PRELIM HANDOUT

CRS4- PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARD

Ethics is derived from the Greek word ethicos or that which pertains to ethos the English translation of
which is “custom”, “characteristic way of acting”, or “habit”. The Latin equivalent is mos, mores from which come
the word moral and morality Ethics – Origin. It was the Greek Philosophers who started the study of Ethics.
Among those notable are:
a. Socrates – “knowing what is right is doing what is right”; a person can act correctly and well if he knows
what is a good life; evil is done out of ignorance.  Socrates was regarded as the Father of moral
Philosophy
b. Plato – the life of reason is the happiest and the best form of life; if one wants to be happy, one should be
a harmonious man: a man of virtue; ethics is a matter of nature --- virtues are innate to us 
c. Aristotle – ethics is a matter of planning, purpose and decision: a matter of character. Aristotle has greatly
influenced ethical thinking with three important

Definition of Ethics
There are several definitions of Ethics. Ethics is defined as:
 The practical science of the morality of human conduct.
 The philosophical science dealing with the morality of human acts.
 The science of the morality of human acts.
 The study of man as a moral being, one who is rationally able to distinguish between right and wrong.
 Ethics is concerned with morality, the quality which makes an act good or evil, correct or wrong – Ethics is
concerned with the norms of human behavior
At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their
lives.

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.
Ethics covers the following dilemmas:
 how to live a good life
 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 Moral decisions - what is good and bad?

Our concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and cultures. They infuse debates on
topics like abortion, human rights and professional conduct.

Approaches to ethics
Philosophers nowadays tend to divide ethical theories into three areas: metaethics, normative ethics and
applied ethics.
1. Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral judgement. It looks at the origins and meaning of ethical
principles.
2. Normative ethics is concerned with the content of moral judgements and the criteria for what is right or
wrong.
3. Applied ethics looks at controversial topics like war, animal rights and capital punishment.

The Art of Correct Living

Morality is not only necessary to a person but also to a society “Without civic morality, communities perish;
without personal morality their survival has no value”(Bertrand Russell). When people do not accept the rule of
law society crumbles. Everyone is expected to be decent and trustworthy; deviating from it causes chaos and
disarray.  It is a practical science. It is beneficial only when its truths are put into practice as rules of conducts.  
Ethics is the art of correct living for Ethics teaches us how we may put order and harmony in our lives.  Art
provides what is orderly and harmonious in an art work, Ethic does the same for our everyday live.
Whoever can produce happiness has mastered the rudiments of the art of living. To live rightly is to make a
constant study of self. The acquisition of the art consists in learning to adapt inclination and desire to natural
requirements and real conditions; to discriminate with reference to the expenditure of vitality and to so conserve
natural forces that, after the ordinary routine work is accomplished, the mind is still left buoyant and happy. The
real art of living is based upon the possession of that knowledge which enables us to hope, not despair; to rejoice,
not mourn; to look forward, not backward.

Mere trifles suffice to make some happy. Others require the transforming influence that comes from daily
contact with sunny natures. The characters we develop and the kinds of lives we live depend largely upon the
choice made between yielding to adversity and seeking to live above it.

Some believe in fate, around which are grouped many superstitions, and they are content to drift with the
current. Happily for America and American institutions, this subservience to destiny is not a dominating influence.
If it is wise to recognize fixed laws for the physical and spiritual being, then it is wise to deliberately study such
laws and from them learn the causes of individuality. It is only in this way that we may be able to discern our
characters, and, from the study of them, learn how to make the best of life; learn to maintain an existence which
shall bring happiness to ourselves and others. It is the life we really live, not the life we appear to live, that is to be
considered. When we learn to move among people, to live in their society, to transact our business affairs, to
practice our economies, to perform our labors, to carry on our social and commercial interests, and not only keep
ourselves free from any stumbling, but preserve and hold in view a high ideal of human existence, then we shall
have learned the majesty of true manhood and true womanhood. We will not only have exemplified in our lives the
real art of living, but will embody in them some of that glory which transfigures humanity.

Ethics and Religion

When academics talk about ethics, they are typically referring to decisions about right and wrong. As noted
above, the study of ethical behavior goes back thousands of years to ancient Greece. Ethics are a branch of
philosophy that investigates questions such as “What is good and what is bad?” “Is it just to reward one group with
more benefits than another?” “What action should an individual or organization take if a client mistreats
him/her/it?” In practice, ethics are decision-making tools that try to guide questions of human morality, by defining
concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc.

Often, religion and ethics are treated as the same thing, with various religions making claims about their
belief systems being the best way for people to live, actively proselytizing and trying to convert unbelievers, trying
to legislate public behaviors based around isolated religious passages, etc. Of course, not all religions are the
same, some are more liberal than others and some more conservative, but in general, all religious traditions
believe that their faith represents a path to enlightenment and salvation.

By contrast, ethics are universal decision-making tools that may be used by a person of any religious
persuasion, including atheists. While religion makes claims about cosmology, social behavior, and the “proper”
treatment of others, etc. Ethics are based on logic and reason rather than tradition or injunction. As Burke
suggests of the “hortatory Negative” of the “Thou Shalt Not”s found in many religious traditions that tell people
how to behave by “moralizing," ethics include no such moralizing. If something is bad, ethics tells us we should
not do it, if something is good, obviously there is no harm in doing it. The tricky part of life, and the reason that we
need ethics, is that what is good and bad in life are often complicated by our personal circumstances, culture,
finances, ethnicity, gender, age, time, experience, personal beliefs, and other variables. Often the path that looks
most desirable will have negative consequences, while the path that looks the most perilous for an individual or
organization will often result in doing the most good for others. Doing what is “right” is a lot harder than doing what
is expedient or convenient.

Can we be Ethical without being Religious?

A longstanding debate has been whether ethics plays a role in religion. Most religions have an ethical
component. Ethics, which is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is
significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. Ethics deals with ideas such as
Right, Good and Duty and these concepts were discussed in ancient Greece by Plato and Aristotle in the 3rd &
4th Century BCE.

A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held
by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral codes. The ancient Greeks called it eudaimonia
or happiness. The ancient Greeks believed happiness was brought about by living one’s life in accordance with
virtue – positive traits of character. Virtue in the highest sense, in an adult who has been brought up well, will not
just involve good personal habits such as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual
virtue. The essence of virtue is in the wholeness of the person brought about by integrity.

The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a basic requirement of ethics. We
ought to be virtuous and do our duty, he said. Kant believed virtue should be rewarded by happiness, and it would
be intolerable if it were not so. Since it's clear that virtue often does go unrewarded in the present life, Kant argued
that the soul must be immortal. Virtue must receive its due recompense in a future life, and there must be a God
guaranteeing that it is so rewarded. The existence of God and the immortality of the soul were what Kant called
the postulates of practical reason - the assumptions without which, so he claimed, ethics and a moral life would
not be possible.

Revealed religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam do prescribe some clear and
unambiguous rules to follow. If their scriptures were authored or dictated by God, then the commands in them are
God's own commands. They cannot be changed if human circumstances change or ethical ideas progress.

If religion has a role in moral decision-making, then what should be that role? In America, for many
individuals, their religion is a centrally defining characteristic of who they are, such that they would be nearly
incapable of making ethical decisions independently of their religious beliefs.

Further, some of our most basic moral sentiments are directly connected to religious ideology. For
example, most people agree that things like murder and adultery are always wrong, regardless of circumstances.
Most major world religions echo these sentiments, and it can be argued that the ancient codes of conduct these
traditions embody are actually the original source of our social intuitions. At a minimum, we do seem to regard
religion as a good source of basic moral guidance, making it unwise to argue that there ought to be no connection
between religion and ethics.

The link between religion and morality is best illustrated by the Golden Rule. Virtually all of the world’s
great religions contain in their religious texts some version of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would wish
them do unto you”. In other words, we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. This is the basic
ethic that guides all religions. If we do so, happiness will ensue.

Ethics and Law

Ethical behaviour is not always best defined within the confines of the law. Ethics and the law are not
identical. Typically, the law tells us what we are prohibited from doing and what we are required to do. It is said
that the law sets minimum standards of behaviour while ethics sets maximum standards.

This seems to be changing as the law tries to impose broader obligations in relation to business and
corporate activity, such as with directors’ duties and best interest obligations for financial advice. Yet legal duties
and ethical duties still do not always correspond.

Something may be legal but we may consider it unacceptable. And we may consider something right but it
may not be legal. Many companies are facing a public backlash for not paying adequate tax in a number of
jurisdictions. While this may not be an illegal activity, it is considered wrong and we are looking to the law to make
sure it does not allow it.

In other instances, what has long been an acceptable thing to do may have been made illegal in an effort
to change cultural practices that disadvantage or endanger certain groups. In India, seeking, giving or accepting a
dowry is now illegal, and child marriage has been outlawed in many jurisdictions.

But throughout history we also have instances where laws that are considered unjust are disobeyed in an
effort to change them. This occurred with civil rights activist Rosa Parks and the racial segregation laws in the US.

A key issue to consider in relation to ethics and the law is whether the law is adequate as a guide for our
personal and professional lives.

"The law sets minimum standards of behaviour while ethics sets maximum standards."
 Ethics provides us with guides on what is the right thing to do in all aspects of life, while the law generally
provides more specific rules so that societies and their institutions can be maintained. Ethics engages our thinking
and also our feelings, including those of disgust and guilt.

The law does not tell us what to do in relation to many of the dilemmas and decisions we have to make in
life. While we think obeying the law is an important basis for role models in our life, we consider other traits such
as benevolence and empathy as more important in characterising someone as a good person.

Professional accountants, like everyone else, have legal and ethical duties. Compliance with the law, while
paramount, does not extinguish the duty to act in the public interest and in accordance with the ethical principles
of the profession.

Further, businesses and other organisations, which are increasingly considered citizens of society, are
required and expected to not only comply with the law, but to be ethical. We increasingly demand that they are
good corporate citizens. Then we have the added complication that the law has not only a letter, it also has a
spirit, which demands a commitment to ethics and, particularly, fairness.

Doing what you have the right to do – as in doing something that is not illegal – is not always identical to
doing what is right. That goes for both natural and legal “persons”. We are becoming increasingly intolerant of
businesses that are not doing anything against the letter of the law, but against its spirit.

Professional Ethics

Professional ethics encompass the personal and corporate standards of behavior expected by
professionals. Professionals and those working in acknowledged professions exercise specialist knowledge and
skill. How the use of this knowledge should be governed when providing a service to the public can be considered
a moral issue and is termed professional ethics.

It is capable of making judgments, applying their skills, and reaching informed decisions in situations that
the general public cannot because they have not attained the necessary knowledge and skills. One of the earliest
examples of professional ethics is the Hippocratic oath to which medical doctors still adhere to this day.

Most professionals have internally enforced codes of practice that members of the profession must follow
to prevent exploitation of the client and to preserve the integrity and reputation of the profession. This is not only
for the benefit of the client but also for the benefit of those belonging to that profession. Disciplinary codes allow
the profession to define a standard of conduct and ensure that individual practitioners meet this standard, by
disciplining them from the professional body if they do not practice accordingly. This allows those professionals
who act with a conscience to practice in the knowledge that they will not be undermined commercially by those
who have fewer ethical qualms. It also maintains the public’s trust in the profession, encouraging the public to
continue seeking their services.

The Human Acts

UNDERSTANDING HUMAN ACTS

Human acts (lahat ng kilos mo) are actions that proceed from the deliberate free will of man. In a broader
perspective, the term human acts refer to any activity performed by man. This activity could either be physical,
spiritual, internal, or external. Moral philosophy (yung mga pinagisipan at kusang loob na ginawa), however,
treats the term human acts not in its broader but in its stricter meaning. Moral Philosophy, therefore, understands
human acts as actions that are proper only to man. These actions are those which man does not share with the
brutes for human acts are rational and willed acts.

Three-fold Elements of Human Acts

1. Knowledge
2. Intent- ano ang intent mo
3. Voluntariness- freedom
Dapat ito ay lagging kumpleto
 HUMAN ACTS

It is performed by a person who is acting knowingly, freely and wilfully. These actions are deliberate,
intentional or voluntary. These are differentiated from acts of man which are instinctive and are not under
the control of the free will.

Attributes of Human Acts

Human act is done knowingly. The doer is conscious and aware of the reason and the consequences of
his actions. Every normal person of age is presumed to act knowingly. Children below the age of reason, the
senile and the insane are considered incapable of moral judgment.

Human act is done freely. The doer acts by his own initiative and choice without being forced to do so by
another person. An action done under duress is not considered voluntary.

Human act is done wilfully. The doer consents to the act, accepting it as his own and assumes
accountability for its consequences.

Moral Accountability

Human acts, being voluntary acts are accountable acts. Actions are attributed on the doer as its principal
cause and therefore deserving of either rewards or punishments.

Subject of Human Acts

The subject of a human act is any person who is capable of acting intelligently and freely. Business
organizations, institutions, associations or unions which are constituted by law as juridical person are also subject
of human acts.

Kinds of Human Acts

 Elicited Acts (pagnanasa/ paghahanagad) – those performed by the Will but are not bodily externalized (no
external manifestation)
 Commanded Acts( paghangad na may pagkilos) – those mental and bodily actions performed under the
command of the Will

Elicited Acts examples

 Wish – the tendency of the Will towards an object without considering whether it is attainable or not
Wish and hope is different
 Intention – the tendency of the will towards an object which is attainable without necessarily committing
oneself to get it
 Consent – the acceptance of the will to carry out the intention pinandigan
 Election – the selection of the will of those means necessary to carry out the intention pagpili
 Use – the command of the will to make use of the means elected to carry out the intention pinili
 Fruition – the enjoyment of the will due to the attainment of the intention naging bunga

Commanded Acts

 Internal action-Those performed mentally such as reasoning, recalling, imagining, and reflecting
 External action- Those performed bodily, such as walking, dancing, talking and writing

Voluntariness: Its importance to ethics

Ethics deals with the study of human acts (voluntary acts of man). It is the amount or degree of voluntariness
present in an act which determines the amount or degree of responsibility and this in turn will determine the
amount of punishment, if any, to be meted out.

 Direct Voluntary Act -when the act is intended for its own sake, either as a means or as an end
Example: He who intends to go to a party in order to drink with friends wills both the going to the party and the
drinking with friends. Both acts, therefore, are directly voluntary.

 Indirect Voluntary Act- an act which is not intended for its own sake but with merely follows as
a regrettable consequence of an action directly willed. It refers to an act which is desired not as an end in itself
but as a foreseen effect or consequences of an act. It also refers to an act which is the foreseen consequence
of another act directly intended.
Ang indirect ay naging resulta ng direct
Example: Throwing precious cargoes from a sinking boat to save lives of passengers. Here the throwing and
losing of the cargoes is not desired or intended. It comes as a consequence of saving lives of passengers.

When is the agent responsible for the evil effect of a cause directly willed?

 If the agent foresee the evil effect, at least in a general way;

 If the agent is free to refrain from doing that which is the cause of the evil effect; and
 If the agent knows that he is morally bound not to do that which is the cause of the evil effect.
Example: A person committed suicide by throwing himself down from the 14th floor of a building. However,
instead of falling on the ground, he fell on an old man and the old man died instantly. Is the person who wanted to
commit suicide responsible for the death of the old man?

 Did he directly intend to kill the old man?

 Did he foresee the evil effect of the act (suicide) i.e. the death of the old man?
 Can the person refrain from committing suicide – which is the cause of the death of the old man?
 Is the person morally responsible for the death of the old man?

Modifiers of Human Act

A voluntary act is under the control of the intellect and will of a person however there are factors that may
influence the intellect and the will so that actions are not perfectly voluntary The Moral Axiom is: “The Greater the
knowledge and the freedom, the greater the voluntariness and therefore the accountability”.

Ignorance- kamangmangan
The absence of knowledge which a person ought to possess .Everyone normal person who has attained
the age of reason approximately seven years old is expected to know the general norms of proper conduct and
behaviour.

Types of Ignorance

1. Vincible Ignorance – one which can easily be corrected through ordinary diligence. Not knowing time or
your seatmate’s name. kamangmangan na pwede remedyuhan

2. Invincible ignorance – the person is either not aware of his state of ignorance or being aware of it does not
have the means to rectify such ignorance A waiter who served contaminated food because he is not aware.

3. Affected ignorance – a vincible ignorance which is intentionally kept in an effort to escape responsibility.
An employee who refuses to heed the instruction of his supervisor

Principles of Ignorance (effect accountability)

1) Invincible Ignorance renders an act involuntary - a person is not liable or cannot be culpable if he is
not aware of his ignorance or when there is no means of rectifying his ignorance
 2) Vincible Ignorance does not destroy but lessens voluntariness and the corresponding
accountability over the act - when a person becomes aware of one’s ignorance, he/she has the moral obligation
to rectify it- and to act with this is a form of imprudence

3) Affected Ignorance though it decreases voluntariness, increases the accountability over the
resultant act, it interferes intellect, decrease voluntariness - it is willed to persist, increases accountability, refusing
to rectify ignorance is malicious and malice is graver if ignorance is used as an excuse for not doing the right
thing.

Passion

Either tendencies towards desirable objects (positive emotions like love, desire, delight, hope, bravery etc)
or tendencies away from undesirable or harmful things (negative emotions like horror, sadness, hatred, despair,
fear, anger etc)

Types of Passion (related to Action)

1) Antecedent Passions - precedes the act. It predisposes a person to act before

2) Consequent Passions - those that are intentionally aroused and kept, voluntary in cause; the result of
the will playing the strings of emotion after

Principles of Passion effect

1) Antecedent Passions do not always destroy voluntariness but they diminish accountability for the
resultant act. They weaken the will power without obstructing freedom completely. Therefore, crimes of passion
are always voluntary although accountability is diminished because it interferes with the freedom of the will

2) Consequent Passions do not lessen voluntariness but may even increase responsibility. Consequent
passions are direct results of the will which fully consents to them instead of subordinating them to its control.

Fear

It is the disturbance on the mind of the person being confronted by an impending danger or harm to
himself, to his loved ones or to his property. One is compelled to decide to perform an act so as to avoid threat of
future or imminent evil

2 Types of Fear

 Act done with fear (ginawa ng may takot) -Certain actions which by nature are dangerous or risky. In these
cases, fear is a normal response to danger. These actions are voluntary because the doer is in full control
of his faculties and acts in spite of fear. Fear here is an instinct for self-preservation (we even fear new
experiences or situations) ex. Being left alone in a strange place, being asked to speak before a group of
people .

 Act out of fear or because of fear (ginawa dahil sa takot). Fear here becomes a positive force compelling a
person to act without careful deliberation. Fear modifies the freedom of doing, inducing the person to act in
a certain predetermined manner, even without his full consent • Ex. A child – studies/reads his books – out
of fear of his mother • A man – stops smoking – fear of contracting cancer

Principles of Fear

 Acts done with fear are voluntary - acting in spite of his fear and is in full control of himself
 Acts done out of fear are simply voluntary although conditionally involuntary
a. simply voluntary -person remains in control of his faculties
 b. conditionally involuntary -if it were not for the presence of something feared, the person would not act
or would act in another way. Intimidating or threatening as person with horror is an unjust act. Legally
speaking, acts done out of fear are invalid acts • Ex. Contract – made out of fear – voidable – later be
annulled
 Acts done because of intense fear or panic are involuntary panic obscures the mind in this mental state,
the person is not expected to think sensibly.
1. Lalaban
2. Flight/ tatakbuhan
3. freeze

Habit

A permanent inclination to act in a certain way lasting readiness and facility born of frequently repeated
acts or for acting in a certain manner. It acquires the role of second nature; moves a person to perform certain
acts with relative ease

 Voluntary Habits - those caused by the repetition of voluntary acts

 Involuntary Habits- a habit becomes such if the will is resolved to remove it and there is a struggle to
overcome it

Principles of Habit

 Actions done by force of habit are voluntary in cause, unless a reasonable effort is made to counteract the
habitual inclination.
 Bad Habits are voluntary in cause because they are results of previously willed acts done repeatedly. As
long as the habits are not corrected, evil acts done by force of habit are voluntary and accountable can be
not accountable. If a person decides to fight his habit. For as long as the effort towards this purpose
continues, actions resulting from such habit may be regarded as acts of man because the cause of such
habit is no longer expressly desired

Violence

Any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the purpose of compelling the said person to
act against his will Ex. Bodily torture, maltreatment, mutilation, etc.

Principles of Violence

1) External actions or commanded actions performed by a person subjected to violence, to which reasonable
resistance has been offered, are involuntary and are not accountable. Active resistance should always be offered
to an unjust aggressor. If resistance is impossible and there is a serious threat to one’s life, a person confronted
by violence cab offer intrinsic resistance

2) Elicited acts, or those acts done by the will are not subjected to violence and are therefore voluntary

Will
A spiritual faculty – therefore, not within the reach of violence