you in favor of the Mayor’s initiative?
What is your moral valuation about the practice of catching sharks and to
get their spin and returning the shark to the sea after?

3. Business Ethics - concerned with what is acceptable and unacceptable

business code of conducts are affecting the business enterprises. And when
speaking of the business enterprise, it includes both the owner or investor and or
the consumer. This field measures and establishes guidelines for the economic
dynamics as a whole, including the moral aspect of the supply and demand, the
benefits-cost-profit ratio, rule of competition and fair opportunity for the
consumers. Let’s also take a look at the example below.

It is wrongful for a celebrity to endorse a product that may be harmful to

consumers? Is it wrongful if a celebrity endorses a product that he or she does not
use? What about the companies that set up these deals? Do they have any
responsibilities to the celebrities who sign on with them? (Bredeson, 2012)

4. Legal Ethics - norms of conduct or standards that law practitioners, such

as judges, lawyers, notary public, law makers, must follow in the practice of the
profession.

Relation of Ethics With Other Sciences

Ethical science is particularly concerned with the study of man and human
conduct and is, therefore, especially related to all those sciences dealing with the
study of human nature and human living.

1. Ethics and Logic. - Logic is the science of right thinking. Ethics is the science
of right living. But right living presupposes right thinking. Doing follows
thinking. To think right often means to do right, as knowledge of right leads to
the doing of right. Both ethics and logic aim at rectitude: the former aims at right
doing; the latter, at right thinking.

2. Ethics and Psychology - Both deal with the study of man, human nature, and
human behavior. There is, however, a basic difference. Psychology is not
interested in the morality of human behavior, unlike ethics. Psychology studies
how man behaves; ethics studies how man ought to behave. The word “ought” is
emphasized to show the difference: Ethics is concerned with moral obligation
while psychology is not.
 10

3. Ethics is related to Sociology - Ethics deals with the moral order which
includes the social order. Whatever does violence to the social order does
violence also to the natural and the moral order.

Society depends on ethics for its underlying principles: Sociology deals with
human relations in a society, but human relations are based on proper order and
proper order comes only with proper observance of moral laws and principles
which regulate the actions of men in a community.

4. Ethics and Economics - Man is also an economic being because he has to

support himself by earning a living. He has to live by bread (though he does not
live by bread alone). Economics and morality are two aspects of one and the
same human nature.

Economics deals with such topics as wages, labor, production and

distribution of wealth. But will determine the relations between employer and
employee, for instance? This and all other relations in business must be based on
justice and charity which, after all are moral principles. In order that peace and
happiness will prevail in a community, the actions of man must be governed by
the invariable principles of morality.

Morality and Other Phases of Human Life

Life is a “many-splendored thing.” It is a unity of many aspects: the social, the

economic, the moral, the physical, the religious, etc. Since the rational and the moral
are the essential distinguishing characteristics of man (since these distinguish him
from the other animals), it follows that morality is the basic element of human life
and cannot be separated from the other phases of human activity.

Ethics and Education - Education develops the whole man: his moral,
intellectual and physical capacities. Since man, however, is primarily a rational moral
being (endowed with reason and will, which ranks him above brute creation), the
primary objective of education should be the development of these powers in man,
which consists his true perfection. This recognized in our constitution when it
mentions “moral character” as the first and primary aim of all education. “All schools
should develop good moral character, personal discipline,civic consciousness, etc.
Education, a great educator said, is life; it is con-extensive with life. With greater
reason and emphasis we can even say that ethics is life because ethics is the very
science and art of human living, one that gives life its direction, goal, worth, and
meaning. Ethics is both co-extensive and co-intensive with life.

Morality and Law - Morality and Law are intimately related. Right and wrong,
good and bad in human actions presuppose a law or rule of conduct. Furthermore, the
laws of the state are restatements, specifications or interpretations of an anterior
natural moral law. There is, however, a striking difference between what is moral and
what is legal. The legal only covers the external acts of man; the moral governs even
the internal acts of man, such as the volitional and the intentional activities of the will
and mind, I.e. man’s thoughts and desires.
 11

Ethics and Art - Ethics stands for moral goodness; art, for beauty. But as
transcendentals the beautiful and the good are one. Evil always implies ugliness or
defects and the good is always beautiful since it is the very object of desire and
therefore, like beauty, pleases when perceived. The question often arises as to
whether a piece of art which is offensive to morals can ever be considered beautiful.

There can be no conflict between true art and true morality because both have the
same aim: to arouse and to inspire the noble emotions of man. Consequently, a piece
of art which arouses the basic impulses of man defeats the very purpose of art.

Ethics and Politics - Man owes allegiance to the State. Politics aims at good
government for the temporal welfare of the citizens. But between the temporal and
the spiritual and eternal welfare there is no conflict. The two are inseparable in ma’s
present state of experience, where the material and the spiritual, the body and the
spirit, form one person. Politics has often become very dirty and the reason is
precisely because it is divorced from ethics. Disorder and confusion inevitably follow
in a state from such violations of ethical principles, as: electoral frauds, bribery, graft,
blackmail, intrigue, etc.

Religion and Ethics - The relationship between religion and ethics is the closest
among the phases of human activity. This is evident from the following
considerations:
A) Both of these are based on the same postulates:
1. The existence of a Creator
2. Freedom of the will of man
3. Immortality

B) Both have the same end- the attainment of man’s supreme purpose or man’s
ultimate end.

C) Both prescribe the same means for attaining the goal of man: right living.
The question sometimes arises whether there can really be ethics apart
from religion. The answer is that true ethics can never be separated from God.
Reason: Ethics implies morality and morality presupposes a distinction between
right and wrong in human actions.

The Importance of Ethics

The Importance of the study of ethics follows immediately from the importance
of ethics itself.

1. Ethics means right living and good moral character , and it is in good moral
character that finds his true worth and perfection. The supreme purpose of human
living lies not in acquisition of material goods or bodily pleasures nor in the
attainment of good health and strength , not even in the development of intellectual
skills but in the development of the moral qualities which lift man for above
creations.
 12

2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole man- of all man’s

faculties; the moral , intellectual, and physical powers in man. The highest of man’s
powers in man. The highest of man’s powers are his reason and will. Thus, the
primary objective of education is the moral development of the will. “ Knowledge is
good, bodily health and strength and strength are good, but first and above all-
GOOD CHARACTER.

3. According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living: for man”.
Ethics is the investigation of the meaning of life. That is why Plato calls and
considers ethics the supreme Science, the Science par excellence , as it is this science
that deals with the SUMMON BONUM, ( HAPPINESS) the supreme purpose of
human living.

4. Ethics is an indispensable knowledge .without moral perception, man is only

an animal. For morality is the foundation of every human society:
a. “ without civic morality , communities perish,”
b. “Without personal morality their survival has no value.”
Every culture admits the importance of morality as a standard of behavior. When
the moral foundations of a nation are threatened that society itself is threatened.

5. Ethics is LIFE because ethics is the very science and art of human living, one
that gives life its direction, goal, worth, and meaning.

IV. Learning Activities

According to Socrates, “The unexamined life is not worth living for a man.”
Explain this in connection with the definition of ethics by Socrates that ethics is the
investigation of life.

V. Assessment

A. Identify what is being asked in the following statements. Write the answer on
the space provided before the number.

_____________ 1. It is an inquiry concerning norms of morality, its clarification,

and justification that can be applied to different moral fields and situation.

_____________ 2. He is the philosopher who held that the good of a man resides in
his function.

_____________ 3. It is a character or disposition realized in action according to the

mean.

_____________ 4. It is the belief that good lies in the consequences of an action.

_____________ 5. It is the problem in philosophy regarding values.

_____________ 6. He is the philosopher who considers good as a substance.

 13

_____________ 7. It is an ethical field concerned with the relationship of the medical

practitioners and their clients.

_____________ 8. It is the belief that values depend on the group value system.

_____________ 9. It is an ethical field that governs the conduct of lawyers in the

practice of the profession.

_____________ 10. This is the ethical field concerned with the acceptable or
unacceptable actions affecting the environment.

B. Answer the following questions. Use the space provided.

1. Discuss the similarity and difference between Ethics and Politics.

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
__________

2. In what sense is life “a many splendored things”? Comment on this view.

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
__________

VI. Enrichment Activity

Of all man’s activities, with what is ethics most intimately related? Justify your
answer.
____________________________________________________________________
_
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 14

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
________

VII. Assignment:

According to Socrates, “The unexamined life is not worth living for a man.” Explain
this in connection with the definition of ethics by Socrates that ethics is the
investigation of life.
 15

Module III

The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence

I. Learning Objectives:

After reading this chapter, the you should be able to:

1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;
2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and
3. Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain
commonly-held notions on ethics.

II. Introduction:

In August 2007, newspapers’ reported what seemed to be yet another sad

incident of fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year old student at
University of the Philippines (UP) was rushed to the hospital in the early morning
hours, unconscious, with large bruises on his chest, back and legs. He passed away
that morning, and the subsequent autopsy report strongly suggest that his physical
injuries were most probably the result of “hazing” (the term colloquially used to refer
to initiation rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical
abuse). What exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were
with him that night came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to
say, none of them came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris.

Even as leaders of the Sigma Rho Fraternity publicly denounced the death of
Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding
and refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the
general public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP
chancellor called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. The case of
the tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up
to this day.

No one knows just what exactly happened. But there is more to this for us than
just a criminal mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves
asking questions such as “What is the value of one’s life?” “What exactly were the
wrongs done to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps even “Is there
any good fraternities?” These questions that concern good and bad, or right and
wrong- and these are questions concerning value- are the kind of questions that we
deal with ethics.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

Ethics - generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we
 16

should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we
could or should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to
fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect. Or ideals that we are encouraged
to meet. Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the
values with particular and special significance to human life.

CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary
concern of ethics. To start, it would be useful to clarify the following points.

Kinds of Valuation

Our first point of clarification is to recognize there are instances when we make
value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics.

For instance, I could say that this new movie I had just seen was a “good”
one because I enjoyed it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a “bad” one
because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not part of the discussion of
ethics.

I may have an opinion as to what is the “right” dip (sawsawan) for my

chicken barbecue, or I may maintain that it is “wrong” to wear a leather vest over
a Barong Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics.

These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word
“aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aisthesis (“sense” or “feeling”) and
refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about
what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word “taste” to refer to the
personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters, such as “his taste in
music” or “ her taste in clothes”. Similarly, we have a sense of approval or
disapproval concerning certain actions which can be considered relatively more
trivial in nature.

Thus, for instance, I may think that it is “right” to knock politely on

someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to barge into one’s office knock politely on
someone’s door, while it is “wrong” to barge into one’s office.

Perhaps, I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something
properly by saying “please” and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I
see picking her nose in public.

These and other examples similar examples belong to the category of etiquette,
which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be
considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion on ethics. To clarify this
point, we can differentiate how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man
refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly lady but by indignation and shock
 17

would be much greater if I were to see a man deliberately push another one out of a
moving bus.

We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily
appear in a context that is not a matter of ethics.

This could also be when learning how to bake, for instance, I am told
that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such as flour, or
sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream; this is the right thing to do in
baking but not one that belongs to the discussion of ethics.

This could also be when learning how to play basketball. I am instructed that
it is against the rules to walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball;
again, obeying this rule to not travel is something that makes sense only in the
context of the game and is not an ethical prohibition.

We derive from the Greek word techne the English words of

“technique” and “technical” which are often used to refer to a proper way
(or right way) of doing things, but a technical valuation (or right and wrong
technique of doing things) may not necessarily be an ethical one as these
examples show.

Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to

have a rough guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve
valuations that we make in a sphere of human actions, characterized by certain
gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters
that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are
often included in discussion of ethics.

One complication that can be noted is that the distinction between what belongs
to ethics and what does not is not always so clearly defined. At times, the question of
what is grave and trivial is debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated
discussion in ethics could be on the fundamental question whether a certain sphere of
human activities belongs to this discussion.

Are clothes always just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call
for some kind of moral judgment?

Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing
bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral condemnation?

Ethics and Morals

Our second clarification is on the use of the words “ethics” and “morals”. This
discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical,
immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful
particularly on the use of the word “not” when applied to the words “moral” or
“ethical” as this can be ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is,
the act of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one
 18

might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would
be an unethical act.

Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals” may be used to refer
to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people
perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred
to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as
immoral. However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral
reasoning”, which suggest a rational aspect. The term “ethics” can be spoken of as
the discipline of studying and understanding ideal behavior and ideal ways of
thinking. Thus, ethic is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to
philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally
described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the
acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term
“professional ethics” (e.g., legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and
other people in the legal profession; medical ethics for doctors and nurses; media
ethics for writers
and reporters).

Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms
“moral” and “ethics” and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no
consensus as to how to make that distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much
less rigid distinction between these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that
direction as we do not need to occupy ourselves here with the question of how
different thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this book, we will be
using the terms “ethical” and “moral” (likewise, “ethics” and “morality”)
interchangeably.

Descriptive and Normative

Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a a descriptive and a

normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people,
particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either
for or against these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social
scientist: either a historian (studying different moral standards over time) or a
sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures).
A normative study of ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology,
engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting?
In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our
standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is
always advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view
(e.g., noting how filial piety and obedience are pervasive characteristics of Chinese
culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins
us to obey our parents and show filial piety).

We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond

recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply
accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages
in a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories.
 19

Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that

calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a
situation wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility
presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar
as it involves the question of respect for one’s property. We should add that “issue”
is also often used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of
considerable and inclusive debate (thus, would often hear topics such as capital
punishment and euthanasia as moral “issues”).

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take
something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment
on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgement. For
instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that
it is wrong.

Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad,
and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between
choosing one of two goods or choosing between lesser of two evils: this is referred to
as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only
one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for
the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry
child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a
moral dilemma.

REASONING

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite is
wrong? The study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to
consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is
unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge
that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?

A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “I did not cheat on an
exam because I was afraid that I might get caught,” or “I looked after my father in the
hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance.” In a certain sense, fear of
punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a “reason” for
acting in a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough?
That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding
reason because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating on an exam
is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The
promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but
are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of
 20

acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better
reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?

As Traer (2013) explains, in moral philosophy, an argument is not simply about

our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons underlying those beliefs or
opinions. This means that the real value of discussing and debating ethical questions
is not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’ against the other person! It is more
important to provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas, and to
allow for rational – and deeper – understanding of the reasons underlying our beliefs,
ideas and attitudes. Crucially, this requires careful listening to, analysis of and
learning from the arguments that others make.

One common fault with many arguments about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – and
one that Traer (2013) highlights – involves what is known as a rationalization. A
rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational or credible
motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives.

Types of reasoning Traer (2013) explains that we can uncover these types of
errors in our own and others’ arguments by using what he calls critical reasoning.

Three forms of critical reasoning:

1. Reasoning by analogy - explains one thing by comparing it to something else

that is similar, although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the
dissimilarity and is clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as
humans are also animals. Is the similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument
that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman animals as we do to humans?’

2. Deductive reasoning - applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every

person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every
person.
3. Inductive reasoning - involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis.
The greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it. The fact that
there is mounting evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental
effect on global climate, for example, is used to substantiate the argument that we
have a moral duty to reduce carbon emissions.

From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which

one justifies and maintains moral decisions and judgments. But why do we maintain
one particular principle rather than another? Why should I maintain that I should care
for fair play or returning to the the case of fraternity hazing , why is it wrong to cause
another person physical injury or take another’s life? We can maintain principles, but
we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So, for
example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may say that life
is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a priceless
dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another’s life does not
contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we
arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory.
 21

A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining

certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can
also be referred to as framework, as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the
same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing certain
decision or judgment.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our
obedience. In the following section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority
of laws, the authority of one’s religion, and the authority of one’s own culture.

Law

Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one who
has charge of society (St. Thomas Aquinas). It is supposed that law is one’s guide to
ethical behavior.

Laws are “ordinance of reason” because they are rational deliberations intended
to guide men towards what is good for them and for society. They direct men to
perform certain activities as good for them and for society. The main objective or
purpose of the laws is the attainment of the common good.

Laws are “promulgated” – that they are made known to the people who are
bound to observe them.

Laws are passed by “one who has charge of society” – because they can only be
valid if they are only be valid if they are the legitimate exercise of authority.
Accordingly, only those who have the power and responsibility to govern have the
power to enact the law.

Laws are necessary to man. They regulate human activity. Without laws, there
will be anarchy and chaos, because each one will act according to his wishes without
regard for the common good. Without laws, Man will not realized his ultimate
purpose in life.

Classification of Law

1. Eternal Law
-Are those promulgated, or made known to us, by special command of God/
Instituted by the will of God.
-Is the design of God, as a Supreme Creator, to direct all created things to
their respective proper ends.
- God’s eternal plan and providence for the universe. Example: The
Decalogue of Moses- Ten Commandments

2. Natural Law/Moral Law - ( God as the author - THE ALL- WISE)

 22

-Is the Eternal law as known to man by his reason.

-Is recognized by all men regardless of creed, race, culture or historical
circumstances.
- Man’s reason shows him the natural order as a thing to be conserved and
not disturbed. By his rational nature, man is aware of a general law: “Conserve
the natural order”, or in other words, “Do good and avoid evil”. This is the
fundamental expression of the Natural Law.
THEREFORE: Natural Law commands the conserving of the natural
order, is a law unchanging and unchangeable for it is a direction to guide mean
to their proper ultimate end thus, the direction toward that end must be
constant and unchanging.

*The reason why it is called natural is because it is not communicated in a

supernatural way; this is not a result of a command of a legislative or authority;
the precept of a natural law is found and derived from the nature of man.
Example: Not obeying the elders is against the natural law.

Properties of the Natural Law

1. It is universal- it is true wherever human nature manifest itself.

2. It is obligatory- it is imperative because it is a duty that ought to be

fulfilled.

3. It is recognizable – it enables man to recognize self- evident principles,

such as: “ Do good and avoid evil”.

4. It is immutable or unchangeable – it is immutable because man’s essential

nature can never be lost as long as man is man.

5. Indispensable- no one is dispensed or excused in the observance of the

natural law. Because the origin of the natural law is God. Natural law is identical
with God’s will. Evidently, man has no authority over a law of this status. This
means that if there is in dispensation of this law, there is a violation in God’s law.

Application: That every sane adult must know that good is to be done and evil
avoided, and must recognize the obviously good things as good and evident evils as
evil.

In the Philippine, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated
in the country’s criminal and civil codes. Making this even more particular, in Cebu,
residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances. One can
easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the barangay or village level,
where local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to follow.

The term positive law or human positive law refers to the different rules and
regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure that require
compliance. It is law enacted by church or state. An ordinance of reason, derived
from the natural law, or making a concrete and determinate application of the natural
law, promulgated for the common good by human agency in charge of a society.
These laws are intended to preserve peace and harmony within a society and to direct
 23

each member of that society to work towards the common good. Examples of
Positive Law are:
1. The Laws of the State - embodied in the Constitution. Example: Everyone
must pay his due taxes, obey traffic rules.
2. The Laws of the Catholic Church - embodied in the Canon Law. Example:
Attend mass every Sunday, love God above all. Etc.

Properties of Human Positive Laws:

1. Human laws must conform to divine laws. This is because all legitimate
authority emanates from God. No human authority may willfully contradict God’s
will.
2. Human laws must promote the common good. This common good is spelled
out in terms of prosperity , health, peace and order, intellectual and moral growth- for
the whole society.
3. Human law must be just and not discriminatory of certain individuals or
groups. All laws must applied proportionately to all members of society so that the
needs and requirements of each are served.

Human Positive Law, when it is truly law, binds the conscience of its subjects,
for it is rooted in the natural law, and remotely in the Eternal Law of God Himself.

Religion

The idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things, expresses a claim that
many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid. As a
foundation to ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory. The
divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey
her Creator.

Many of us had been brought up with one form of religious upbringing or

another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to refer to our
religious background to back up our moral valuations. However, one concern on this
matter is the presence of a multiplicity of religions in our society. Each faith
demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently result in conflicting
ethical standards. For instance, certain religions have prohibitions concerning what
food maybe consumed while others do not share the same constraints.

Culture

Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there
are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact
a wide diversity in how different people believe it is proper to act. Therefore, what is
ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on
one’s culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism.

There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism

seems to conform to what we experience, which is reality if the differences in how
 24

cultures make their ethical valuations. Second, by taking one’s culture as the
standard, we are provided for the basis of our valuations. Third, this teaches us to be
tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to
judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or
unacceptable. In turn, our own culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior
to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and
applicable to us.

Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to
make judgments using the standards of one’s own culture. The goal of this is promote
understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of one’s own culture.
Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is
superior than another culture when compared to systems of morality, law, politics,
etc. [11] It is a concept that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a
specific social context. This is also based on the idea that there is no absolute
standard of good or evil, therefore every decision and judgment of what is right and
wrong is individually decided in each society. The concept of cultural relativism also
means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the perspective of each person within
their particular culture. Overall, there is no right or wrong ethical system. In a holistic
understanding of the term cultural relativism, it tries to promote the understanding of
cultural practices that are unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating insects,
genocides or genital cutting.

There are two different categories of cultural relativism: 

1. Absolute: Everything that happens within a culture must and should not be
questioned by outsiders. The extreme example of absolute cultural relativism would
be the Nazi party’s point of view justifying the Holocaust.

2. Critical: Creates questions about cultural practices in terms of who is accepting

them and why. Critical cultural relativism also recognizes power relationships.

Absolute cultural relativism is displayed in many cultures, especially Africa, that

practice female genital cutting. This procedure refers to the partial or total removal of
the external female genitalia or any other trauma to the female reproductive/genital
organs. By allowing this procedure to happen, females are considered women and
then are able to be married. FGC is practiced mainly because of culture, religion and
tradition. Outside cultures such as the United States look down upon FGC, but are
unable to stop this practice from happening because it is protected by its culture.

Cultural relativism can be seen with the Chinese culture and their process of feet
binding. Foot binding was to stop the growth of the foot and make them smaller. The
process often began between four and seven years old. A ten foot bandage would be
wrapped around the foot forcing the toes to go under the foot. It caused the big toe to
be closer to the heel causing the foot to bow. In China, small feet were seen as
beautiful and a symbol of status. The women wanted their feet to be “three-inch
golden lotuses”. It was also the only way to marry into money. Because men only
wanted women with small feet, even after this practice was banned in 1912, women
still continued to do it. To Western cultures the idea of feet binding might seems
 25

torturous, but for the Chinese culture it was a symbol of beauty that has been
ingrained the culture for hundreds of years. The idea of beauty differs from culture to
culture.

Senses of the Self

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell
oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In
this section, we will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self:
subjectivism, psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Subjectivism

The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking
person (subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is
confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision of
judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to more radical claim that the
individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. We
often encounter this statements: “No one can tell me what is right and wrong.”
“I am entitled to my own opinion.”

There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to

express a cherished sense of personal independence. But a close look at these
statements may reveal problems and in seeing these, we see problems of
subjectivism.

“No one can tell me what is right and wrong.”In a sense, there is some validity to
this. No one can compel another to accept a certain value judgment if she herself does
not concur with it. However, we know that this statement cannot be taken as absolute.
We realize, in many instance, that we had maintained an idea or an opinion that
further discussion reveals it was actually erroneous. We realize that we can be
mistaken and that we can be corrected by others. Why is this not also possibly
applicable when we are speaking of ethics?

“I am entitled to my own opinion.”Here, once again, is a valid point that is often

misused. Certainly, each person has the right to believe what she believes and has the
right to express this. But this right is often stubbornly misconstrued as some kind of
immunity from criticism and correction. To insist on one’s right in to having opinions
whatever these happen to be is to exhibit a closed-mindedness that rightly invites
censure from someone trying to think more critically about values.

Psychological Egoism

Let us consider this another cliché. It would go like this: “Human beings are
naturally self-centered, so all actions are always already motivated by self-interest.”

Psychological Egoism - is a theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all
human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in a
particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basis for
 26

how one acts. The ego itself has its desires and interests, and all our actions are
geared toward satisfying these interests.

For instance, I watch a movie or read a book because I want to, or go for a walk
and do some window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that. I take a certain
course in college because I think it will benefit me, or I join an organization because I
will get some good out of it. We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the
time.

But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed
toward the other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone
helps a friend with her thesis rather than play video games, or someone makes use of
her free Saturday helping build house for Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist
would maintain that underlying such apparently other-directed behavior is a self-
serving desire, even if one does not it or is even conscious of it. Perhaps, he only
helped his friend with her thesis because he trying to impress her. Perhaps she helps
out with Gawad Kalinga because this is how she relieves her sense of guilt at being
well-off compared to others. This idea is that is that whether or not the person admits
it, one’s actions are ultimately always motivated by self-serving desire.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not support all
our actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that
we should make our own ends, our own interests, as the single overriding concern.
We may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it
ultimately benefit us. This theory acknowledges that it is dog-eat-dog world out there
and given that, everyone ought to put herself at the center. One should consider
herself as the priority and not allow any other concerns, such as the welfare of other
people, to detract from this pursuit.

It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied.
Thus, this question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests
of others? This is what ethical egoism ultimately translates into-- not just some
pleasant pursuit of one’s own desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is
potentially destructive of both the self and of others. One can take this view, if one
wishes, but it is also possible to wonder whether there is a way of recognizing our
being in the world with others, of thinking our own well-being concomitantly with
the well-being of others. Perhaps this is what the study of ethics is all about.

IV. Learning Activities

Define the following key words:

1. Positive Law
2. Divine Command Theory
3. Aesthetics
4. Eternal Law
5. Descriptive
6. Normative
 27

7. Moral Theory
8. Natural Law
9. Psychological Egoism
10. Principles

V. Assessment

I. Identification. Identify the following statements as Subjectivism, Psychological

Egoism or Ethical Egoism.

______________ 1. There is already an underlying basis for how one acts.

______________ 2. The heart of all moral valuation is the individual thinking
person.
______________ 3. Human beings are naturally self-centered.
______________ 4. It prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own
interest, as the single overriding concern.
______________ 5. The “self” has its desires and interest, and all our actions are
geared toward satisfying these interest.
______________ 6. We act in a way that is beneficial to others, but it should do that
only if it ultimately benefit us.
______________ 7. It is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others.
______________ 8. The individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or
bad, right or wrong.
______________ 9. We have our interest and desires, and would want them
satisfied.
______________ 10. It is thinking of our own well-being concomitantly with the
well-being of others.

II. Answer the following in not more than 5 sentences.

1. Is looking after the benefit of your own family over all other aspects considered as
another form of egoism? Discuss.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
_______

2. What is Law? How does it guide our behavior in society. Explain.

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
_______
 28

VII. Enrichment Activity

Imagine you are a legislator. What rules or laws that currently prohibit certain
acts or practices would you want to amend or repeal? This could be certain acts or
practices currently permitted by the law. Think of this on the level of your school,
your city and the nation.

VII. Assignment:

Look for a newspaper article that tackles an ethical issue. Answer the following
questions:
A. What makes this a matter of ethics?
B. What is your own ethical judgment on this case?
C. What are your reasons for this judgment?

Module IV
Utilitarianism

I. Learning Objectives:

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models; and
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international
scenarios.

II. Introduction:

On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police
operation at Tukanalipao, Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan
Exodus, it was intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli Bin Hir or Marwan, a
Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker who had a $5 million bounty on his head. This
mission eventually led to clash between the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) SAF,
on the one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the Moro
 29

Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police operation was
“successful” because of the death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed sixty-
seven lives including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF fighters and five
civilians. However, the relatively high number of SAF members killed in this
operation caught the attention of many including Phlippine media and the legislature.

In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic mission, then
Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public
hearing of an audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up
the massacre of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of
these recordings as evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects only the
recording and interception of private communications. Drilon cited Section 4 of the
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that “any communication of spoken
word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any
part thereof, or any information therein contained/obtained or secured by any person
in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence
in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.”
Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on public order and
dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. Senator Poe’s response leads us to ask: Can the
government infringe individual rights? If it is morally permissible for the government
to infringe individual rights, when can the government do so? Does it become
legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of people?

This case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate
investigations. The Senate inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of
wire tapping and the intrusion to one’s right to privacy. While the 1987 Philippine
Constitution does protect one’s right to private communication, it did provide some
exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions include a lawful order of the court
and/or issues involving public safety and order. In fact, RA 4200 (or Anti-Wire
Tapping Law) and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided
exemptions to the inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason,
espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While this is certainly moral and legal issue, can it
also constitute a moral concern? On what instances is wiretapping morally
permissible and on what instances is it not morally permissible?

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

Utilitarianism

When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the costs

and benefits of wiretapping. If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then
we are considering an ethical theory that gives premium to the consequences of
actions as the basis of morality and as such is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism -is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s
consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that the goodness of an
 30

action is determined by its usefulness. Its root word is “utility”, which refers to
the usefulness of the consequences of one’s action and behavior.

When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in better

public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian because we
argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the many.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two
foremost utilitarian thinkers. Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of
actions. This means that the goodness or the badness of an action is based on whether
it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of actions and
decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the
usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.
While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian.

For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding the results of
people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested on whether these actions contribute
or not to the total amount of resulting happiness in the world. The utilitarian value
pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its
promotion of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience of
pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some individual’s
rights.
The Principle of Utility

In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789),

Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign
masters”-- which he calls pleasure and pain. These “masters” are given to us by
nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not;
they fasten our choices to their throne.

The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters:

pleasure and pain. This principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by
our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our
everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On the
other hand, the principles also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce
more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to experience
pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier. Having
identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of
utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.

Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as

happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes
people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us happy is the privation of
pleasure. The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those
that produce unhappiness and pain are bad.

Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we
avoid doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill
 31

explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they

eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and
Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced
happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the
nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures and to
calculate the resultant pleasure or pain.

What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill

refers to as a theory of life. If we consider, for example, what moral agents do and
how they assess their actions, then it is hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and the
avoidance of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance
of pain are not only important principles--- they are in fact the only principle in
assessing an action’s morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private conversations
in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it noble to build
schools and hospitals? Why is it good to improve the quality of life and the like?
There is no answer than the principle of utility, that is, to increase happiness and
decrease pain.

Four Theses of Utilitarianism

Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their

consequences.
 Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is
the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek.

 Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the
least bad.

 Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected,

and everyone equally.

Principle of the Greatest Number

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral
agent alone and independently from others. This is not only about our individual
pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is
also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our
actions.

Utilitarianism can lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor
happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our
actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made
happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is
not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.

Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including our

own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that
utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve
 32

the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s
happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Justice and Moral Rights

Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit
fort he greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on
society and are justified by utility.

Mills expounds that the above mentioned rights referred are related to the
interests that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free
speech or religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the general
good. This means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives
knowing that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it.
Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such
principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting
and protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also
the staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable in utilitarian principles
in as much as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness
resulting from their implementation.

Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import
because the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital
interests. All of these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life.

In this context, our participation in government and social interactions can be

explained by the principle of utility and be clarified by Mill’s consequentialism. Mill
further associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights. We are
treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates
different kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law. Mill
understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject
to some exceptions.

Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points
out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest
happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected. This
is like saying that the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even
objectionable.

IV. Learning Activities

Define the following key term:

1. Greatest Happiness
2. Utility
3. Theory of life
4. Moral right
5. Hedonism
6. Maximalism
7. Universalism
 33

IV. Assessment

Answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of
pain, and that all actions are directed toward pleasure? Explain your answer using a
specific example.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
________

2. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans,

than to build a hospital because there are fewer sick people?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
________

V. Enrichment Activity

Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What is violating the civil rights
of a minority increases the sum total of pleasure of the majority? Explain.

VII. Assignment:

Go online and look for an instance where animal rights and welfare can be
considered an issue. What is the issue that you have identified in relation to the
concepts of utilitarianism? Detail your findings and opinion.
 34

Module V
Deontology

I. Lesson Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

a.) Discuss the basic principles of deontology;
b.) Apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one’s moral experience;
and
c.) Evaluate actions using the universalizability test.

II. Introduction

While a radio program was in live broadcast one Monday morning, a certain
Felipe dela Cruz was praised by the radio announcer for exhibiting honesty in the
performance of his task or practice of his profession. Felipe is an employee of a
Janitorial Firm responsible for cleanliness and sanitation in the Province’s Bus
Terminal. A week ago a passenger in the name of Berta Araneta left her bag pack in
the waiting area prior to the Bus Trip scheduled that very morning. The bag
contained essential items, a cellphone worth Php 15,000.00 and a purse containing
Php 20,000.00.

Upon the discovery of Felipe, the bag was sent to the main office for safekeeping
and the same incident was reported to the authorities. With the help of social media,
the incident became viral which then helped call the attention of the owner.

Considering the difficult times right now, anyone can just get the bag and
consume its contents for purposes of survival. Yet, Felipe returned the bag in good
condition without a promise of a reward. For now, let us suppose his main reason
was simply because it was right to return lost property to the rightful owner, no
matter how tempting. It is simply the right thing to do as perceived b Felipe.

As we previously said, perhaps, Felipe believed that it was the right thing to do.
Even if he felt that he could have benefitted from the proceeds of the valuable items
in the bag pack , he must have believed the principle that it is right to do the right
thing. Felipe could be holding on to this moral conviction as a principle of action.
 35

To hold a moral conviction means believing that it is one’s duty to do the right thing.
What is duty? Why does one choose to follow his duty even if doing otherwise may
bring her more benefits.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

Duty and Agency

Viewed objetively, duty means anything that ought to be done or omitted.
Subjectively, duty means the moral obligation of a person to respect the rights of
others. As a moral obligation, duty binds the will or it is laid on the will. Duty may
come in six kinds namely, natural, positive, affirmative, negative, perfect, and
imperfect. A natural duty is one imposed by the natural law such as the duty to
preserve human life. Positive duty is one which comes from positive law such as the
duty to hear mass on Sundays and to pay taxes. Affirmative duty refers to the moral
obligation to do an act. Negative duty refers to the moral obligation of a person to
avoid or omit something an example of which is “ do not steal”. A perfect duty is
one which obliges one under strict justice such as the payment of a just wage. Lastly,
an imperfect duty is one which does not obligate a person from the standpoint of
justice, but from the standpoint of charity or other virtues. Giving donations during
calamities can be a perfect example ( Babor, page 222 ).
The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or
study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those
kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden,
or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories
that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in
contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be
(aretaic [virtue] theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our
choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—
stand in opposition to consequentialists (Stanford ).

Deontology is best known for the study of duty and obligation. The main
proponent is none other than Immanuel Kant, a German enlightenment philosopher
who wrote, Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. In this work
Kant brings our attention to the fact that we, human beings, have the faculty called
rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we determine
for ourselves. Rational will set humans different from animals. Furthermore,
rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct ideas and thoughts that are
beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the capacity for mental abstraction,
which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability
to stop and think about what we are doing. We can remove ourselves mentally from
the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our actions and how such actions
affect the world. We can imagine a different and a better world, and create mental
images of how we interact with other people in that world. Like an architect first
constructs her blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of that construction is
drawn, she can give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the actual
house, which becomes the second construction. The first construction consists in
how we imagine things and the second on implementation. Through the capacity for
 36

imagination and reflection, we conceive of how we could affect, possibly even

change the world we live in.

On the other hand, the rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world,
to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason. Unlike animals, humans have
reason which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the ability to stop and
think about what we are doing to evaluate our actions according to principles.
Simply stated, we are not only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but
are also conceiving of ways to act according to certain rational principles. In many
cases the rational will is victorious over bodily impulses. This triumph clarifies the
meaning of rational will, the capacity of a person to be the cause of her actions based
on reasons and not merely to mindlessly react to the environment and base impulses.
In philosophical discussions about human freedom this capacity is called
agency ,which is the ability of the person to act based on her intentions and mental
states.

Going back to Felipe, the moment he discovered that the bag pack was left
behind, he reacted according to his rational will- to return the bag and its contents.
He determined that it was his duty to return it inasmuch as his rational will had
conceived such duty.

Hence, to act according to a duty is a specifically human experience. Animals, if

it is true that they do not possess the faculty of rational will, cannot conceive of
having duties. This is the starting point of deontology. We may claim that as long as
we have rationality, there will always be the tension between our base impulses and
our rational will.

Autonomy

Kant claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy, which is the
opposite of heteronomy. Autonomy refers to self-law and ( or self-legislating ) and
heteronomy means other law. Consider the trivial example of brushing one’s own
teeth, which is not yet a moral dilemma but is sufficient to explain the difference
between autonomy and heteronomy. As far as we can tell, children do not like to
brush their teeth, but parents know that children should, to maintain oral hygiene. In
that regard, parents are the ones that legislate the principle that children should brush
their teeth before they go to bed and impose such a principle by using threats or
incentives. Decades later, these children would soon realize that proper hygiene is a
must and brushing is an imposed activity before going to bed. Putting all these
together, it also refers to the willing of the adopted principle into reality. Are they
autonomous? Yes, certainly.

According to Kant, the will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also
subject to the law in such a way that it gives the law to itself ( self-legislating ), and
primarily just in this way that the will can be considered the author of the law under
which it is subject. Imagine a policeman who apprehends a suspected criminal by
forcing him on the ground and putting handcuffs on his wrists. Incidentally, subject
comes from the Latin words sub ( under ) and jacere ( to throw ). When combined,
the two words refer to that which is thrown or brought under something. The will
must comply with the law, which is the authority figure.
 37

On one hand, heteronomy is the simple legislation and imposition of a law by an

external authority. Their parents are the authority figures, and the law is imposed
externally by rewards or punishments. In other words, autonomy belongs to the
grown up and already rational individuals, who have adopted such a law about
brushing their teeth. They regularly impose such a law on themselves out of the
enactment of the will to follow the law. The distinguishing point here is the locus of
the authorship of the law. In any given scenario where a person complies with the
law, we ask where the author is, whether it is external or internal. If the author of the
law is external, the will is subjected to an external authority, thus heteronomous will.
In contrast, if the author was he will itself , imposing the law unto itself, then we
describe the will as autonomous.

Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal impulse.
He reiterated that, the choice that can be determined by pure reason is called free
choice. That which is determinable only by inclination ( sensible impulse, stimulus )
would be animal choice. Human choice, in contrast, is a choice that may indeed be
affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore in itself not pure, but can
nevertheless be determined to do actions from pure will.

Thus, there is a difference between what determines a choice or decision,

whether is caused by a sensible impulse of by pure reason. Bodily instincts and
desires, such as the urge to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse, comprise the
set of human compulsions for survival and the propagation of the species. Kant calls
this set of actions that are caused by sensible impulse animal choice or arbitrium
brutum.

On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is determined by pure reason.
Free choice, argues that freedom resides in his capacity of reason to intervene, to “
mediate” within arbitrium brutum. This mental capacity is what makes the
intervention possible between stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of reason, a
person can break the immediacy of stimulus and reaction by stopping to deliberate
and assess possible alternative actions.

What does it mean for a human to be affected but is not determined by sensible
impulse? It implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be reduced to
mere animality. This is where the correlative conjunction not only” but also” is
useful. When we claim, “ The human person is not only an animal, but is also
rational, “ we admit to two possible causes of our actions: sensible impulses and the
faculty of reason. Human freedom resides in that distinction.

Autonomy is a property of the will only during instances when the action is
determined pure reason. When the action is determined by sensible impulses,
despite the source of those impulses being nevertheless internal, it is considered
heteronomous. We can thus make the conclusion that heteronomy of the will occurs
when any foreign impulse, whether it is external or sensible is what compels a person
to act. In contrast, autonomy is the property of the will in those instances when pure
reason is the cause of the action.

Universalizability
 38

To figure out how the faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous
action, we need to learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate
autonomy of the will.

A substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific actions that

comprise that theory. As such, it identifies the particular duties in a straightforward
manner that the adherents of the theory must follow. The set of Ten Commandments
of the udeo-Christian tradition is an unambiguous example of a substantive moral
theory. The specific laws are articulated mostly in the form of a straightforward
moral command: “ Honor your father and mother,” You shall not kill,” and so forth.

In contrast, a formal moral theory does not supply the rules or command
straightaway. It does not tell you what you may or may not do. Instead, a formal
theory provides us the “ form” or “ framework of the moral theory. To provide the “
form” or “ framework” of a moral theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria for
determining, on one’s own, the rules and moral commands. Metaphorically, we can
think of a cookbook as akin to a formal moral theory . In using a cookbook, we are
given instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we are not given the actual food
themselves, which would be “ substantive “. In a recipe for example, anyone could
add a slight variation to the ingredients and sequence of steps. To be exact, a formal
moral theory will not give us a list of rules or commands. Instead, it will give us a set
of instructions on how to make a list of duties or moral commands.

Kant wrote in 1785, the Grundlegung ur Metaphysik der Sitten, which embodies
a formal theory in what he calls the categorical imperative, which provides a
procedural way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of an action. Furthermore
he mentioned, act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will
that it become a universal law.

There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative,
namely action, maxim, will, and universal law. Kant states that we must formulate
an action as a maim, which he defines as a “ subjective principle of action “. We
have many maxims in our daily lives, and we live according to them. A maxim that
is universalizable is a personal rule, adopted and complied by everyone, thus
imagining a maxim as a law which everyone is ought to follow.

The test for universalizability makes possible that self-legislation, for the result
of the categorical imperative, is nothing other than the capacity to distinguish
between permissible and impermissible moral acts. Any rational will can then begin
the work of producing a list of duties , what a rational and autonomous will believes
to be right and wrong actions.

IV. Learning Activities

Discuss/ Enumerate your duties and responsibilities as a student and as a Filipino
citizen. What difficulties do you face in the exercise of these duties at present?

V. Assessment
 39

Define the following concepts and relate the significance of these to Philippine
setting . Create a a table in presenting your output.
a.) Deontology
b.) Rational Will
c.) Universalizability
d.) Autonomy
e.) Heteronomy
f.) Substantive Moral Theory
g.) Formal Moral Theory

VI. Enrichment Activities

What maxims have you observed in Philippine culture which manifest”

universalizability “? Discuss with your family members ( parents, grandparents,
etc. ) Are these maxims beneficial as we face the “new normal”?

VII. Assignment

Reconcile these two topics: Autonomy and the Duty to Speaking Truth to Power
Suppose you are already working for a company and your boss tells you that you
should offer a bribe to a government agent to obtain permit to build and operate a
business in your city. What would you do? What are your alternatives if you believe
that it is wrong to bribe government agencies? Answer in not less than 5 sentences.

Module VI
Virtue Ethics

I. Lesson Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

a.) Discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics;
b.) Distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts; and
c.) Apply Aristotle’s ethics in understanding the Filipino character.
 40

II. Introduction

Decades ago, a famous commercial became popular with the lines “ sa mata
ng bata ang ginangawa ng matatanda ay tama “. This brings us to the issue that
children at a young age have not yet achieved full personal growth and mental
development . This situation makes them particularly vulnerable to possible
undesirable effects of seeing violent images on print , television and even in real life.
When they see violence on television on a regular basis for example, they may
consider such violent acts as “ normal” and part of the daily occurrences in life.
Much worse is that they might tend to believe that such acts, since committed by
adults are permissible. In this saying, “Life imitates art “unfortunately becomes
uncomfortably true.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It

is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based
approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By practicing
being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and
moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely
make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark
White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the
opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse
killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes.
Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s
wrong to kill. But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who
kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’
lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.
So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being.
And, it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving
ethical dilemmas.

MTRCB study: Kids shall have seen 18,000 simulated murders on TV by the
time they’re 18 according to Tarra Quismundo of Phil. Daily Inquirer. ( Tarra
Quismundo - Reporter / @TarraINQPhilippine Daily Inquirer / 06:11 PM July 17,
2012 )

MANILA, Philippines—When children reach the legal age, they would have
witnessed an average 18,000 simulated murders on television.
According to former MTRCB chair Grace Poe Llamanzares, children watch an
average of 21 hours of TV per week and are exposed to up to 18,000 scenes of
simulated murder by the time they turn 18. That is equivalent to 1,000 scenes per
year or up to three scenes per day.
 41

“The modern age has allowed us to recognize that there is a third leg that is so
critical in terms of caring for children: the media. Whatever values, good things we
wish to pass on are sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people
because of what they hear media, in this case TV,” Education Secretary Armin
Luistro said.

Wary of the ill effects of television on young viewers, the Department of

Education’s (DepEd) National Council for Children’s Television (NCCT) and the
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) launched, on
Tuesday, the implementing rules for viewing safety law for 15-year-olds and
younger.

The guidelines were launched following months of consultations among the

NCCT, an agency attached to DepEd; the MTRCB; local TV networks; and TV
producers, educators, parents, media and non-government organizations.

Luistro said enforcement of the law took some time because thorough
consultations had to be done. Under the guidelines, all local TV networks are
required to devote 15 percent of their airtime for child-friendly television shows.
“The key is that during the times when children are known to be watching,
programming is regulated in terms of language, themes… That’s part of the IRR,”
Luistro said. (newsinfo.inquirer.net )

Mature individuals are aware that it is vital for children to go through the process
of building their personality, identity, or character. How does the continuous
exposure to violence on television affect the character that children develop? What is
the role of the child’s environment in her capacity to develop into a good individual?
These questions are real concerns that society needs to address. Perhaps, it is best to
look closely at how good moral character is developed among individuals.

Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the
good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. Ancient Greek
philosophers Plato, and Aristotle are known authorities on the study of ethics.
Aristotle came up with comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue ethics in his
book entitled Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field distinct from the theoretical

sciences. We study ethics in order to improve our lives, and therefore its principal
concern is the nature of human well-being. Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in
taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. ( Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy )
Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person and
having such characteristic enables a person to realize the very purpose of her
existence.

Happiness and Ultimate Purpose

According to Aristotle, an act a person does is directed toward a particular

purpose, aim or what the Greeks called telos. A person’s action manifests a good that
one aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. A person pursues
 42

a career, aiming for the good, that is, to provide a better future for one’s family.
Therefore, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to
achieve. According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the highest
purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or for the Greeks, eudaimonia.
One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final
end of a human being. But one should remember that if one accumulates wealth, for
example, one would want to have not just richness but also power and and other
desirable things as well, such as honor and pleasures.

How does a person arrive at her highest good? If an individual’s action can
achieve the highest good, then one must investigate how she functions which enables
her to achieve her ultimate purpose. If one performs the function well, then one is
capable of arriving at happiness. Furthermore, what defines human beings is ones
function or activity of reason. This definitely, makes one different from the rest of
beings.

What defines a person therefore is his or her function or activity of reason.

One’s action to be considered as truly human must be an act that is always in
accordance to the dictates of reason . A dancer, for example, becomes different from
a chef because of her function to dance while the chef is to cook. A good individual
therefore stands closer to meeting the conditions of happiness because her actions are
of a higher purpose. The local saying “ madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao”
can be understood in the light of Aristotle’s thoughts on the function of a good
person. Any human being can perform the activity of reason; thus, being human is
achievable . However, a good human being strives hard in doing an activity in an
excellent way. Therefore, the task of being human becomes more difficult because
doing such activity well take more effort on the part of the person.

Virtue as Excellence

Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function
according to reason and to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent
way of doing things is called virtue or arête by the Greeks. According to Aristotle,
virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become an excellent
person overnight. This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single
act. It is commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle-blower,
exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be
careful in judgment of calling immediately that individual as being a “ person of
virtue “. Being an excellent individual works on doing well in her day-to-day
existence.

According to Aristotle excellence is an activity of the human soul and therefore,

one needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed
by her rational activity in an excellent way. The human soul is divided into two parts
according to Aristotle: the irrational element and the rational faculty. The irrational
element consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect
functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a
person. As an irrational element, this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is
exercised because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. The
 43

vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical
activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the appetitive aspect works as a desiring
in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time
refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational part of the
soul. Sexual impulse, for example, is so strong in a person that one tends to ignore
reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect,
the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason.

In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. Once can
rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided
into two aspects: moral, which concerns the act of doing, and intellectual, which,
concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the function of
reason is exercised.

One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual
faculty of the soul. This excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one
learns from the vast experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things.
One learns and gains wisdom by being taught or by learning. Intellectual excellence
can be philosophic and practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining
knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe. It
helps one understand in general the meaning of life. Practical wisdom, on the
other hand, is an excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular
act. In other words, one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how
to behave in our daily lives.

In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of
practical wisdom in steering the self toward the right choices and actions. Knowing
the good is different from determining and acting on what is good. But a morally
good person has to achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom to perform the
task of being moral. For Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of
intellectual excellence. Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally
virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual excellence does not
necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the
good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to
accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving

two kinds of virtue: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue is also attained by habit. A
morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good
and does the right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit. Being morally
good is a process of getting used to doing the proper act. The saying “ practice
makes perfect “ can be applied to this aspect of a person. Therefore, for Aristotle, a
person is not initially good by nature. A moral person habitually chooses the good
and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the
good that a person is able to form her character. It is through one’s character that
others know a person. Character then becomes te identification mark of the person.
The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely reflects the meaning of moral character. Once
can have mabuting pag-uugali ( good character ) or masamang pag-uugali ( bad
character ).
 44

Going back to the example given in the introduction, one can surmise that if we
rely on the above-mentioned study, children tend to mimic the violence they watch
on television and such habit could develop into a character that can tolerate behaviors
that are hostile in nature.

Moral Virtue and Mesotes

Practical wisdom involves learning from experiences. Knowing the right thing
to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy. In attaining practical wisdom,
one may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral
choice or action. But, through these mistakes , one will be able to sustain practical
wisdom to help steer another’s ability to know morally right choices and actions. In
other words, one is able to mature and grow in his or her capacity of knowing what to
do and living a morally upright life.
This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the
community, those who gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom, because
they would be able to assist someone’s moral deliberation. Parents can advice their
children to behave in front of family members and relatives. Senior members of the
community like priests, counselors, and leaders may also guide the young members
on how relationships with others are fostered.

Bro. Armin Luistro, with his practical wisdom and experience, has observed the
possible effect of television violence on the young so he issued guidelines on
television viewing for children. He says that good values instilled on children are “
sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people “ because of television
violence. As former Secretary of the Department of Education, he possibly learned
so much about the consequence of such situation on the young. As maintained by
Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or mesotes for the Greeks that is aimed at by
a morally virtuous person.

Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her

appropriate action in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words,
virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes. One has to
function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of feelings,
passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions are neutral
which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong. When
one shows a feeling of anger, we cannot immediately construe it as morally wrong
act. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the
degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive
remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended by
someone. One can be excessive in the manner by which she manifests these feelings,
passions, and abilities. But one can also be deficient in the way she expresses these.
But one can also be deficient in the way she expresses these.

Amorally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of targeting
the mean is always difficult because every situation is different from one another.
Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance where she is
in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by Aristotle, the
mean is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral
involves seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly
 45

every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean. Mesotes determines
whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient.
In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for
protecting and assisting the young on their personal development should act in view
of the middle measure. The government could have dismissed the issue or could
have banned television shows portraying violence. But such extremes censure the
citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in another
issue. Wisely, the government acted on the side of the middle measure by going
through a series of consultations to address the issue of television violence-
implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of
television airtime for child-friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating
code that took into account the “ sensibilities of children “. It seems that the
government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.

Aristotle’s discussion ultimately leads to defining what exactly moral virtue is- “
a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, that is, the mean relative
to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the
man of practical wisdom would determine it.”

Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character
identified out of her habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is seen as
a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the good. Secondly, in moral
virtue, the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen
because it is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper
proportion by which these feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds
that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes totally depends on
what the person identifies as the middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle
adheres to relativism. But Aristotles’s middle is not relative to the person but to the
situation and the circumstance that one is in. This means that in hoosing the middle,
one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper way that
feelings and passions should be dispensed.

The rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the
middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and
therefore develops the capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her feelings,
passions, and actions. The rational faculties of this person, specifically practical
wisdom, aid in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. A
moral person in this sense is also someone who is wise. Habits for Aristotle are
products of the constant application of reason in the person’s actions. One sees
Aristotle’s attempt to establish a union between the person’s moral action and
knowledge that enables him to achieve man’s function.

Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a
middle point. When a mean is sought, it is in the context of being able to identify the
good act in a given situation. However, when what is involved is seen as a bad
feeling , passion, or action, the middle is non-existent because there is no good
( mesotes ) in something that is already considered a bad act. When one murders
someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder.
Further, there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper
way that such act can be committed.
 46

In the study mentioned wherein children are beginning to consider violence as “ a

way to solve problems “, it seems apparent that they would like to think that there is
somehow a “ good “ in an unjust act since it can become a problem-solver. If
violence becomes a tool by which difficult situations are addressed, then it can be
construed by children of bearing some positive value. Aristotle’s view is contrary to
this. As an act, violence, in itself, is bad. A person cannot employ violence as if it
were a virtue or a middle measure in between vices of being “ deficient” in violence
or being “ excessive “ of the same act. There is something terribly wrong in such
demonstration. Aristotle also provides examples of particular virtues and the
corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. The table below shows some of the
virtues and vices:

Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

In the table, Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between
the vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of
feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough
bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the
other hand, is an excess in terms of one’s feelings and passions. In this regard, one
acts with a surplus of guts that she overdoes an act in such rashness and without any
deliberation. The virtue of having courage is being able to act daringly enough but
able to weigh up possible implications of such act that she proceeds with caution.

It is only through the middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings,
passions, and actions virtuously. For Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to
manifesting a virtue is no longer an ethical act because one has gone beyond the
middle. Being overly courageous ( or “ super courageous” ) for instance does not
make someone more virtuous because precisely in this condition, she has gone
beyond the middle and therefore has “moved out” from the state that is virtuous.
Therefore, one can always be excessive in her action but an act that is virtuous cannot
go beyond the middle. Filipinos have the penchant of using superlatives words like
“over”, “ super”, “to the max”, and “ sobra” in describing a particular act that they
normally identify as virtuous. Perhaps, Aristotle’s view on virtue is prescribing a
clearer way by which Filipinos can better understand it.

IV. Learning Activities

Define the terms and concepts in the context of Virtue Ethics:

a.) Character
b.) Virtue
c.) Vices
d.) Eudaimonia
e.) Mesotes

V. Assessment
 47

Write an essay that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino
character at this time. From your work categorize the traits as virtue or vices. Create
a table to distinguish the two categories. Which of these traits are very visible as we
face the challenges of the current pandemic crisis? Why?

VI. Enrichment Activities

In your own opinion, how is a person’s character formed? What factors influence a
person’s character?
Looking at your own experience, who influenced you the most in terms of character
formation? How did such person/persons contribute to your character formation?
Discuss.

VI. Assignment

Read an article/s about the famous British Serial Killer Robert John Maudsley
which inspired the award winning film Hannibal Lecter, then, answer the questions
below:
a.) Write a brief profile of Robert John Maudsley.
b.) How did his early life lead to deep psychological scars?
c.) In a documentary, many psychologists said that unlike other crimes, his crimes
were only committed in prison as a way to avenge other victims. What can you say
about this?
d.) In response to the call of establishing a society that manifests moral virtues
among its citizens , what can you contribute ? Discuss your answers.
 48

Module VII

Synthesis:Making Informed Decisions

I. Lesson Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

a.) Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision-
making;
b.) Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions;
and
c.) Apply the ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self,
society, and, the non-human environment.

II. Introduction

The story of humanity appears to be the never-ending search for what it means to
be fully human in the face of moral choices. The major ethical theories r frameworks
: utilitarianism, natural law, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics are never final nor
definite in application. Each represent the best attempts of the best thinkers in history
to give fully thought-out answers to the questions “ What ought I do?” and Why
ought I to do so?” This quest has not reached its final conclusion; instead , it seems
that the human condition of finitude will demand that we continue to grapple with
these questions. ( 1 ) The questions of what the right thing to do is and why are
questions that all human beings-regardless of race, age,socioeconomic class, gender,
culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or political association-will have
to ask at one point or another in their lives; ( 2 )Neither the laws nor rules of one’s
immediate community or of wider culture of religious affiliation can sufficiently
answer these questions, especially when different duties, cultures, or religions
intersect and conflict; ( 3) Reason has a role to play in addressing these questions, if
not in resolving them. This last element, reason, is the power that identifies the
situations in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with one another.
Reason, hopefully will allow one to finally make the best decision possible in a given
situation of moral choice.

Ethics teaches us that moral valuation can happen in the level of the personal, the
societal ( both ( local and global ), and in relation to the physical environment.
Personal can be understood to mean both the person in relation to herself, as well as
her relation to other human beings on an intimate or person-person basis. Ethics is
clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation to other human beings and
toward self. How she takes care of herself versus how she treats herself badly is a
question of ethical value that is concerned mainly with her own person. Personal also
 49

refers to a person’s intimate relationships with other people like her parents, siblings,
children, friends, or other close acquaintances. When does one’s relationship lead to
personal growth for the other? When does it ruin the other? For most people, it is
clear enough that there are right and wrong ways to deal with these familiar contacts.
Ethics can help us navigate what those ways can be.

The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this
context mean one’s immediate community ( one’s neighborhood, barangay, or
town ), the larger sphere ( one’s province, region, or country ), or the whole global
village defined as the interconnection of the different nations of the world. One must
be aware that there are many aspects to social life, all of which may come into play
when one needs to make a decision in a moral situation. All levels of society involve
some kind of culture, which may be loosely described as the way of life of a
particular community of people at a given period of time. Culture is a broad term: it
may include the beliefs and practices a certain group of people considered valuable
and can extend to such realms as art, laws, fields of knowledge, and customs of
community. Ethics serves to guide one through the potentially confusing thicket of
an individual’s interaction with her wider world of social roles, which can come into
conflict with one another or even with her own system of values. Ethics will assist
one in thinking through such difficulties.

The latter part of the 20th century gave birth to an awareness among many people
that “ community “ does not only refer to the human groups that one belongs to, but
also refers to the non-human, natural world that serves as home and source of
nurturance for all beings. Thus, ethics has increasingly come to recognize the
expansion of the question “ What ought I do” into the realm of human beings’
responsibilities toward their natural world. The environmental crisis that currently
beset our world, seen in such phenomena as global warming and endangerment and
extinction of some species, drive home the need to think ethically about one’s
relationship to her natural world.

Ethics allows one to rationally deliberate in determining a person’s ethical

responsibility to herself, society and environment. This brings life to the moral
agent, the one who eventually must think about her choices and make decisions on
what she ought to do. Ethical thought and decision- making are done by an agent
who is shaped and dictated upon by many factors within her and without. If we
understand this, then we shall see how complex the ethical situation is, one that
demands mature rational thinking as well as courageous decision-making.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

The Moral Agent and Contexts

The one who is tasked to think about what is “right” and why it is so, and to
choose to do so, is a human individual. Who is this individual who must engage
herself in ethical thought and decision- making? Who one is, in the most
fundamental sense, is another major topic in the act of philosophizing. The Greeks
were known for the saying “ know thyself “. Ramon C. Reyes a Filipino philosopher
in his essay “ Man and Historical Action “ explained that “ who one is “ is a cross
 50

point. By this, he means that one’s identity , who one is or who I am, is a product of
many forces and events that happened outside of one’s choosing. Reyes identifies
four cross points: the physical, the interpersonal, the social, and the historical. Who
one is, firstly, is a function of physical events in the past and material factors in the
present that one did not have a choice in. Humans are members of the species Homo
Sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitations endemic to human beings
everywhere.

An individual is also the product of an interpersonal cross-point of many events

and factors outside of one’s choosing. One did not choose her own parents, and yet
her personality, character traits, and her overall way of doing things and thinking
about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they
brought her up. People around such as siblings, relatives, classmates, and eventually
workmates help shape the character of an individual.

A third cross-point for Reyes is the societal: “ who one is “ shaped by one’s
society. The term “ society “ here pertains to all the elements of the human groups-
as opposed to the natural environment- that one is a member of. “ Culture “ in its
varied aspects is included here. Reyes argues that “ who one is “ molded in large part
by the kind of society and culture-which, for the most part, one did not choose-that
one belongs to. Filipinos have their own way of doing things, their own systems of
beliefs and values, and even their own notions of right and wrong . The third cross-
point interacts with the physical and the interpersonal factors that the individual and
her people are immersed or engaged in.

The fourth cross-point according to Reyes is the historical, which is simply the
events that one’s people has undergone. In short, one’s people’s history shapes “
who one is “ right now. For example, the Philippines had a long history of
colonization that affected how Philippine society has been formed and how
Philippine culture has developed. Christianity, for good or bad, has formed Philippine
society and culture, and most probably the individual Filipino, whether she may be a
Christian herself or not. The historical cross-point also interacts with the previous
three.

According to Reyes, “ who one is “ is also a project for one’s self. This happens
because a human individual has freedom. This freedom is not absolute: one does not
become something because one chooses to be. Even if one wants to fly, she cannot,
unless she finds a way to invent a device that can help her do so. This finite freedom
means that one has the capacity to give herself a particular direction in life according
to her own ideal self. Thus, for one’s existence is in the intersection between the fact
that one’s being is a product of many forces outside her choosing and her ideal future
for herself. Ethics plays a big role of forming one’s self. What one ought to do in
one’s life is not dictated by one’s physical, interpersonal, social, or historical
conditions.

Using Reyes’ philosophical lens, we can now focus on one of the major issues in
ethical thought: What is the relationship between ethics and one’s own culture?
Culture and Ethics
 51

A common opinion many people hold is that one’s culture dictates what is right
or wrong for an individual. For such people, saying “ when in Rome, do as the
Romans do” by St. Ambrose applies to deciding on moral issues. This quote implies
that one’s culture is inescapable, that is, one has to look into the standards of her
society to resolve all her ethical questions with finality. How one relates to oneself,
society and other elements with the natural world are all predetermined by her
membership in her society and culture.

Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes, especially since one may
be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits. Such example is
hospitality, where it is manifested differently among Filipinos and Chinese. Thus, to
simply say that there is a “ Filipino way “ of doing things, remains a matter for
discussion. We hear claims from time to time that “ Americans “ are individualistic;
Filipinos are communal,” a supposed difference that grounds, for some people,
radically different sets of moral values. But one may ask: Is there really any radical
difference between one culture’s moral reasoning and another’s? Or do all cultures
share in at least some fundamental values and that the differences are not on the level
of value but on the level of its manifestation in the context of different socio-
historical-cultural dimensions? One culture, because of its particular history, may
construct hospitality in a particular way and manifest it in its own customs and
traditions. Yet, both cultures honor hospitality.

The America philosopher James Rachels provided a clear argument against the
validity of cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. Rachel defines cultural
relativism as the position that claims there is no such thing as objective truth in the
realm of morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have
different moral codes, then there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must
follow. The implication is that each culture has its own standard of right or wrong,
its validity confined within the culture in question. However, Rachel questions the
logic of this argument: first, that cultural relativism confuses a statement of fact,
which is merely descriptive, with a normative statement. Rachel provides a counter
argument by analogy: just because some believed that the earth was flat, while some
believe it is spherical, it does not mean that there is no objective truth to the actual
shape of the earth.

Beyond his criticism of the logic of cultural relativism, Rachels also employs a
reduction ad absurdum argument. It is an argument which first assumes that the
claim in question is correct, in order to show the absurdity that will ensue if the claim
is accepted as such. He uses this argument to show what he thinks is the weakness of
the position. He posits three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of cultural
relativism. First, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the
practices or beliefs of another culture anymore as long as that culture thinks that what
it is doing is correct. But if that is the case, then the Jews for example, cannot
criticize the Nazi’s believed that they were doing the right thing. Secondly, if
cultural relativism was correct , then one cannot even criticize the Nazi’s plan to
exterminate all Jews in World War II, since obviously, the Nazis believed that they
were doing the right thing. Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one
cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of one’s own culture. If that is the case,
the black South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a policy of racial
segregation that privileges the dominant race in a society, could not criticize that
 52

official state position. Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot
accept the moral progress which may happen. The fact that many societies now
recognize women’s rights may not necessarily represent a better situation for these
women and children at present. Furthermore, Rachels argues that recognizing and
respecting differences in cultures do not necessarily mean that there is no such thing
as objective truth in morality. He also reiterated that cultural relativism can
recognize and respect cultural differences and still maintain the right to criticize
beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs proper rational
deliberation.

Thus, the challenge of ethics is not the removal of ones culture because that is
what makes one unique. Instead, one must dig deeper into her own culture in order
to discover how her own people have most meaningfully explored possibly universal
human questions or problems within the particularity of her own people’s native
ground. Thus, hospitality, for example, may be a species-wide question. But how we
Filipinos observe and express hospitality is an insight we Filipinos must explore
because it may be in our own practices that we see how best we had responded to this
human question. It may be best because we responded specifically to the
particularity of our own environmental and historical situation. One can then benefit
by paying attention to her own unique cultural heritage because doing so may give
her a glimpse into the profound ways her people have grappled with the question of “
what ought I do? “

Ethics, therefore, should neither be reduced to own’s own cultural standards, nor
should it simplistically dismiss one’s own unique cultural beliefs and practices. The
latter can possibly enlighten her toward what is truly ethical. What is important is
that one does not wander into ethical situations blindly, with the naïve assumption
that the ethical issues will be resolved automatically by her beliefs and traditions.
Instead, she should challenge herself to continuously work toward a fuller maturity in
ethical decision-making. Moral development then is a prerequisite if the individual is
to encounter ethical situations with a clear mind and her values properly placed with
respect to each other. We shall discuss moral development further but let us now
focus on the relationship between one’s religion and the challenge of ethical decision-
making.

Religion and Ethics

Many people who consider themselves “ religious “ assume that it is the

teachings of their own religion that define what is truly “ right “ or “ wrong “, “ good
or “ bad “. The question of the proper relationship between religion and ethics,
therefore, is one that demands philosophical exploration. There are many different
religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of the
largest religious groups in the world at present, based on population. The Philippines
is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet many other religions continue to flourish in the
archipelago. Beyond all the differences, however, religion in essence represents a
group’s ultimate, most fundamental concerns regarding their existence. For
followers of a particular religion, the ultimate meaning of their existence, as the
existence of the whole reality, is found in the beliefs of that religion. Therefore, the
 53

question of morality for many religious followers is reduced to following the

teachings of their own religion. Many questions arise from this assertion.

A critical, philosophical question that can be asked, vis-à-vis ethics, is “ What

exactly does sacred scripture command?” This is a question of interpretation since
even the same passage from a particular religious tradition can have many different
interpretations from religious teachers even from within the same tradition.
According to Ramon C. Reyes, interpretation of a particular passage or text is the
product of an individual’s embodiment and historicity . Any reading or interpretation
is also influenced by the situation of the reader. This implies that the moral agent in
question must still, in full responsibility, challenge herself to understand using her
own powers of rationality, but with full recognition of her own situatedness and what
her religious authorities authorities claim their religion teaches.

Second, one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious
teaching when it commands its followers on what they “ ought to do “. Relevant to
this is Plato’s philosophical question in his dialogue Euthypro. When something is “
morally good “, is it because it is good in itself and that is why God commands it, or
is it good because God simply says so? If a particular preacher teaches her followers
to do something because it is what their sacred scripture says that. If the preacher
simply responds “ that is what is written in the sacred scripture “, that is tantamount
to telling the follower to stop asking questions and simply follow. Here, the critical-
minded follower might find herself at an unsatisfying impasse. History reveals that
there were people who twisted religious teaching that brought harm to their followers
and to others. An example is the crusades in the European Middle Ages. European
Christians , massacred Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Christians to recapture the
Holy City of Jerusalem. A contemporary example is when terrorists or extremists
use religion to justify acts of violence they perform on fellow human beings. The
problem here is not that religion misleads people; the problem is that too many
people perform heinous acts simply because they assumed they were following the
teachings of their supposed religion, without stopping to think whether these actions
are harmful. The philosophical-minded individual therefore is tasked to be critical
even of her own set of beliefs and practices and to not simply follow for the sake of
blind obedience.

These critical questions about one’s culture and religious beliefs show us the
need for maturity or growth in one’s morality, both in terms of intellect and
character. The responsible moral agent then is one who does not blindly follow
eternally-imposed rules, but one who has a well-developed “ feel “ for making
informed moral decisions.

Moral Deliberation

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to
do and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This
necessary growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of
study of many theorists. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence
Kohlberg who theorized that moral development happens in six stages, which he
divided into three levels. The first level is pre-conventional which corresponds how
 54

infants and children think. The consequences of one’s actions divided into two
stages. The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience and the avoidance of
punishment : to a young child’s mind, an action is “ good “ if it enables one to escape
from punishment , “ bad” if it leads to punishment. Later, a child enters the second
stage of reasoning and learns to act according to what she thinks will swerve her self-
interest; thus, what is “ good “ at this age is what the child thinks can bring her
pleasure. Kohlberg used the term re-conventional to refer to these two stages since at
this age, a young child basically thinks only in terms of the pain ( punishment ) or
pleasure ( reward ) brought about as a consequence of her actions. Thus, her
concentration is on herself and what she can feel, instead of her society’s conventions
on what is right or wrong.

The second level of moral development according to Kohlberg is the

conventional since this is the age in which older, adolescents, and young adults learn
to conform to the expectations of society. This is the time when one learns to follow
the conventions of her group. This second level is divided into two stages: the third
and fourth stages of moral development. The third stage is when one begins to act
according to what the larger group she belongs expects of her. The individual here
assumes that what will benefit her best is when the other members of her group
approve of her actions. The general tendency at this age is to confirm first to the
values of one’s immediate group, such as her family, playmates, or later on, barkada.
Older children and adolescents eventually begin to value the expectations of the
larger group they belong to, whether it be their school, religion, or state. The fourth
stage is achieved when a person realizes that following the dictates of her society is
not just good for herself but more importantly, it is necessary for the existence of
society itself. The individual at this stage values most of the laws, rules, and
regulations of her society, and thus her moral reasoning is shaped y dutifulness to the
external standards set by society.

In Kohlberg’s reasoning , people who merely follow the rule and regulations of
their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion-
een if they seem to be the truly right thing to do- are trapped in this second or
conventional level, which is still not yet the highest. For Kohlberg it is a
psychological theory, that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s growth in
moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both ( 1)
the pre-conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-
centered kind of thinking, an egoism, as well as ( 2 ) the conventional leel, which at
first glance looks like the sensible approach to morality. The second level might, de
facto, be the way that many ( if not most ) adults think about morality, that it is
simply a question of following the right rules. The great insight of Kohlberg,
however, is that a truly morally mature individuals must outgrow eve the simple
following of supposedly right rules.

The third and highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls
post-conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good or
right is not reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question of
understanding personally what one ought to do and deciding., using one’s free will,
to act accordingly. This level, which is also divided into two stages , represents the
individual’s realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take
precedence over even the rules or conventions that her society dictates. An agent has
 55

attained full moral development if she acts according to her well-thought-out rational
principles. In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage,
the moral agent sees the value of the social contract, namely, agreements that rational
agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be
considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow. This notion of
common good is post-conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to
what tis theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally desirable,
whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not.

The sixth and highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond the
fifth stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal
ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all the
conventions of society are only correct if they are based on these universal ethical
principles; they must be followed only if they reflect universal ethical principles.
The significance studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes
clear only to the individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral
maturity. For someone who is still in Kholberg’s pre-conventional or conventional
stages, moral valuation remains a matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment,
or at best, a question of following the dictates of other people.

Feelings in Moral Deliberation

Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspectives

as having no place in a properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however,
needs to be re-examined thoroughly. Although some emotions or feelings can derail
one from a clear-minded decision in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that
human choice can be purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither robot
nor computer. A more realistic attitude toward decision-making is to appreciate the
indispensable role emotions have on an agent’s act of choosing. Aristotle precisely
points out that moral virtue goes beyond the mere act of intellectually identifying the
right thing to do. Instead, it is the condition of one’s character by which the agent is
able to manage her emotions or feelings. Aristotle reiterated that, cultivating one’s
character lies in learning to manage one’s feeling. In Aristotle’s Book II of the
Nicomachean Ethics, “ Anyone can get angry-that us easy… but to do this to the
right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the
right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy .“ Doing the right thing for Aristotle
is being able to manage one’s feelings so that she is actually driven or propelled to do
what she already sees ( intellectually ) as right.

Moral Problems

What must a morally mature individual do when she is confronted with a moral
problem? Moral problems require set of rational deliberations. In doing so, several
steps have to be undertaken. The first step is to determine the level of involvement in
the case at hand. We must therefore identify which activity we are engaged in,
whether we are making a judgment on a case that we are not involved in or if we
truly need to make a decision in a situation that demands that we act.
 56

After ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need
to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a
moral situation or not. We must set aside all details that have no connection to the
situation. We must also identify whether an item in consideration is truly factual or
merely hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded assumption, and thus unsupportable.
This is where such things as “ fake news “ and “ alternative facts “ have to be weeded
out. Letting such details seep into our ethical deliberation may unfairly determine or
shape our ethical decision-making process, leading us into potentially baseless
choices or conclusions. The responsible moral individual must make sure that she
possesses all the facts she needs for that particular situation, but also only the facts
that she needs- no more, no less.

The third step is to identify all the people who may potentially be affected by the
implications of a moral situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people
are called the stakeholders in t particular case. Identifying these stakeholders force us
to give consideration to people aside from ourselves. The psychological tendency of
most of us when confronted with an ethical choice is to simply think of ourselves, of
what we need, or of what we want. When we identify all the stakeholders, we are
obliged to recognize all the other people potentially concerned with the ethical
problem at hand, and must think of reasons aside from our own self-serving ones, to
come up with conclusions that are impartial, though still thoroughly involved.

The next step is to determine how stakeholders are affected by whichever choice
the agent makes in the given ethical situation, as well as to what degree. Not all
stakeholders have an equal stake in a given moral case; some may be more favorably
or more adversely affected by a particular conclusion or choice compared to others.
A person’s awareness of these probabilities is necessary to gain a more
comprehensive assessment of the matter at hand in order to arrive at hopefully
stronger reasons for making a definite ethical conclusion or choice.

After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in
the matter, the ethical issues at hand will be identified. First thing is to clarify
whether a certain action is morally right or morally wrong. The second type involves
determining whether a particular action in question can be identified with a generally
accepted ethical or unethical action. An example would be on the ethical value of the
death penalty. The third type points to the presence of an ethical dilemma.
Dilemmas are ethical situations in which there are competing values that seem to
have equal worth. One has to identify the fundamental values in conflict in such a
situation in order to assess later if a workable solution to the ethical problem can be
negotiated that will somehow not end up surrendering one value for the sake of
another. The individual must try to find the best balance possible that may honor the
competing values. The individual must therefore identify the probable consequences
that a particular choice of action will bring to the stakeholders concerned in order to
determine which choice possibly is the best, given the situation. The popular “ Robin
Hood “ scenario is an example of such. Usually put in the question, “ Is it right to
steal from the rich in order to feed the poor? “ What one is confronted here is a
situation in which two competing values are in conflict with another.

The final step, is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision,
whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a
 57

concrete action she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very
difficult enough to make and for so many different reasons. Not all the facts in a
given case may be available to the agent for her consideration. The responsible
moral individual, however, must forge on realizing full well that cultivating one’s
capacity for mature moral choice is a continuing journey. Aristotle recognizes the
importance of continuous habituation in the goal of shaping one’s character so that
she becomes more used to choosing the right thing. A moral individual is always a
human being whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic, and
who is always placed in situations that are unique.

The Value of Studying Ethical Theories or Frameworks

What then is the role of ethical theories or frameworks in the continuing

cultivation of one’s capacity for moral choice? These ethical theories or frameworks
may serve as guideposts, given that they are the best attempts to understand morality
that the history of human thought has to offer. As guideposts, they can shed light on
many important considerations, though of course not all, in one’s quest to answer the
twin questions of “ What ought I to do?” and “ Why ought I to do so? “

Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing that an act is good
if it will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by the
action, and each one of those affected should be counted as one, each equal to each.
Utilitarianism, arguably, puts more value on the notion of “ common good “
compared to any of the other ethical frameworks we have covered.

The natural law theory, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on the supposed
objective, universal nature of what is to be considered morally good, basing its
reasoning on the theorized existence of a “ human nature “. This theory has the
advantage of both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter pertains to the
assumption that whatever is right is what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses
of one’s being or of one’s conscience because what is good is imprinted in our very
being in the form of natural inclinations.

Kantian deontology puts the premium on rational will, freed from all other
considerations, as the only human capacity that can determine one’s moral duty.
Kant focuses on one’s autonomy as constitutive of what one can consider as moral
law that is free from all other ends and inclinations-including pain and pleasure as
well as conformity to the rules of the group. This shows Kant’s disdain for these
rules as being authorities external to one’s own capacity for rational will.

From valuing all human beings to intuiting what is universally good and to
practicing one’s autonomy in determining what ought to do, all of these explore the
possible roles of reason and free will in identifying what ought to do in a given moral
situation. What Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the end for the habituation of one’s
character to make any and all of these previous considerations possible. To weigh
the collective happiness of human beings, to choose to act on what one’s innermost
nature dictates, and to practice one’s autonomy regardless of all other considerations
especially those that impinge on one’s will: these are lofty goals for human reason
and will. But what can possibly sustain or brace a moral agent so that she is able to
 58

maintain the effort to implement such rigorous demands on the part of reason?
Aristotle’s answer is he solid resolve of one’s character, which can only be achieved
through the right kind of habituation.

The responsible moral individual must test the cogency and coherence of the
ethical theory or framework in question against the complexity of the concrete
experience at hand. In such a spirit of experimentation, the moral individual is able
to play of the theories against one another, noting the weakness in one for a particular
case and possibly supplementing it with the strengths of another.

Self, Society, and Environment

In the realm of the self, as noted earlier, one has to pay attention not just on how
one deals with oneself, but also on how one interacts with other individuals in
personal relations. One may respond to the demand for an ethically responsible “ care
for the self “ by making full use of the different theories or frameworks.
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, though seemingly a hedonistic theory given
emphasis on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the human element
above the animalistic and above the merely selfish. Mill builds on the earlier version
of utilitarianism, the one espoused by Jeremy Bentham, which first posited that what
makes an action good is that it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. Greatest happiness for Bentham then means quantity, but not just for
oneself since the other half of his maxim refers to “ the greatest number “ that points
to the extent or number of people affected by this happiness.

Thomas Aquinas’ natural law theory states as its first natural inclination of the
innate tendency that all human beings share with all other existing things; namely,
the natural propensity to maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action therefore
that sustains and cultivates one’s biological or physical existence is to be called bad
or evil. Aquinas thus specifies that taking care of one’s being is a moral duty that
one owes to herself and to God. The moral philosophy of Aquinas calls on a person
to go beyond what she thinks she wants and to realize instead what her innermost
nature inclines her to do, which is the promotion of life, of the truth, and of
harmonious coexistence with others.

Kant’s deontology celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets it
above merely sentient beings. Kant’s principle of universalizability challenges the
moral agent to think beyond her own predilections and desires, and to instead
consider what everyone ought to do. His principle of humanity as end in itself
teaches one to always treat humanity, whether in her own self or in any other
individual, as the end or goal of all human actions and never merely as the means.
Kant goes beyond simply telling people to not use others as instruments. There is
nothing intrinsically wrong with using a human being as a means or a tool for one’s
own purposes because human interaction is not possible without that happening.
What Kant is concerned with is when someone merely uses a human being whether
another person or herself, and forgets to treat that human being as the goal or purpose
of an action in and of herself, and forgets to treat that human being as the goal or
purpose of an action in and of herself.
 59

Aristotle’s virtue ethics teaches one to cultivate her own intellect as well as her
character to achieve eudaimonia in her lifetime. For Aristotle, one’s ethical or moral
responsibility to herself is one of self-cultivation. Aristotle is quite forgiving when it
comes to individual actions, knowing full well the difficulty of “ hitting he mark “ in
a given moral situation. The realm of the personal also extends to one’s treatment of
other persons within one’s network of close relations. Utilitarianism’s recognition of
the greatest happiness principle shows that even in interpersonal interaction, what
must rule is not one’s own subjective notion of what is pleasurable.

Natural law theory, through its recognition of the inviolable value of human life
whomever it belongs to, immediately offers an ethic of interpersonal relationships.
Coupled with this, the value that Aquinas gives to the production and care for
offspring, as well as to the promotion of the truth and the peaceful and orderly social
life, provide guidance on how one ought to relate with her close relations.
Kant’s deontology recognizes the principle of humanity as end in itself and as a
cornerstone of ethical decision-making because this theory recognizes the full
autonomy of every single rational agent. Thus, one must not abuse either oneself, nor
one’s fellow human beings by treating them as mere means.

Finally, Aristotle’s Virtue Theory teaches that one must always find and act on
the mesotes whether in treating oneself or any other human being. This mesotes
points to the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific moral situation,
which involves identifying the relevant feelings that are involved and being able to
manage them. It happens too often in one’s personal relationship with others, whom
one is close to, that “ feelings “ get in the way of forming meaningful, constructive
bonds.

Social Life: In the Philippine Context and in the Global Village

One’s membership in any society brings forth the demands of communal life in
terms of the group’s rules and regulations. Philippine society, for example, is made
up of many ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own possibly unique culture and set
of traditions. The demands of the nation-state, as seen in the laws of the land,
sometimes clash with the traditions of indigenous culture. One example is the issue
of land ownership when ancestral land is at stake.

Mill’s utilitarian doctrine will always push for the greatest happiness principle as
the prime determinant of what can be considered as good action, whether in the
personal sphere or in the societal realm. Thus, Filipinas cannot simply assume that
their action is good because their culture says so. Instead, the fundamental question
ought to be , “ Will this action bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number?” An individual must therefore think carefully whether her action, even if
her culture approves of it, will truly benefit everyone affected by it. The notion of
the “ greatest number “ can also go beyond the borders of one’s own perceived
territory.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, in his natural law theory, has a clear
conception off the principles that should guide the individual in her actions that affect
her larger society. Once more, human life, the care and education of children, and
 60

the promotion of truth and harmonious social living should be in the mind of an
individual when she performs actions directed to the larger whole. For Aquinas, no
harmonious social life will be possible if individuals that comprise such a society do
not value human life, telling the truth and peaceful coexistence.
Immanuel Kant argues for the use of the principles of universalizability and of
humanity as end in itself to form a person’s autonomous notion of what she ought to
do. According to Kant’s framework, if a person is to follow any of these
heteronomous laws, it must not be in any way contrary to it. Kant is not saying that a
person ought not to follow any heteronomous laws. Instead, she must make sure that
if she were to follow such a law, that she understands why it is truly the right thing to
do. More positively, citizens of a particular ought to make sure that the laws and
rules that they come up with are actually in line with what universalizability moral
duty will prescribe.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the guide to all the actions that a
person has to take, even in her dealing with the larger community of people. Virtues
such as justice, liberality, magnificence, friendliness, and rightful indignation suggest
that they are socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. A person ought ought to be
guided by them in her dealings with either the local or the wider global society.
Within the Philippines, there are around 175 ethnolinguistic groups, each with its
own language and culture, and therefore each with its own set of beliefs and
practices. Filipino workers abroad, on the other hand, perform their jobs in other
countries, and so they must balance the need for acculturation on one hand and
keeping one’s Filipino identity on the other. Temperance once again presents itself
as one Aristotelian virtue other than, justice in dealing with the other participants in
social intercourse.

The Non-Human Environment

Questions of environmental ethics, of the ethical or moral responsibilities human

beings have toward the non-human world, only appeared in the twentieth century.
Previously, most ethical theorists focused more on interhuman relations rather than
human-to-non-human relations.

In the case of utilitarianism, some scholars point out that this hedonistic doctrine
that focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human decision-making
should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasures and pains;
namely ,animals. One of the sources of animal ethics is utilitarianism. Animals
themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have reason and
free will. Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principle
covers the greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that
number should include animals. Humans are expected to make moral decisions and
must always take into account the potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on
animals. There is a general call for actions that do not just benefit humans but the
whole ecosystem as well, since it is possible that nonhuman creatures might be
harmed by neglecting the ecosystem.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk about the physical
environment and human moral responsibility to it as such, but one can try to infer
 61

from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not
produce a harmonious, peaceful society.

Lastly, according to Aristotle, one becomes a better person if she learns to epand
her vision to see beyond what is merely at close hand. One must see beyond the
satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make sure that harming the
environment for the sake of such will not eventually lead to something much worse.

A Closing that is Really an Opening

The four frameworks have proven to be some of the most influential in human
thought and should serve as an introduction to other theories or to further discussions
on moral philosophy. The more productive use of these frameworks instead is to
employ them as beginning guides to one’s further exploration into the topic of
morality. Realizing the finitude of human understanding and of the capacity to make
choices, but at the same time hoping that one’s best attempt at doing what is right
mean something in the end-these are part and parcel of making informed moral
decisions.

IV. Learning Activities

How do you relate with other members of your family and friends? What
Filipino customs do you find essential in dealing with society and the rest of the
global community?

V. Assessment

In relation to local , national and international scenarios discuss the relevance of

these concepts. You may cite the pressing issues of the time in your output.
a.) Cultural Relativism
b.) Moral Agent
c.) Ethical Responsibility
d.) Culture
e.) Environment

VI. Enrichment Activities

1. The current pandemic has taught us a lot of lessons. If a global ethic is currently
emerging, does this mean that the true meaning of morality changes over time?
Explain your answer.
2. Give your comment or reaction on the following words:
“People are taught to respect other cultures and traditions, but they also need to be
ready to criticize when the cultural practices or traditions infringe upon human rights
or justice.”

VII. Assignment
 62

Reminder: These questions are very practical in such a way that they involve issues
such as the distribution of SAP, corruption, ECQ, economic recession and
depression, insurgency etc. Your observations and honest assessment are very useful
in internalizing and understanding Ethics as a course.
These are the steps in making informed decisions when confronted with moral
problems. The steps can be summarized as follows:
1. Determine your involvement in the moral situation ( your participation in the
situation ).
2. Gather the necessary facts ( give the current situation ).
3. Identify the stakeholders ( parties involved or affected ).
4. Name all the alternative choices possible and their potential effects on all
stakeholders.
( what choices/ options may be done and the possible effects to stakeholders )
5. Identify the type of ethical issue at hand ( Is it ethical or unethical? Or is there an
ethical dilemma? )
6. Make your ethical conclusion or decision ( what ought to be done? )

II. Recall a single issue in your community such as the distribution of SAP,
corruption, ECQ, economic recession and depression, insurgency etc., and apply all
the six steps to the issue you have identified. Write down your application below:
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Step 5:
Step 6:

References

Babor, Eddie R. Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action. Rex Bookstore, 2006
 63

Bulaong, Oscar G. Jr., Calano, Mark Joseph T.,et.al. Ethics Foundations of Moral
Valuation.Rex Bookstore, 2018

L. Alexander,M Moore. “Deontological Ethics”, Nov. 21, 2007,

Stanford.libraby.sydney.edu.au Accessed August 4, 2020

Montemayor, F. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Bookstore, 2006

Combes, LM., et al. Doing Ethics: Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Mindshapers

Co., 2015

Tara Quisimundo. “ DEPED Releases Rules or Law Shielding Kids from TV

Violence.” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 July 2012,

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/230377/deped-releases-rules-or-law-shielding-kids-from-
tv-violence.Accessed August 3, 2020.

Essay Scoring Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor

5 points 4 points 3points 2 points
 64

Post Test

Ethics

I.Identification. Identify the concepts being described in each number. Write

the answer on the space before the number. ( 15 pts. )

__________1. It is referred to as the “ love for wisdom and knowledge “.

 65

__________2. A division of Philosophy that deals with the study of values.

__________3. This branch of Philosophy asks the basis of determining one’s
knowledge.
__________4. It prescribes the action to be maintained as standards or basis of
valuation.
__________5. This type of ethics reports how people make their moral valuations
without making any judgment either for or against these valuations
__________6. A situation that calls for moral valuation.
__________7. A situation where one is confronted by the choice of the act of the act
to be performed.
__________8. One is torn between choosing one of the two goods or choosing
between the lesser of two evils.
__________9. It means, one that is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative.
_________10. This theory is founded on ethical values.
_________11. It is the recognition that the individual thinking person is at the heart
of all moral valuations.
_________12. A theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all human
actions.
_________13. This prescribes that we should make our own ends, our own interests,
as the single overriding concern.
_________14. Judgments of personal approval or disapproval based on our senses.
_________15. It refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited by an
authority that requires compliance.

II.Classification. Classify the concepts and theories with their corresponding

proponents from the choices given below. Write the letters only.( 15 pts. )

A.Bentham B. Mill C. Aquinas D. Kant E. Aristotle F.

Plato

_____1. Material Cause

_____2. Deontology
_____3. Summa Theologiae
_____4. An Essay on Utilitarianism ( 1861)
_____5. Felicific Calculus
_____6. Qualitative Utilitarianism
_____7. Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals (1785).
_____8. Neoplatonic good
_____9. Efficient Cause
_____10. Theory of Life
_____11. Doctor of the Roman Catholic church
_____12.Final Cause
_____13. “ Jesus as our Savior “
_____14. Quantitative Utilitarianism
_____15. Formal Cause

III. Modified Alternative Response. Write True if the statement is correct. If the
statement is False, change the underlined word to make the statement correct.
( Score x 2 ) 10 pts.
 66

__________1. Heteronomy refers to self-law or self- legislation.

__________2. Autonomy refers to a maxim which is adopted by everyone.
__________3. Divine law directs us towards our supernatural end.
__________4. Eternal law reveals what God wills for his creation.
__________5. Law is the proper determination of our acts.

III. Essay. As a student of Ethics, cite two realizations you have learned from
each of the ff. topics: 20 pts.

a.) The Principle of the Greatest Number ( 10 pts. )

b.) Deontology ( 10 pts. )