INTRODUCTION

 
The focus of this module is the brief introduction of the ethical aspects and
scope of man’s life and his moral thinking.
Ethics as a discipline is about determining the grounds for the values with
particular and special significance to human life. In realizing the notions of
good and bad, and of what is right and wrong as the primary concerns of
ethics, some points have to be clarified:
First point: KINDS of VALUATION - There are instances when an individual
makes value judgments that are not considered ethical. Example:
Appreciating a movie, identifying one’s self with a favorite color or a tasteful
food is not ethics but more referred to as  AESTHETICS,  a sense of feeling.
Another example: The act of laughing so loud, whether it is right or wrong is
not ethical but rather, an issue of ETIQUETTE. There is however a complex
and complicated analysis of distinguishing between what is ethical and what is
not. Questions such as what is trivial and what is grave is debatable. Intense
discussions can center on fundamental questions about whether a sphere of
human activity like matters of taste or personal preferences can call for moral
judgement. Ethics is the study and understanding of ideal human behavior
and ways of thinking, thus it is an intellectual discipline belonging to
Philosophy. Morals, on the other hand, refer to specific beliefs, attitudes and
acts that people have or perform. An individual’s personal conduct is his
morals and if he falls short of such conduct, he can become immoral and his
attitude unethical. For purposes of our discourse, we can interchangeably use
the terms “ethical” and “moral”.
Third point: DESCRIPTIVE and NORMATIVE – A descriptive study of Ethics
means people make value judgments without passing upon the issue of
whether it is ethical or unethical while a normative study can be summed up
with just a question of “What could or should be the right way of doing”?
Last point: ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGMENT and DILEMMA. When the
situation calls for the weighing in of moral values, it becomes a moral issue.
When a person is compelled or confronted by choosing what act to perform, it
is called a moral decision. One who is an observer who makes an
assessment on the actions or behavior of another makes a moral judgment.
Finally, there is moral dilemma when a person in a complicated situation is
torn between choosing between the lesser of two evils.
THE WISDOM of REASONING
Ethics is interested in two questions: Why does man decide that one way of
doing is acceptable while its opposite is not? Another is, what reasons must
he give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or
wrong?                                                                                                                 
                                                                      
The fear of punishment or the desire for reward can motivate and provide man
with reasons for acting in a certain way. But beyond punishments and
rewards, it is possible for man’s moral valuation which is his decision and
judgment to be on a higher moral ground and that is to be based
on principle. Principles can be defined as rationally established and
fundamental set of core values that justifies one’s view, concept, act,
behavior, attitude and character. While people do maintain a set of principles,
the same can be subjective and even relative. As such, Ethics can turn to a
theory (a system of thoughts) to establish certain moral principles that will
become the framework in evaluating man’s reasons for making certain
decisions.
 
SOURCES of AUTHORITY
Man’s standard of values as a matter of practice, obedience and influence, is
established by higher authorities and these are:
Law – A system of rules that define and regulate the conduct of man in an
organized society. It is a guide to one’s ethical behavior but not all its
prescriptions are moral. Example (the imposition of death penalty, euthanasia,
etc ).
Religion – The idea that one is obliged to believe in his faith and obey his
own supreme being or God. As a source of authority for ethical values, this is
what we refer to as the divine command theory.        
Culture – A way of life in a certain group, community or society with its own
distinct social norms, institutions and standards of valuations. When one
speaks of ethical acceptability or unacceptability depending on his culture, we
call this cultural relativism.
  
SENSES Of SELF
The opposite of authority in the sense that man’s standard of values is
dictated by his own self and these are:     Subjectivism –The person
concerned solely determines what is good or bad to him and for him. An
example is the most common and familiar expression,” I am entitled to my
own opinion.”    
Psychological Egoism – Man is self-centered and his ego has its interests
and desires and therefore all that he must do is focus towards satisfying his
wants, needs and his own self-importance.                                         
Ethical Egoism – Man acts in a manner that seems to benefit other people
but in reality, benefits him because his overriding concern is attaining his own
end and purpose.
 
UTILITARIANISM – 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 (Bulaong,etc).   The distinctive core of this ethical
theory is based solely on the human act. The right or wrong act is determined
by the result whether the same is useful or not and whether it can give the
greater good to a lot of people. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were
among the two foremost utilitarians who learned that happiness experienced
through pleasure by the greatest number of people is intrinsically good even
at the expense of some individual rights. Utilitarianism is consequentialist.
Principle of Utility
This is a principle (by Jeremy Bentham) that says man’s actions are
determined and governed by two sovereign masters in his life and these
are pain and pleasure. The principle explains that all our actions are
motivated and dictated either and only by two ways and choices: avoid
pain or desire pleasure. Bentham provided a scale for evaluating pain and
pleasure known as felicific calculus. It is a framework that calculates the
pleasure that some actions can produce regardless of moral preferences and
values making as basis the quantity and extent of such actions.                      
Principle of the Greatest Number
This is a principle (by John Stuart Mill), arguing that utilitarianism is not all
about an individual, no matter how noble, intellectual or mighty he can be
enjoying happiness but more importantly, the happiness and pleasures of the
greatest number of people affected or influenced as a consequence of a
human act. Mill opposes single scale of pleasure for a plurality of actions, and
argued that pleasures must be distinguished qualitatively than quantitatively.
He viewed that an  excessive quantity of pleasure might result in pain and
further believe that human pleasures are qualitatively different from animal
pleasures, in as much as higher intellectual pleasures are preferable than
purely sensual appetites.                                                                                   
Justice and Moral Rights 
From the viewpoint of utilitarianism, the quality of being just and righteous, fair
and equitable is justice when it respects rights that are directed towards acts
that pursue the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Moral rights then
becomes just within the context of the principle of utilitarianism as long the
actions produce happiness that is greater than the unhappiness as a
consequence of their implementation.  According to Mill, issues about what is
just carry strong emotional import because the category of moral rights
directly associated with justice strikes at the very heart of man’s most vital
interests predicated on his right to life but which is also the right of the ‘’ many
others.’’ Thus, as citizens, cherished rights like due process of law, free
speech and choice of religion gives general happiness which the society
and government must defend and protect. Mill added further that when legal
rights are not morally justified, they ought not to be respected.
MODULE 2 – WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?
 
In its simplest and general sense, natural law is a theory in ethics and
philosophy that say human beings’ posses’ intrinsic values that govern their
reasoning and behavior. It can refer to an intuition that a person has, one that
is true to him and cannot be questioned. It is within this realm that Ethics
should be thought about in the context of Thomas Aquinas theory of natural
law which is part of his broad discourse of what is moral within the
fundamental truth of Christian
faith.                                                                                          
The Context of Aquinas’s Ethics                                                                     
Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican friar and a towering scholar of the middle
ages. His doctrine about Christian life is centered in developing the emotions,
passions and capacities given to man by God leading towards goodness that
ultimately becomes a virtue. He speaks of God, and of man’s origin through
His creation. To him, the dynamics of human life is characterized by the
pursuit of happiness which can be attained not by any good thing
created by God, but in the highest good which is God
himself.                                                                                                               
                                                                       
Another important point is that Aquinas puts emphasis on the sense of right
and wrong and that we are bound to obey it if it is informed, guided and
grounded in good morals. He called this the voice of
conscience.                   
Heritage of ancient Greek concepts about the ONE, the GOOD, and the
BEAUTIFUL     
An ancient Greek philosopher by the name of Plato defined and stated in his
work the Republic the notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent
good. His idea is that a good is one prior to all being and is even the
cause of all being. This concept of what is good to him was immortalized by
the NEOPLATONISTS (philosophers aligned with Plotinus, founder of
Neoplatonism) and has since been referred to as the Platonic idea, a classic
ethical thought that good is the source of all beings and is synonymous
with the One and the Beautiful. This neoplatonic good helped defined and
shaped a thousand years after, the central belief of Christian faith anchored
on the natural moral law as espoused by Thomas
Aquinas.                                                                                           
The Essence of Law 
Man is a rational being that possesses free will and reason which can lead to
an ethical good. But to serve this end, man cannot pursue the same for his
own good alone without regard for the good of others in the community. This
is termed the common good. The essence of the law then is that it becomes
into being as law because it is directed towards the common good.  
The Essence of Varieties  of Law       
Man recognizes the existence of a “supreme being “, the wisdom of creation
which assumes the  moving of things from the beginning to their end. There is
divine reason for all these and bears the character of law which we call the
eternal law.
On the other hand, when actions or conduct pertains to instances wherein
human beings make and implement laws in their communities, this
becomes human law.
When there are circumstances where instructions, messages or precepts
come from divine revelation, then it is called divine law.     
The Specifics of Natural Law   
Man is a unique creature but is a part of the whole cosmos. As a human
being, his natural inclination is to interact with other creations not just human,
but within the process of reason and preservation of the self good.
 According to Aquinas, among the many aspects of natural law is one
primordial necessity that stands out and that is to preserve human life. Acts
and conduct therefore that promote, develop and enhance the continuation
and all the ramifications of life is naturally good and ethically moral. He
also added that there is in the nature of man common with animals, which is
the natural inclination and desire for sexual acts, and reproduce and care for
one’s offspring. As to the question of whether any sexual engagement should
always lead to procreation, the answer is in the affirmative as any sexual act
that could not lead to offspring is considered deviant.                  
Finally, Aquinas emphasized that the defining part of human nature
is reason. He said that among the powers of our soul lies the priority of the
intellectual man, directing and commanding his senses and nutritive
capacities, as is natural for him in his exercise of reason such that his whole
self is directed towards the GOOD.    
Module 3 - Deontology and Virtue Ethics                                                       
DEONTOLOGY
Deontology is defined as a moral theory that evaluates actions that are done
because of a duty. It comes from the Greek word deon which means “being
necessary.” It refers to the study of duty and obligation and is attributed to a
German scholar and philosopher named Immanuel Kant. His main thesis
was that man has the faculty called rational will, which is the capacity to act
according to principles he himself has determined. From his viewpoint, duty is
one where man must see his fellow men as being worthy of respect and
dignity. Pain and pleasure to him, as consequences of human actions are
irrelevant.  
Rational will distinguishes man from animals.  Although both
are sentient creatures (organisms that have the ability to perceive and
navigate their external environment), and can therefore similarly react to
external stimuli and internal impulses to survive and thrive, the former has
the faculty ( inherent mental capacity) to think and construct ideas beyond his
immediate surrounding but the same is absent from the latter. Man, therefore
has this mental abstraction which results from the operations of the faculty
of reason. He can imagine and make real and concrete what are in this
imagination and the ability to do this is the basis for rational will. Animals only
act according to impulses based on their natural instincts and cannot think
and deliberate on their actions. In fact, they cannot act but can only react to
external environment and internal impulses.
Agency commonly refers to a person who is an agent of moral actions and
has the ability to discern right from wrong and can be held accountable for his
own acts. Man has the moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm and
agency is assigned to only those who can be held accountable for their acts.  
Autonomy is a property of the rational will which means self-law (self-
legislating). Example: an adult man, without any external influence, motivation
or imposition must eat and sleep. Heteronomy is the opposite of autonomy
which means the other law. Example: A child, with external influence from
parents, must eat and sleep.
The Concept of Universalizability
By way of introduction, there are generally two kinds of moral theories namely
the substantive and formal moral theories. A substantive moral theory
immediately promulgates the specific actions and identifies the particular
duties in a direct manner that should be followed by its believers. Example:
the ten commandments. A formal theory does not supply the rules or
commands right away, but instead provides a framework or criteria for
determining, on one’s own, the rules or moral commands. Example: prayers
and reflections of one’s faith and spirituality can be done either at home or the
church as long as it is a Sunday. 
Kant adopted the formal theory and called this the categorical
imperative. He said there are four elements of this imperative identified
as action, maxim, will and universal law. The action has to be formulated
and pursued as maxims that depict man’s pattern of behavior but is not as law
or moral command that binds him. Rather, they are significant “standard
operating procedures” that govern the day to day lives of man and is
a subjective principle of action. What makes these maxims universal then
is that the person adhering to and living by the precepts of the same thinks
that his personal actions are also the maxim of the rest of men in the
universe. It is according to Kant, a mental act of imagining by a person whose
idea of a maxim or set of maxims is actually followed by everyone else. This is
why Kant holds the view that this universalized maxim could never be valid as
a universal law of nature because it cuts both ways: it is consistent with
itself but also contradicting itself. Example: the act of borrowing money
(which implies returning it) but without the intention of paying it back makes no
sense. It is both consistent (the borrowing), and contradicting (the
nonpayment), all in one singular act. Universal maxim like this is rejected
because according to Kant, it is impermissible, irrational and
ultimately immoral.
In sum, Deontology has a significant contribution in our concept of ethics
because it serves the purpose of becoming man’s enlightenment
morality as opposed to paternalism, a metaphor where a father figure,
because of benevolent authority and provider of sustenance and security,
wields moral ascendancy over his dependent children. Deontology neutralizes
the pernicious influence of paternalism by providing the light of reason when
maturity and rational capacity take hold of the person’s decision-making thus
enabling him to become independent of or autonomous from the father figure.
 
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual’s
character as the key element of ethical thinking rather than the rules about the
autonomy of acts (Deontology) or the consequences of such acts
(Utilitarianism). It is an ethical framework that is concerned with
understanding the good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a
person. Plato and Aristotle were two renowned philosophers of ancient
Greece who had classic discourses about virtues. But Aristotle’s discussion of
virtue ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and the
conception of the good, for while both affirm rationality as the highest faculty
of Man that enables him to realize the very purpose of his existence, they
differ in their appreciation of reality and nature. Plato’s thinking is that reality
is outside the realm of human experience but can be grasped by man’s
intellect. The good and the truth are in the sphere
of forms and ideas transcending daily human conditions. On the other hand,
reality for Aristotle is found within man’s everyday encounter with objects of
the world and what makes nature intelligible is its character of having
both form and matter. Therefore, the good and the truth cannot exist apart
from the object and are not independent from human
experience.                                                                                                      
Happiness and Ultimate Purpose
In Aristotle’s discourse about virtue ethics, he emphasized that the highest
purpose and the ultimate good of man is HAPPINESS or what the Greeks
call eudaimonia. He took note that every act that a person does is directed
toward a particular purpose, aim or what the Greeks called telos. Every act,
every pursuit and every endeavor have a purpose or goal and the aim is
always to achieve good. He added however that man does an act not only to
achieve a particular purpose but to use and utilize the same for a higher
activity or goal, which can then be used to attain an even higher purpose and
so on. In the process, a hierarchy of purposes is formed.
This begs the question then as to what is the highest goal for Aristotle. What
goal is for him both final, self-sufficient and ultimate? Interestingly, he
answered the question by saying that such a question can be adequately
answered by older individuals because they have gone through enormous
and challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of
knowledge on what the ultimate purpose of a person is.
Virtue as Excellence
Virtue, called arete by the Greeks, is excellence in doing things in order to
achieve the highest purpose of man through the function of reason and moral
action. But to Aristotle, achieving or attainment of that excellence is not
“overnight” for to quote him, “For one swallow does not make a summer , nor
does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man
blessed and happy…”. This means that being virtuous cannot be
accomplished by a single act. 
A thought-provoking question arises as to “what exactly makes a man
excellent?” Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human
soul and therefore, man needs to understand the very structure of his human
soul which is divided into two parts: 1.) the irrational element and 2.) the
rational faculty. The irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and
appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and
providing the activity of physical growth in a person and is irrational in the
sense that it cannot be dictated by reason for it is in the nature of man to
physically develop and grow. The appetitive aspect works as a desiring
faculty of man that is processed through an impulse that naturally runs
counter to and refuses to go along with reason. Sexual urges and gluttony are
examples of this part of activity the human soul that is irrational. Unlike the
vegetative aspect however, the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to
reason. Example; marriage first before sex.  The rational element on the
other hand makes a man excellent because the rational faculty of reason
dominates his activity and thinking process. This faculty is also divided into
two categories: 1.) moral, the act of doing and 2.) intellectual, the act of
knowing. The moral part of the human soul causes man to habitually choose
good and consistently do good deeds. Thus, the constant act of choosing and
doing good forms in him a character that defines his total being.
The intellectual part of the human soul is attained through teaching. One
gains and learns wisdom through experience and knowledge by learning. It is
famously exemplified by an old saying “experience is the best teacher.”
There are two ways of by which man can attain intellectual excellence and
these are philosophic and practical.  Philosophic wisdom deals with
attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern
the universe and the general meaning of life (ex: questions about the WHY )
while practical wisdom is an excellence in knowing the right conduct in
carrying out a particular act (ex: questions about the HOW ). Aristotle
suggests that although the rational functions of a person (moral and
intellectual) are distinct from each other, it is necessary for humans to attain
the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to accomplish a morally
virtuous act. That practical wisdom of knowing the HOW must first be learned
by man before he finally understands the reasons for the WHY. For
Aristotle, man is not initially good by nature thus to attain moral goodness,
he must constantly choose and do good deeds. By so doing, it becomes
a habit for him. Therefore, moral virtue is acquired through habit as the same
is a repeated process of getting used to doing the proper acts. This is clearly
exemplified by the saying “practice makes perfect.” The results of these
repeated acts or deeds eventually forms in man his CHARACTER, a quality
that defines his person and total being.   
Aristotle’s distinction of knowing the good from determining and acting what is
good draws a sharp contrast with Socrates’s view that knowledge already
contains the ability of choice or action. For Socrates, moral goodness is
already in the realm of intellectual excellence and that knowing good implies
the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. In short, philosophic and practical
wisdom are just one and the same.
Moral Virtue and Mesotes
Mesotes, is defined as the mean (middle) between two extremes. Explained
within the context of the virtue ethics of Aristotle, there is mesotes when a
morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving his 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 the reason why a
morally virtuous person practices mesotes as a process of counterbalancing
moral excesses and or deficiencies that comes out in his personality
depending on circumstances and situations. Man has to function in a state
that his 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. But their
rightness or wrongness lies in the degree of their application in a given
situation. One can be angry with someone, but the degree and state of anger
depends accordingly with the nature of the person he is angry with. The aid of
reason dictates how humans should show different anger toward a child and
an adult. 
Aristotle further explained 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. But, 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. 
Aristotle provided some virtues with their excesses and deficiencies. Below is
a table that shows examples of these virtues with their corresponding
vices;                                                                                     

Excess Middle
Impulsiveness Self-control
Recklessness Courage
Prodigality Liberality

                        
Module 4 – The Moral and Socio-Cultural Environment
 
There is an ancient Greek saying “ Epimeleia he auto”, which in English is
translated as “ know thyself. The one who is tasked to do what is “right” and
why it is so is man. Who is he? Who one is? In response to this age-old
philosophy, a Filipino philosopher by the name of Ramon C. Reyes, writing in
his essay “Man and Historical Action”, explained that “who one is” is a cross-
point. By this he means that one’s identity is a product of many forces and
events outside of his own choosing. He identifies the four cross-points as 1)
the physical 2) the interpersonal 3) the social, and 4)
the historical. The physical cross-point are events in the past and material
factors in the present that one did not have a choice in. Man, being of a
specie known as homosapien, inherited the genetic material from his
biological parents. His body is shaped and conditioned by the given set of
environmental factors that are specific in his particular place of dwelling. All
these are not his choices. Interpersonal cross-point happens when man’s
personality, character traits and his overall ways and thinking are shaped by
his parents and how he is raised and reared from a child to adulthood.
Similarly, he is influenced and affected by people in his immediate
surroundings such as siblings, relatives, classmates, playmates and
colleagues or co-workers. The social cross-point is one in which man is
shaped by his society and culture. The last, historical cross-point are events
of the past that have historic and significant impact in the life of man. All the
four cross-points interact with and crosses over into each other that eventually
form the cycle of human life and are determinants of how acts, knowledge,
wisdom and experiences are developed and felt. 
Culture and Ethics
A saying by St. Ambrose, “when in Rome, do what the Romans do” implies
that man’s culture dictates what is right and wrong for him and that he cannot
escape from the standards, norms and institutions which his culture has
inextricably woven into his moral and social life. This generalization
of Cultural Relativism is a flawed assertion of culture as the arbiter of ethics.
Example: If Filipinos are stereotyped as very hospitable people, would that
mean that the Chinese are not?   
An American philosopher James Rachels advanced an argument against the
validity of cultural relativism in the field of ethics. He understood the concept
to mean that there is no objective truth in the realm of morality since different
cultures have different moral codes and therefore there is no one correct
moral that all cultures must follow. The implication is that each culture has its
own standard of right and wrong. Rachels questioned the logic of the concept
by pointing out that if cultural relativism is valid, 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. Example: the Jews cannot criticize the Nazi’s
plan to exterminate them because the Nazis believed they were doing the
right thing. Rachels further argues that recognizing and respecting differences
between cultures do not necessarily mean there is no such thing as objective
truth in morality. He instead insisted that though different cultures have
different ways of doing things, they may hold certain values in
common. He maintained the view that if one scrutinizes the beliefs and
practices of different cultures, however far apart they are from each other, no
culture, whether in the present world or in the past, would promote murder
instead of prohibiting it. A hypothetical culture that promotes murder would
immediately cease to exist because the members would start murdering each
other.
What is important in the relationship between culture and ethics is that man
does not wander into ethical situations blindly with the naive assumption that
ethical issues will be resolved automatically by his beliefs and traditions but
rather by being challenged to continuously work toward a fuller maturity in
ethical decision-making which leads to moral development.     
Religion and Ethics  
There are many different religions in the world but the four largest religious
groups in the world at present, based on population
are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. 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”. Many
questions arise from this assertion, hence a philosophical study of religion’s
relationship to ethics is deliberated and discussed.
The faithful (religious followers) assume that what their religion teaches
comes from either the sacred scripture (bible for Christians, Koran for
Muslims, etc.,). A critical question can then be asked as to what exactly does
a sacred scripture or religious teaching command. This is a question of
interpretation since even the same passage from a particular religious
tradition, example: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Genesis 21:24),
can have many interpretations from as many religious teachers even from
within the same groups, congregations or denominations.
One must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious teaching
when it commands its followers on what they “ought to do”. The answer is
found in a philosophical question of Plato in his dialogue Euthyphro when he
asked: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious
because it is loved by the gods?”. Philosophers later would modify the
question into a moral version: 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?
Critical minded followers might wonder why preachers would emphasize to
just follow the scriptures for God’s wisdom is beyond question. History reveals
many people twisted religious teaching that brought harm to their faithful and
to non-believers as well. An example is the Crusades in the European middle
ages where Christians followed the command of their religious leaders
resulting into the massacre of many Muslims, Jews and fellow Christians in
the name and honor of recapturing the Holy City of Jerusalem.                         
The philosophical-minded individual is therefore tasked to be critical even of
his own set of beliefs and practices and not simply to follow for the sake of
blind obedience. Questions about one’s culture and religious beliefs require
the need for growth and maturity in one’s morality, both in terms of intellect
and character. The moral agent (man) then is one who does not blindly follow
externally imposed rules but one who has a well-developed “feel” for making
informed moral decisions.  
Moral Problems 
We begin with a question: What must a morally mature individual do
when he is confronted with a moral problem?              
First step: The individual determines his level of involvement at hand. He
must identify which activity he must engage in, whether he is making a
judgment on a case that he is not involved in or if he truly needs to make a
decision in a situation that demands his action. 
Second step: The individual must establish the fact whether he is faced with
a moral situation or not. Is he truly confronted with a genuinely moral situation,
or one that merely involves a judgment in the level of aesthetics or of etiquette
and therefore is just an amoral or non-ethical question?
Third step: The individual must identify all the people who may potentially be
affected by the implications of a moral situation or by his concrete choice of
action. These people are called stakeholders in a particular case and
identifying them forces the individual to give consideration to people aside
from himself.                                                                                                       
Fourth step: The individual must also determine how the stakeholders may
be affected by whichever choice he makes in the given ethical situation, as
well as to what degree because not all stakeholders have equal stake in a
given moral case, with some  more favorably while others, more adversely
affected.                                                                                                             
Fifth step: The individual must now identify the ethical issue at hand. There
are three types of issues and these are: 1) whether a certain action is morally
right or morally wrong; 2) whether a particular action in question can be
identified with the generally accepted ethical or unethical action; 3) whether a
particular action poses an ethical dilemma. Dilemmas are ethical situations
in which there are competing values that seem to have equal
worth.                        
Final step: The individual must make his ethical conclusion or decision
whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with
a concrete action he must actually perform.
The responsible moral individual must realize that cultivating his capacity for
mature moral choice is a continuing journey in his life. Man must continue to
manage his reason and passions to respond in the best way possible to the
kaleidoscope of moral situations that he finds himself
in.                                                                          
Social Life
In The Philippine Context
Man’s membership in a society almost always is characterized by his
adherence for the rules and regulations of communal life in that society. But
an ethical question arises when the expectations of a particular society come
into conflict with his most fundamental values. The Philippine society is made
up of many ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own unique culture and set of
traditions. The demands of the nation-state can sometimes clash with the
traditions of indigenous culture. An example is the issue of land ownership
when ancestral land is at stake. Can members of an indigenous community
lay claim to a land that they do not own technically because they do not have
a legal title for it? Can the habal-habal means of transportation in the far-flung
barangays of rural areas in the countryside be legitimately registered as lawful
motor vehicle transport in accordance with Philippine laws? Is the
phenomenon of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW’S) an ethical issue as they
must balance the need for acculturation (assimilation to a different culture)
on one hand and keeping one’s Filipino identity on the other? Contemporary
social issues that have something to do with dissemination of “post truth”,
“alternative facts”, and “fake news” in the realm of Philippine social media are
rightful targets of a Thomistic criticism of what ought to and not ought to be
allowed in  the Filipino’s dealings with each other. 
 In the end, a Filipino society is unique in the sense that it is a blend of
diversity and homogeneity. Forces of assimilation have constantly worked to
overcome cultural differences between various regional and ethnic groups
and the Filipinos are still in their journey, searching for an authentic national
identity.