gt

GEC 09
ETHICS

1
Chapter 1:

THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN

EXISTENCE
(Week 1-2)

A seed will only become a flower if it gets sun and water.

-- LOUIS GOTTSCHALK

OVERVIEW:

This module will examine the basic concepts in

ethics. It discusses its meaning and definitions as well as
the interplay of ethics to religion and law.
It explores various domains of valuation in order to
distinguish what makes a particularly grave type of
valuation a moral or ethical one. It also explores a number of problematic ways of
thinking ethics; some give a too simplistic answer to the questions of our grounds or
foundations for moral valuation, while others seem to dismiss the possibility of ethics
altogether.

OBJECTIVES:

The student should be able to:

 Recall rules they have to follow.
 Explain the ethical dimension of human existence in relation to value, source
of authority and sense of the self.

DISCUSSION:

Are you the type of person who usually ‘does the

right thing’?

How do you know what the ‘right thing’ is?

Rules in Basketball
1) Basketball is a game in which five players from each team play at a time on the
basketball court.
2) The aim of the players to score a basket by putting the ball inside the hoop
elevated 10 ft. above the ground.

2
 3) The team with the ball in possession is the team on the offence, and the
opposite one is the team on defense.
4) Once the offensive team has the ball, they have 24
seconds to shoot it towards the basket. If It fails to
do so, the team on defense is awarded the ball.
5) There can be a total of 12 players on the team
roster, but only five can play at a time.
6) The game of basketball consists of four quarters of
10 minutes each, and if scores are tied at the end
of it, there is a five minutes’ extension called
“overtime”.
7) The scoring rules are simple. If you shoot from behind the arc, you will get three
points whereas shot from inside the arc receives two points. Also, each free
throw is worth a single point.
8) A player playing on the court can be substituted from the players on the bench
by the coach. A coach can make an unlimited number of substitutions.

Why rules are important to social being?

A set of rules in any games is a prescribed guide for conduct, telling you how
to proceed with your next course of action. Rules, rules, rules! A game is only as good
as its rules, and how well we play the game is defined by how well we follow the rules.
The rules of the game are meant to provide a fair contest and to protect the safety of
the participants.
For as long as we are living, we have been following rules.

Why are there so many rules?

There are many people that don’t like following the rules because they
represent some kind of restrictions. However, in reality, life can’t be placed in order
without rules. Without rules and regulations as we know them, modern civilization
would definitely plunge itself into chaos.
For example, if everyone could simply do what they want in a classroom, do
you think that much learning would take place? Is it an ideal environment for learning?
A classroom without rules would be downright chaotic.

What are Rules?

Rules are set of guidelines which has been established in all countries and
communities and has been accepted by all.
The types of rules can differ from one country or community to another. The
rule differences are affected by factors like beliefs, social interactions, policies, and the
type of government. Violators are dealt with according to the penalties that come with
the violation of the rules.
Therefore, rules are a beneficial tool to guide and monitor the interactions
between the members of the society.
There are rules that are considered informal like the ones that are set in a home
or schools. Breaking these guidelines will result in consequences like being grounded
or detention. On the other hand, there are codified rules and are expected to be
followed by every member of the community. Breaking these regulations will have
more serious consequences like going to jail or paying a fine.

3
What Is Ethics? Exercise #1
Think about a
Ethics is about matter such as the good significant decision that you
thing that we should pursue and the bad thing the have made that had an effect
we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or (either for good or bad) on the
should act and the wrong ways of acting it is about lives of other people. This
what is acceptable and unacceptable in human could be a decision about
behavior. It may involve obligations that we are changing a job, moving home,
expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required responding to a dilemma,
to respect, or ideas that we are encouraged to meet. helping somebody who was in
Ethics is about determining the grounds for the difficulty, etc. How did you
values with particular and special significance to arrive at your decision? Was
human life. your decision based explicitly
on ideas of what was right and
wrong? Try to examine and
Clarifications and Terminology record precisely the
justifications for your decision.
I. Kinds of Valuation Can you identify any
There are instances when we make value underlying principles or rules
judgement that are not considered to be part of which you used to reach your
ethics. For instance, I could say that this new movie decision? Examples of such
I had just seen was a "good" one because I enjoyed underlying principles or rules
it, or a song I had just heard on the radio was a might include: ‘I should do the
“bad" one because it had an unpleasant tone, but best thing for my career in the
these are not part of a discussion of ethics. t may long run.’ ‘It is OK to tell
have an opinion as to what is the "right" dip someone a lie if it prevents
(sawsawan) for my chicken barbecue, or I may someone from being hurt by
maintain that it is "wrong" to wear a leather vest over the truth.’ ‘I should always help
a Barong Tagalog, and these are not concerns of someone in difficulty.’
ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domain of aesthetics. The word
"aesthetics" is derived from the Greek word aesthetics ("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. 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 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 my indignation and shock
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 a discussion of ethics. This could
also be when learning how to play basketball. I am instructed that it is against the rules

4
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
"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
life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters that concern
human welt-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in
discussions of ethics. However, this general description is only a starting point and will
require further elaboration.

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 or trivial is debatable, and sometimes some of the most heated
discussions in ethics could be on the fundamental question of '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?

The distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not always
so clearly defined. The questions of what is grave or trivial is debatable., and
sometimes some of the most heated discussions on ethics could be on the
fundamental question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this
discussion. Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his girlfriend is simply showing
bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral condemnation?

II. Ethics and Morals

Second point of clarification is on the use of the words “ethics” and “morals”.
Morals may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to
describe acts that people perform. Sometimes individual’s personal conduct is referred
to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as
immoral. Ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Acceptable and
unacceptable behaviors are generally described as ethical and unethical.

The terms such as "moral judgment" or "moral reasoning," which suggest a

more rational aspect. The term “ethics" can be spoken of as the discipline of studying
and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics 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; and media ethics for writers and reporters).

Therefore, various thinkers and writer; posit a distinction between the terms
"moral" and "ethics" and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no

5
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

III. Descriptive and Normative

Third point is to distinguish between normative and descriptive study of ethics.
Descriptive study of ethics reports how people make their moral valuations without
making any judgement either for or against these valuations. Normative study as often
done in philosophy or moral theology engages questions: what could or should be
considered as the right way of acting? It prescribes what we ought to maintain as our
standards or bases for moral valuations

IV. Issue, Decision, Judgement, And Dilemma

Final point is for moral valuation called moral issue. This is a matter of ethics
insofar as it involves the questions of respect for one’s property. “Issue” is referred to
those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inconsiderable
debate. “Moral decision” is when one is placed in a situation and confronted by the
choices of what act to perform. “Moral judgement” is when a person is an observer
who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of someone. 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 the lesser of two evils is “moral dilemma.”

6
Reasoning

What reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way

of acting is either right or wrong?

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite 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 like “I did not cheat on the 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.” 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 is “Is this
reason good enough? The promise of rewards and fear of punishments can certainly
motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness and
wrongness of a certain way of acting or of good and bad in particular pursuit. Is it
possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or
unacceptable?

I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating.

I make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a
better grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgment
of praising her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the
question can be asked: Why?

Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial

discussion of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to
another level of thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific
situation, going beyond Whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of
cheating (or not doing so). In Other words, our thinking may take on a level of
abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular situation and arriving at a
statement like, "Cheating is wrong: by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this
way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation—our
decisions and judgments—to be based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that
cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and
validity of testing. From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds
by which one justifies and maintains her 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 and that cheating is, therefore, wrong?
Returning to the case of fraternity hazing where we started this chapter, why is it wrong
to cause another person physical injury or to 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.

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

principles. It can be referred also as framework, a structure through which we can
evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgement.

7
Sources of Authority

I. Law

Law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. Can one simply identify ethics with the
law? The law does not tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from
performing acts that we should not do. It cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to
avoid.

We recognize that there are many acts that we immediately consider unethical
(e.g., murder or theft), which we also know are forbidden by law. Furthermore, the law
is enforced by way of a system of sanctions administered through persons and
institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of
ethics has the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and
applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say,
"Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the law says."

However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that,
generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining
here is a more controversial one: the more radical claim that one can look to the law
itself in order to determine what is right or wrong. But the question is: can one simply
identify ethics with the law?

One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us
what we Should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should
not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to
avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective
of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we
could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law?

II. Religion

“Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your religion says.” Love the Lord You
God, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Forgive those who sinned against you.

There are problems with it:

 We realize the presence of a multiplicity of religion because each faith demands
differently from its adherents which could result in conflicting ethical standards.
 It is a problem when one requires the believer to clarify her understanding of
the connection between ethics and the Divine. Generally speaking, it is a good
thing for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular religion.
The calling into question of the divine command theory is not a calling into
question of one’s belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s
faith. It is an invitation to consider whether there may be more creative and less
problematic ways of seeing the connection between the faith and ethics, rather
than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded
by God.

8
 In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised as to
how one is supposed to define "holiness." Euthyphro puts forward the idea that what
is holy is loved by the gods. Socrates calls this into question by asking for the following
clarification: Is it holy only because it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in itself and that
is why it is loved by the gods? The relevance of these questions to our discussion
becomes clear if rephrased this way: Is it the case that something is right only because
God commanded it, or is it the case that something is right in itself and that is why God
commanded it?

If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it
the case that this is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in itself wrong,
and that is the reason why God commanded it? If we were to accept that it is wrong to
take another's life because God commanded, it. we are left with the difficult conclusion
that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing. It is only because God said so—Thou
shall not kill”—that we consider such an act wrong. It would seem then that there is
something arbitrary about it all, in the sense that God could will whatever He wants.
On that basis and nothing further, we have the distinction between right from wrong.
As a further disturbing thought, we may find an occasion wherein we could believe that
God is suddenly commanding us to do otherwise—that killing might now become
acceptable. History reveals many sad instances of people believing that God so wills
it, allowing them to kill their fellow human beings in His name. The Crusades of the
Middle Ages are a tragic case in point. Can we be satisfied with this idea that the divine
will could be arbitrary?
If, on the other hand, we were to accept that killing is in itself wrong, then we
acknowledge that perhaps there are standards of right and wrong that we can refer to
independently of God. But if this is the case, then we actually do not obey a command
because God commanded it, but are looking for those objective standards of right and
wrong, to which God simply concurs. One would not even have to think in terms of
obeying God—or even believing in Him—in order to abide by such ethical standards.

Having said this, we maintain that, generally speaking, it is a good thing for a
person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine
command theory demands more than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense
of right and wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual problem we have seen

9
and the practical difficulties of simply basing ethics on the divine command are reasons
enough for us to wonder whether we have to set this way of thinking aside. Now, let
us clarify this point: Our calling into question of the divine command theory is not a
calling into question of one’s belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one's
faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there may be more creative and
less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than
simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

III. Culture

There is a wide diversity of how different people believe it is proper to act. What
is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to or that it is say dependent on one’s
culture, this is cultural relativism. It conforms to what we experience, which is the reality
of the differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations. By taking one’s culture
as the standards, we are provided a basis for our valuations. This teaches us as well
to be tolerant of others from different cultures. In turn, our own culture’s moral code is
neither superior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are
appropriate and applicable to us.

Criticisms of cultural relativism:

 Reality of difference. Different cultures have different moral codes and we
cannot say that any one moral code is the right one.
 We are not in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices of
another culture.
 We are not in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices of
even our own culture.
 We cannot maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single,
clearly-defined substance or as something fixed and already determined.

Is my culture "Filipino"? What if I identify more with a smaller subset within this
group, if, for example, I am Igorot? Is this then my culture? Why not go further and
define my culture as being Kankana-ey rather than Ibaloi? Is this then my culture? The
point here precisely is the question: What am I supposed to take as "my culture"?

We can think of many other examples that reflect the same problem. Let us say
that my father is from Pampanga and my mother is from Leyte, and I was brought up
in Metro Manila: What is my culture? On one hand, let us say that my father is American
and my mother is Filipina, and I was brought up in San Diego, California, but I am
currently studying in a university in the Philippines: What am I supposed to take as "my
culture"?
In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined
culture
gives way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call into question
an idea like cultural relativism which only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-
cut notion
Of what can be defined as my culture,

We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a

problem in our study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical
thought. On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, that is,
urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior to another. Such humility,
however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical discernment
that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural
relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values we

10
may wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us.
It keeps us from exploring whether there are values that are shared between cultures;
it keeps us from comparing and judging—either positively or negatively—the
valuations that are made by different cultures. As previously mentioned, this presumes
that we can determine culture in the first place, which becomes increasingly
questionable in a transcultural world.

Senses of the Self

One should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself what the standards
of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards.

Theories about ethics:

1. Subjectivism
The individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong.

“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 instances, 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. A bigoted racist has an opinion against anyone who is dark skinned, an
anti-Semite has an opinion against Jews, and a misogynist has an opinion against
women. We realize that these opinions are highly problematic because there is no
basis for considering any of these groups of people as inferior. We would rightly be
indignant about an employer who pays his female employees less than the male
employees, simply because he is of the opinion that women are inferior to men. But
isn't he entitled to his own opinion? 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.

2. Psychological egoism

“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already
motivated by self-interest.”

This theory describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. It does not
direct one act in any particular way.it points out that there is already an underlying
basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions
are geared toward satisfying these interests. “I go for a walk and do some window
shopping in the mall because I enjoy that.” We do things in pursuit of our own self-
interest all the time. We only think that we have a choice but actually whatever way
that we end up acting, our minds have actually already determined what serves our
interests best.

11
 This theory has a couple of strong points. The first is that of simplicity. When an
idea is marked by simplicity, it has a unique appeal to it; a theory that conveniently
identifies a single basis that will somehow account for all actions is a good example of
this. The second is that of plausibility. It is plausible that self-interest is behind a
person's actions. It is clearly the motivation behind many of the actions one perform
which are obviously self-serving; it could very well also be the motivation behind an
individual's seemingly other-directed actions. It is not only plausible, but also
irrefutable.

Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to

answer it without being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might say, there
is the self-serving motive at the root of everything. The psychological egoist can and
will insist on his stand no matter how one might try to object. This opens up two
questions: first, "Because we cannot refute it, shall we accept it as true?" and "Do we
accept the consequences of this theory?"

So psychological egoism, when we look at its consequences, leads us to a cynical

view of humanity, to a gloomy description of human nature, and finally to a useless
theory for someone who is concerned with asking herself what is the right thing to do.
This is because it ends up nullifying the possibility of any normative ethics in its view
of the already-determined human being.

3. Ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our ends, our own interests,
as
the single overriding concern. This theory acknowledges that it is a 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. In Plato’s Republic, which is Plato’s
response to the assertion that one should only care about one’s own interests.

Ethical egoism takes on 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 of
our own well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others.

12
 EVALUATION:

Answer the following questions and submit in one whole sheet of yellow paper
or long bond paper.

1. Identify a list of: (a) obligations we are expected to fulfill, (b) prohibitions we are
required to respect, and (c) ideals we are encouraged to meet. Discuss whether
these are ethical in nature or not.
2. Cite a current situation in our country or your own community that tackles an
ethical issue. Consider these questions:
a. What makes this a matter of ethics?
b. What is your own ethical judgement on this case?
c. What are your reasons for this judgement?
3. If you are a legislator, what rules or laws that currently prohibit certain acts or
practices would you like to amend or repeal? Think of this on the level of your
school, your community, and the nation.

REFERENCES:

Bulaong, O. Jr. G., Calano, MJ. T., Lagliva, A.M., Mariano, MN. E., Principe, JD. Z.,
(2017). Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. CM Recto Avenue,
Manila Philippines. pp. 1-21.

13
Chapter 2:
VIRTUE ETHICS
(Week 3-5)

OVERVIEW:

This lesson will revolve around the virtue

ethics. It will discuss the moral virtue which
according to Aristotle is a “state of character”
which habitually acts according to the middle
measure that practical wisdom identifies as the
moral choice that should be acted upon, given the
concrete situation that presents to the person.
The goal of virtue ethics is to promote the maturity
of the character of the person. Building a good
character is a task and responsibility of every
person.

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this lesson, learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics.
2. Distinguish virtuous acts from non- virtuous acts, and
3. Apply Aristotle’s ethics in understanding the Filipino character.

DISCUSSION:

What is virtue ethics?

It is the ethical framework that is concerned with
understanding the good as a matter of developing the
virtuous character of a person.

Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle’s book which is the first comprehensive
and programmatic study of virtue ethics.
Plato and Aristotle both affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person that
enables a person to realize the very purpose of her existence. They differ in
their appreciation of reality and nature.
For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but
can somehow be grasped by one’s intellect. The truth and ultimately the good
are in the sphere of forms or ideas transcending daily human condition.
Aristotle believe real is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the
world. What makes nature intangible is its character of having both form and
matter. The truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not
independent of our experience.

14
Happiness and Ultimate Purpose

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person
does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim or telos. Every pursuit of a person
hopes to achieve a good (e.g. One eats for the purpose of the good that it gives
sustenance to the body). A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her.
Even a drug user "thinks" that substance abuse will cause her good. This does not
necessarily mean that using drugs is good but a "drug addict" would want to believe
that such act is good. Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or
purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.

One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and
correspondingly each of these activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one
does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose but also believes such purpose
can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be used to achieve an even
higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods that one pursues form a
hierarchy of teloi (plural form of telos). Aristotle says:

When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the
teacher, she does this for the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the
course. This purpose of remembering, in turn, becomes an act to achieve a higher
aim which is to pass the examinations given by the teachers which then becomes a
product that can help the person attain the goal of having a passing mark in the course.
It is important for Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the
different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than
the other;

With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about
the highest purpose, which is the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses
the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man. First, the
highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer utilized for the
sake of arriving ata much higher end. In our example above, the purpose of
remembering the lessons in the course, that is why one writes down notes, is not the
final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher
goal. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self-sufficient. Satisfaction in life
is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired,
once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered as the best
possible good in life. Again, in the example given above, the goal of remembering the
lessons in the course is not yet the best possible good because a person can still seek
for other more satisfying goals in her life.

15
 So what is the highest goal for Aristotle? What goal is both final and self-
sufficient? It is interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question can only 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 Ofa person is. According to Aristotle, older individuals would
agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or for the
Greeks, eudaimonia. Aristotle says:

One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the
final end of a human being. For it is clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and
pleasures chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a means to achieve
happiness. If one accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just
richness but also power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and
pleasures. But all of these ends are ultimately for the sake of the final end which is
happiness. In itself, happiness seems to be the final end and the highest good of a
person since no other superior end is still being desired for.

For Aristotle, happiness is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for.
The true measure of well-being is not by means of richness or fame but by the condition
of having attained a happy life.

Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good
that humans aspire for, there are various opinions on what specifically is the nature of
the ultimate telos of a person. One is that happiness is attached with having wealth
and power. Others associate happiness with feelings that are pleasurable. Some take
nobler things like honor and other ideals as constitutive of happiness. For Aristotle,
arguing for or against every opinion proves to be a futile attempt to arrive at the nature
of happiness. Instead, Aristotle shows that one can arrive at the ultimate good by doing
one's function well.

How does a person arrive at her highest good? According to Aristotle, 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 she performs her
function welt, then she is capable of arriving at happiness. Aristotle then proceeds with
discussing the function of human beings to distinguish one person's activity from other
beings. How does a human being function which sets her apart from the rest?

For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function or activity of reason.
This function makes her different from the rest of beings. Aristotle expresses this
clearly:

16
 What defines a person is her function or activity of reason. A person’s action to
be considered as truly human must be an act that is always in accordance to reason
(e.g. Any dancer can dance but what makes her distinct from an excellent dancer is
that the latter dances very well). Therefore, a good individual stands closer to meeting
the conditions of happiness because her actions are of a higher purpose.

Aristotle says:

The local saying "Madding 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 takes more effort on the part of the person.

Virtue as Excellence

Virtue or arête by the Greeks is an excellent way of doing things. It is something

that one strives for in time. one does not become an excellent person overnight.

“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…” -- Aristotle

Being virtuous cannot be cannot be accomplished by a single act. Being an

excellent individual works on doing well in her day-to-day existence.

What makes human excellent?

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. Human soul is divided into two parts; the irrational element
and the rational faculty. Rational element consists of vegetative and appetitive aspects.
Vegetative aspects functions as nutrition and providing activity of physical growth in a
person; this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised, it cannot be
dictated by reason. The appetitive aspects works as a desiring faculty of man. The act
of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the
time refuses to go along with reason (e.g. sexual impulse). Rational faculty of man

17
exercises excellence in him. It is divided into two aspects: moral, which concerns the
act of doing, and intellectual, concerns the act of knowing. 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.

Two ways to attain intellectual excellence

1. Philosophic wisdom. It deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental
principles and truths that govern the universe (e.g.. general theory on the
origins of things). It helps understand in general the meaning of life
2. Practical wisdom. Excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a
particular act, one can attain wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how
to behave in our daily lives.

Aristotle suggests that although the rational functions of a person (moral and
intellectual) are distinct from each other, it is therefore necessary for humans to attain
the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to accomplish a morally virtuous act.

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, 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.

Rational faculty of a person tells that she is capable of achieving two kinds of
virtue: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue, according to Aristotle can be attained by
means of habit. Being morally good is a process of getting used to doing the proper
act. For him, a person is not initially good by nature (e.g. basketball player involves
constant training and endless hours of shooting and dribbling the ball in the right way
until one habitually does the right stroke in shooting the ball and the right tempo in
dribbling the ball.

The same is true with moral virtue. A person habitually chooses the good and
consistently does good deeds.

THINK!
How does continuous exposure to violence
on television affect the kind of character
that children will develop?

Moral Virtue and Mesotes

Knowledge is not inherent to a person.one needs to develop this knowledge by

exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life. Person is able to mature and
grow in her capacity of knowing what to do and living a morally upright life. One can
seek the advice of elders, those who gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom
because they would be able to assists someone’s moral deliberation.

18
 Mesotes for the Greeks (intermediate or middle), is aimed at by a morally
virtuous person, which according to Aristotle 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 (e.g. 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. Or a person may be outraged at the attacks of
terrorists and yet may be insensitive because she is not directly affected. Mesotes
determines whether the acts applied is not excessive or deficient (e.g. one can be
angry with someone, but the degree and state of anger depends accordingly with the
nature of the person she is angry with).

Aristotle’s discussion 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. Secondly, in moral virtue,
the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is closed because it is
the middle. Thirdly, 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 her proper way of carrying
out here feelings, passions, and actions. But he also clarifies that not all feelings,
passions, and actions have a middle point (e.g. 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. Aristotle states:

Virtues and corresponding excesses and deficiencies:

EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

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. One can always be excessive in her action but an act that virtuous cannot go
beyond the middle.

19
EVALUATION:

Answer the following questions and submit in one whole sheet of yellow paper
or long bond paper.

1. What is moral virtue?

2. What is intellectual virtue?
3. What is the difference between moral and intellectual virtue? Explain.
4. Identify some Filipino traits and categorize each as virtue (middle) or vices
(excess or deficiency). Place them in a table.

REFERENCES:

Bulaong, O. Jr. G., Calano, MJ. T., Lagliva, A.M., Mariano, MN. E., Principe, JD. Z.,
(2017). Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. CM Recto Avenue,
Manila Philippines.

20
Chapter 3:
NATURAL LAW
(Week 7-8)
OVERVIEW:

In this lesson, how the natural law theory is

instrumental to an ethics that is rooted in the Cristian faith
is discussed. It is also discussed how Aquinas had
synthesized concepts of the ancient Greeks to put forward
an intellectual grounding that can overcome the limitations
of a simplistic divine command theory. Instead, we are
provided an objective basis for ethics, our own natural
inclinations. Since these are given by God, they provide us
the path toward our perfections. Our natural inclinations as
enumerated by Aquinas include the desire to preserve our
being, the sexual act and its fecundity, and our use of
reason.

OBJECTIVES:

After reading this lesson, learners should be able to:

1. Recognize how Thomas Aquinas made use of ancient Greek concepts to
provide a rational grounding to an ethical theory based on the Christina faith.
2. Identify the natural law in distinction from, but also in relation to the other types
of law mentioned by Aquinas: eternal law, human law, and divine law
3. Apply the precepts of the natural law to contemporary moral concerns.

DISCUSSION:

Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory

“We are created by God in order to ultimately return to Him.”

Aquinas’ structure of magnus opus Summa Theologiae

Part I. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited human
intellect cannot fully grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something concerning
His goodness, His might, and His creative power. Recognizing that we are created by
God.

Part II. Deals with man or the dynamic of human life. Our pursuit of happiness, which
we should realize ultimately not on any particular good thing that is created by God,
but in the highest good which is God Himself. Salvation is only possible through the

21
presence of God’s grace and that grace has become perfectly incarnate in the person
of Jesus.

Part III. Focus Jesus as our Savior.

The Context of Aquinas’ Ethics

The Christian life is about developing the capacities given to us by God into a
disposition of virtue inclined toward the good.

Aquinas puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral
thinking. There is a sense of right and wrong in us that we are obliged to obey but this
sense of right and wrong must be informed, guided, and ultimately grounded in an
objective basis for morality.

We are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop and
maintain a life of virtue. Thus, there is a need for a clearer basis of ethics, a ground
that will more concretely direct our sense of what is right and wrong which is a natural
law according to Aquinas.

The Greek Heritage

Neoplatonic Good

God creates. He brings about beings but also mean that He cares for, and thus,
governs, the activity of the universe and of every creature. This central belief of the
Christian faith, while inspired by divine revelation, has been shaped and defined by an
idea stated in the work of Plato, which has been put forward thousand years before
Aquinas. He is credited on his idea: the notion of a supreme and absolutely
transcendent good.

In his work, the republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision that
ideal society. But that plan is only a part of a more fundamental concern that animates
the text, which is to provide an objective basis and standard for the striving to be more.

22
It can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions such as, “Why should I bother
trying to be good?” and “Why cannot good be just whatever I say it is?”

In the hands of the Neoplatonists, Plato’s idea of the good, which is the source
of all beings, becomes identified with eh One and the Beautiful. The oneness that will
give rise to the multiplicity of everything else in the cosmos. All these beings have a
single goal, to return to that unity.

Through Neoplatonist like Plotinus, the Platonic idea of the good would
continue well into the Christian Middle Ages, inspiring later thinkers and allowing it to
be thought anew in a more personal way as a creative and loving God.

23
Aristotelian Being and Becoming

Any being based on Aristotle can be said to have four cause:

1. We recognize that any we can see around is corporeal, possessed of a certain

materiality or physical “stuff” or material cause. A being is individuated, it
becomes the unique, individual being that is—because it is made up of this
particular stuff.
2. The “shape” that makes a being a particular kind can be called its form. Each
being also has a formal cause (bird is different from a cat, and different from a
man).
3. Being does not simply “pop-up” from nothing but comes from another being
which is prior to it. There is something which brings about the presence of
another being which is referred to as the efficient cause. (e.g. chair is built as
the product of the carpenter)
4. A being has an apparent end or goal which is the final cause of each being.
(e.g. a chair is meant to be sat on)

It is not a case of being that is something which is already permanently set a

sit is and remains forever unchanging. To describing a being, Aristotle also has to
explain the process of becoming or the possibility of change that takes place in a being.
This principle is the potency of act. A being may carry within itself certain potentials,
but these require being actualized (e.g. a puppy is not yet a full-grown dog).

24
Synthesis

The idea of a transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the
form of the good and loving God, who is Himself the fullness of being and of goodness;
as Aquinas puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially good. So, we
recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in the first being, which is
God Himself. God's act, like an emanation of light, is the creation of beings.

Insofar as God is that from which all beings come, it is possible for us to speak
of Him as the first efficient cause.9 Insofar as God is that toward which all beings seek
to return, it is possible for us to speak of Him as the final cause.' 0 We see here the
beginning of the synthesis by noting how the Neoplatonic movement from and back
toward the transcendent is fused with the Aristotelian notion of causes.

It must be noted, though, that this is not some mechanistic unthinking process.
It is God's will and love that are the cause of all things; to every existing thing. God
wills some good." Creation therefore is the activity of the outpouring or overflowing of
God’s goodness. Since each being in this way participates in God's goodness, each
being is in some sense good.

However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the
goodness possessed by being remains imperfect. For Aquinas, only God in the fullness
of His being and goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this goodness,
and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their
participation: But, once again, God did not create us to simply be imperfect and to stay
that way as He leaves us alone. Instead, God, in His infinite wisdom, directs how we
are to arrive at our perfection. The notion of divine providence refers to how beings are
properly ordered and even guided toward their proper end; this end, which is for them
to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness itself.

God communicates to each being His perfection and goodness. Every creature
then strives to its own perfection; thus the divine goodness is the end of all actions. All
things come from God and are created by Him in order to return to Him.

We now need to recall that beings are created by God in a particular way. It is
not
accidental how beings emerge into existence; each being is created as a determinate
substance, as a particular combination of form and matter. This applies to all beings,
including man. The particular form determines the materiality which makes a being a
certain kind of being; the unique way that we have been created can be called our
nature.
This nature, as a participation in God's goodness, is both good and imperfect at the
same time. Coming from God, it is good, but in its limitations, it has yet to be perfected.
This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus realizing what God
had intended for us to be. We accomplish this by fulfilling or actualizing the potencies
that are already present in our nature.

While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him, the way the
human being is directed toward God is unique. Given that we are beings with a
capacity for reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving him. It is of key
importance then that the presence of a capacity for reason is the prime characteristic
of the kind of beings we are, and how that capacity for reason is the very tool which
God had placed in our human nature as the way toward our perfection and return to
Him.

25
 This applies not only to an individual human being, but also to all humankind.
But we should not forget how the whole community of being, which is the universe
itself, is directed toward its return to God. This is not, as mentioned earlier, an
unthinking process, but is the very work of divine reason itself or God's will. We can
think, then, of the whole work of creation as divine reason governing a community
toward its end. Under the governance of the Divine, beings are directed as to how their
acts are to lead them to their end, which is to return to Him. We shall now try to
understand this dynamic once again, but this time think of it in terms of law.

The Essence and Varieties of Law

Essence

As rational being, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are
able to judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way or
the other. Our actions are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we desire. (e.g.
we study in order to learn)

There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act in such ways as
to pursue them. While it is possible to first suppose that something is good, only to
realize later that doing so was a mistake. So it is important for reasons to always be
part of the process. It is necessary to think carefully of what really is in fact good for
us.

In thinking about what is good for us, it is possible that we end up thinking
exclusively of our own good. Aquinas said it will not do; we cannot simply act in pursuit
of our own ends or good without any regard for other people’s ends or good. We are
not isolated beings, but beings who belong to the community and we consider what is
good for our community as well as our own good. This is called the common good.

Since we must consider not only our own good but also that of others, we
cannot act in just any which way; there would have to be some kind of measure to our
acts. We recognize the proper measure or the limits in our actions that would allow us
to direct our acts in such a way that we can pursue ends, both our own and also that
of others, together. The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be
referred to as law.

A motorist cannot just drive in any way, he likes, but must respect traffic rules
(e.g. he must place a maximum speed he can travel on a particular road). Such a limit
or such a rule is something good, for both him and for others as it helps prevent motor
accidents. As Aquinas puts it, law must regard properly the relationship to universal
happiness.

It is necessary for rules to be communicated to the people involved in order to

enforce them and to be better ensure compliance. This referred to as promulgation.

26
Varieties

“He governs all the acts and movements that are to be found in each single
creature, so the type of Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end, bears
the character of law.” – Aquinas

The divine wisdom that directs each being towards it is proper end can be
called the eternal law. It refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in
it is intended to return to Him. Given our limitations, we cannot grasp the fullness of
the eternal law. We must recognize that: we are part of the eternal law, and we
participate in it in a special way. All things partake in the eternal law; all beings are
already created by God in a certain way intended to return to Him.

Human law refers to all instance wherein human beings construct and enforce
laws in their communities. Divine law refers specifically to the instances where we have
percepts or instructions that come from divine revelations. (e.g. the Ten
Commandments)

Anyone coming from any religious tradition, just by looking at the nature that
she shares with her fellow human beings, would be able to determine what is ethical.
The complication one may have over an overtly religious presentation is dispelled
when we recognize the universal scope that Aquinas envisions.

Natural Law

27
In common with other beings

Our presence in the rest of creation does not only mean that we interact with
creatures that are not human, but that there is also in our nature something that shares
in the nature of other beings.

Aquinas identifies that there is in our nature, common with all other beings, a
desire to preserve one’s own being. A human being have that natural inclination to
preserve human life. On a more positive note, we can confidently posit that acts that
promote the continuation of life are to be lauded as ethical because they are in line
with the natural law.

In Common with Other Animals

Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our human nature, common with
other animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one's
offspring. As a matter of fact, animals periodically engage in sexual intercourse at a
specific time of "heat: and this could result in offspring. In human beings, too, that
natural inclination to engage in the sexual act and to reproduce exists.

The intrinsic connection between the sexual act and fecundity gives rise to a
number of notions of what is acceptable and unacceptable in varying degrees of
contentiousness. ethical issue that is hotly contested in some parts of the world is
whether abortion is acceptable. From the stance of the natural law, the act of
preventing the emergence of new would be considered unacceptable. Not so
controversial, perhaps, would be the claims we could more easily make about how it
is good to care for the young, to make sure they are properly fed, sheltered, and
educated. On the other hand, it is bad to abuse young, to force children into hard labor
or to deprive them of basic needs or otherwise abuse them in a physical or emotional
way.

With sexual act, the moral judgements get more volatile. This argument seems
to provide ground for rejecting various forms of contraception since these allow for the
sexual act to take place but inhibit procreation. Any form of sexual act that could not
lead to offspring must be considered deviant like the homosexual act.

To explain, Thomas writes: “…certain special sins are said to be against nature,
thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is just unisexual
lust, which has received the special name of the unnatural crime.”

Uniquely Human

Aquinas presents a third reason which states that we have an inclination to

good according to the nature of our reason. we have a natural inclination to know the
truth about God and to live in society. This is followed by matters of both an epistemic
and a social concern. (e.g. to shun ignorance and to avoid offending those people with
whom one live.) thus, we could surmise on this basis that acts of deception or fraud
would be unacceptance to Aquinas.

Aquinas however does not go into great detail enumerating what specific acts
would be clearly ethical or unethical. Instead, he gave certain general guidepost: the
epistemic concern, which is that we know we pursue the truth, and the social concern,
which is that we know we live in relation to others. The question of what particular acts
would be in line with these or not is something that we have to determine for ourselves
through the use of reason.

28
 First, we had been presented with these three inclinations as bases for moral
valuation. In light of this, we know that preserving the self is good. Contrary to common
misconception, the sexual inclination and the sexual act are considered good things,
not something to be deplored or dismissed. However, reason is not only another
inclination that we have in par with others. Instead, reason is the defining part of human
nature. Thomas tells us that there is a priority among the powers of our soul, with the
intellectual directing and commanding our sensitive and nutritive capacities. What this
amount to is the need to recognize that while our other inclinations are good, as they
are in our nature, what it means to be human is, precisely to exercise our reason in our
consideration of how the whole self should b confronted toward the good.
Second, recognizing how being rational is what is proper to man, the apparent
vagueness of the third inclination that Aquinas mentions is counter-balance by the
recognition that he is not interested in providing precepts that one would simply,
unthinkingly, follow. It is to take the trouble to think carefully about how our acts would
either contribute to, or detract from, the common good.

In making human laws, additions that are not all problematic for the natural law
are possible. (e.g. obeying traffic rules or paying taxes) as Aquinas puts in, nothing
hinders a change in the natural law by way of addition, since our reason has found and
can find many things that benefit individual and communal human life.

EVALUATION:

Answer the following questions and submit in one whole sheet of yellow paper
or long bond paper.

1. Are there ways that the word “natural” is used to justify a particular way of
behaving? How do these approaches compare to the theory of Aquinas?
2. Classify human laws that are proper extensions of the natural law. Explain.
3. Identify other human laws that violate the natural law. Explain how this is so.
4. What are other forms of harm (killing another person) that may be taken a
violation of the natural inclination to preserve one’s being? Justify your answer.
5. Cite any current scientific developments (like in biology) that challenge the
understanding of nature presented by Aquinas?
6. Is it possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine
source? Why or why not?

REFERENCES:

Bulaong, O. Jr. G., Calano, MJ. T., Lagliva, A.M., Mariano, MN. E., Principe, JD. Z.,
(2017). Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. CM Recto Avenue, Manila
Philippines.

29
Chapter 4:
DEONTOLOGY
(Week 9-11)
OVERVIEW:

It is become clear in this lesson that Kant’s categorical imperative is a formal,

not substantive, moral philosophy. The lesson discussed as well how deontology
contributes to our lives, specifically to our moral reflections. Deontology is based on
the “light” of one’s own reason when maturity and rational capacity take hold of a
person’s decision-making. Reason is depicted as having its own light in contrast to our
long experience of “paternalism” in human history, in which we find dictatorship and
authority figure that claim to be benevolent, but have proven to be oppressive and
exploitative of those who do not have power. With deontology, particularly the method
of universalizability, we can validate and adopt those rules and rules that are right and
reject those that are irrational, thus impermissible because they are self-contradictory.
This is then the practical value of deontology in our rational will against external
authorities as well as internal base impulses that tend to undermine our autonomy and
self-determination.

OBJECTIVES:

After reading this lesson, learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the basic principles of deontology.
2. Apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one’s moral experience, and
3. Evaluate actions using the universalizability test.

DISCUSSION:

To hold a moral conviction means believing that it is one’s duty to do the right thing to

What is duty? Why does one choose to follow her duty even if doing
otherwise may bring her more benefits?

do.
Duty and Agency

Deontology is the moral theory that evaluates actions that are done because of
duty. It comes from the Greek word deon, which means “being necessary.” Its main
proponent is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He was a German Enlightenment
philosopher who wrote one of the most important works on moral philosophy,
Groundwork towards a Metaphysics or Morals (1785). Kant bring in this work our
attention to the fact that we, human beings, have the faculty called rational will, which
is the capacity to act according to principle that we determine for ourselves.

30
People are rational. Rationality consist 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 reasons.
We have the capacity 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 better world,
and create mental images of how we
interact with other people in that
world.

We do not only have the

capacity to imagine, and construct
mental images, but we also have the
ability to act on—to enact and make
real—those mental images. This
ability to enact our thoughts is the
basis for the rational will, which is
refers to the faculty to intervene in the
world, to act in manner that is
consistent with our reason. Animals
on one hand only act according to
impulse based on natural instinct.
They do not and cannot deliberate on
their action. They just act in
immediacy, with nothing intervenes
between the impulse and the action.
Animals do not act, they only react to
their external surroundings and
internal impulses. We humans have
reason, which intervenes between
impulse and act. We have the ability
to stop and think about what we are
doing to evaluate actions according
to principles.
Example: you may feel lethargic.
Your head feels heavy and your eyes
are droopy. The corresponding
impulse is to close your eyes and fell
asleep. However, your rational will
demand something else. Perhaps
you have to finish reading for a quiz
the following day. The quiz is
important being your formation as a
student to earn a degree. So you
struggle to stay awake, stretch, take
some coffee. As you struggle to stay
awake and understand the words on
your lesson, your rational will is victorious over your bodily impulse as long as you stay
awake. This triumph clarifies the meaning of rational will over your base impulse to just
go to sleep.

31
 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. These Greek words are instructive: autos, heteros, and
nomos, which mean “self”, “other,” and law.”

Autos + nomos = autonomy

Heteros + nomos= heteronomy

Autonomy means self-law (self-legislating) and heteronomy means other law.

Example. Brushing teeth for a child. In this, the child is not autonomous as their
parents are the ones that legislate the principle that children should brush their
teeth and impose such a principle using threats or incentives.

Think of the child 20 years later when she brushes her teeth every night before
going to bed without the probing of her parents. She concluded that (1) agree with the
principle behind it (oral hygiene) and (2) every night she impose it upon herself to brush
her teeth before going to bed. Number 1 refers to the act of legislating a principle while
number 2 refers to enacting of the principle. It also refers to the willing of the adopted
principle into reality.

The will must give the law to itself. Therefore, the will is at the same time, the
authority figure giving the law itself. How can the rational will be subordinate to that
which is simultaneously its own authority figure? Isn’t that contradictory to be subject
to the law and yet also be the authority figure to itself? Thus, Kant describes autonomy
as the will that is subject to a principle or 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 the will
itself, imposing the law unto itself, then we describe the will as autonomous.

What if Reggie did not return the suitcase, destroyed the lock, then took
and sold its valuable contents?

There is a difference between what determines a choice or decision, whether

it is caused by sensible impulse or by pure reason. Sensible impulses are usually
bodily and emotional (bodily instincts and desires such as urge to eat, drink, sleep,
have sexual intercourse) comprise the set of human compulsions for survival and the

32
propagation of the species. Emotions and sentiments also make up what Kant
considers sensible impulses (jealousy).

On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is determined by pure reason,
Kant called this as free choice. Human freedom resides in this capacity of reason to
intervene, to "mediate" within arbitrium brutum. Previously, rationality was described
as the mental capacity to construct ideas and thoughts that are beyond one's
immediate surroundings. 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. The above-described jealous partner and raging basketball player,
if they had enough self-possession, could refrain from reacting mindlessly to the
triggering stimuli and instead construct a rational response. For instance, you may
open up with your partner to talk about trust and setting boundaries, or you may tell
the guarding opponent to take it easy and play the game well. In both cases, you orient
your actions toward an overall aim that you aspire for trust and sportsmanship,
respectively. These aims are mental constructions of the faculty of reason. These
examples do not imply that people are not affected by sensible impulses. The jealous
feelings and anger are present, but they do not immediately and automatically cause
the actions. Based on the quote above (Ak 6:21 3), Kant describes that human choice
can be affected but is not determined by sensible impulses.

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.

Heteronomy of the will occurs when any foreign impulse, whether external
(other person or institutions that impose the will on the agent) or sensible ( as in bodily
instincts or base emotions) 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.

Universalizablity

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. It will be helpful to first make a distinction about kinds of moral
theories, substantive and formal moral theory.
A substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific actions that
comprise that theory. It identifies the particular duties in a straightforward manner that
the adherents of the theory must follow (Ten commandments) the specific laws are
articulated mostly in the form of a straightforward moral command: “Honor your father
and mother,” “You shall not kill.”

Formal moral theory does not supply the rules or commands straightaway. It
does not tell you what to what you may or may not do. Instead, a formal moral theory
provides us the “framework” of the moral theory. To provide the ‘form” to moral theory
is to supply a procedure and the criteria for determining, on one’s own, the rules and
moral commands. A formal theory will not give us a list of rules or commands, it just
give us a set of instructions on how to make a list of duties or moral commands (e.g. a
cookbook; its gives instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we are not given
the actual food themselves, which would be “substantive.”

33
 Kant endorses this formal kind of theory. The Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der
Sitten. Wrote in 1785, embodies a formal moral theory in what he calls the categorical
imperative, which provides a procedural way of identifying the rightness or wrongness
of an action. Kant articulates the categorical imperative this way:

Act only to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that it
become a universal law. (Ak4:421)

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 maxim, which he defines as a “subjective principle of action” (Ak 4;422). In
this context, a maxim consists of a “rule” that we live by in our day-to-day lives, but it
does not have the status of a law or a moral command that binds us to act in a certain
way. Maxims are akin to the “standard operating procedure SOPs in our lives. (e.g. we
tell our friends what we ordinarily do in a certain specific situation: When the weekend
comes, I usually go to the beach with my family to relax or whenever I meet my crush,
I wear my hair in a braid so that he will notice me.) these are usually personal “policies”
that may or may not be unique to us, but we act according to these maxims
nonetheless. This I why Kant call a maxim a subjective principle of action. We have
may maxims in our lives and we live according to them.

In the formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant calls our attention to the
kind of maxims that we live by. He claims that we ought to act according to the maxim”
by which you can at once will that it become a universal law.” What does it mean to
will that it become a universal law? This means that the maxim must be
universalizable, which is what it means to “will that it become a universal law.” This
means nothing other than imagining a world in which the maxim, or personal rule, that
I live by where adopted by everyone as their maxim. Kant is telling us to conceive of
the maxim as if it obligates everyone to comply. What if everyone were obligated to
follow that maxim? Here is an example.
In a Groundwork towards a metaphysics of morals, Kant takes up the issue of
making false promises (Ak4;422). He narrates the predicament of a man who needs
money, but has no immediate access to obtain it except by borrowing it from a friend.
This man knows that he will not be able to pay the money back, but if he says he
cannot retour the money, then no money will be lend to him. Hence, the predicament
is simply about him borrowing money, while knowing he cannot pay back. This is a
specific act under the general category of acts called false promising. Kant says that
the man would like to make such a promise, but stops and ask himself if what he is
about to do is right or wrong: is it really wrong to borrow money without intending to
pay it back? If we were to formulate this act as a maxim, it would go this way: “When I
am in need of money, I shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back. “what
does it mean to universalize the maxim about borrowing money without intending to
return it? It is simple. Imagine a hypothetical world in which each person, whenever
she is in need of money, is obligated to borrow from other even when she knows she
cannot pay it back. We do not imagine that people actually borrowed money without
intending to return it. Instead, we think of them as obligated to do so. Now, there are

34
two possibilities in this hypothetical world where people are obligated to borrow money
without intending to pay: the maxim can either make sense or not make sense as a
universal law. By “making sense”, we refer to the logical plausibility of the universalized
maxim. The opposite of logical plausibility is self-contradiction or logical impossibility.

Let us assess that hypothetical world. If borrowing money without intending to

pay were everyone’s obligation to comply with, what would happen to the status of the
universalized maxim? The purpose of borrowing money would be defeated because
no one will lend money. All lenders would know that they will not be paid and they will
refuse to lend money. The institution of money-borrowing would lose its meaning if
everyone was obligated to borrow money without intending to pay it back.

In the passage above, Kant distinguishes between being “consistent with itself”
and “contradict itself.” Looking at the maxim again: “When I am in need of money, I
shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back.” The meaning of the act “to
borrow” implies taking and using something with the intent to return it. In the maxim,
the claim is to borrow “even when I know I cannot pay it back,” which contradicts the
very meaning of “to borrow” even contradiction is evident: to borrow (implies returning)
but the intention is not to return. Here, it is revealed that contradiction that occurs when
we scrutinize the maxim because, after all, one contradicts oneself when one borrows
money (implies intent to return) without intending to pay it back. This is why Kant claims
that the universalized maxim “could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be
consistent with itself, but must necessary contradict itself.” Therefore, the act of
borrowing money without intending to [pay is rationally impermissible. Here we
discover two ways by which Kant rejects maxims. The universalized maxim become
either 1) self-contradictory or 2) the act and its purpose become impossible.

35
 EVALUATION:

Answer the following questions and submit in one whole sheet of yellow paper
or long bond paper.

1. What is the difference between autonomy and heteronomy? What does

autonomy have to do with free will in contrast to animal impulse?
2. How does the method called universalizability work? What are the steps to test
if an action is rationally permissible?
3. What is meant by enlightenment morality as opposed to paternalism?
4. Why is deontology a kind of enlightenment morality?

REFERENCES:

Bulaong, O. Jr. G., Calano, MJ. T., Lagliva, A.M., Mariano, MN. E., Principe, JD. Z.,
(2017). Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. CM Recto Avenue,
Manila Philippines.

36
 Chapter 5:
UTILITARIANISM
(Week 13-14)
OVERVIEW:

This chapter will explore a number of different moral theories that have been
handed down to us by the history of philosophy. These are various approaches from
thinkers who have presented to us their own unique way of thinking on how to
determine the moral principles that should be maintained. This will explore
utilitarianism, which establishes that the best consequences for everyone concerned
might be our measure for determining what is right. We then turn to a different notion
in the Natural Law Theory, which puts forward the idea that we can base our notion of
good and bad on something more intrinsic than the consequences of our actions—that
is our human nature itself.

OBJECTIVES:

After reading this lesson, learners should be able to:

1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics.
2. Distinguish between tow utilitarian models: the quantitative model of Jeremy
Bentham and the qualitative model of John Stuart Mill.
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international
scenarios.

DISCUSSION:

Is wiretapping permissible or not? On what instance is wiretapping morally

permissible and on what instances is it not morally permissible?

When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the

costs and benefits of it. If we do, then we are considering an ethical theory that gives
premium to the consequences of actions as the basis of morality and 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 goodness of an
action is determined by its usefulness. Utilitarianism claims that one’s action and
behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed toward the experience of the greatest
pleasure over pain for the greatest number of persons. Its root word “utility,” 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.

37
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart
Mill (1806-1973) 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 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. Not all consequentialist theories are
utilitarian. For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a
way of understanding the results of people’s
actions. They are interested whether 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 as the experience of pleasure for the
greatest number of persons, even at the expense
of some individual’s rights.

The Principle of Utility

The book An Introduction to the Principles

of Morals and Legislations (1789), Jeremy
Bentham begins by arguing that our action are
governed by two “sovereign master” – which he
calls pleasure and pain. Theses “masters” are
given to us by nature to help us determine what is good 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. The principle also refers to the motivation of our actions as guided
by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. In our everyday actions, we do
what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. Hence, the principle also refers
to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness that unhappiness. It
means that it’s 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.

38
 Mill supports Bentham's principle of utility. he reiterates that moral good as
happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. mill clarifies that what makes
people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of
pleasure. the things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those
that produce unhappiness and pain are bad. Mill explains:

Mill argues that we act and do things because we find our actions pleasurable,
mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable and the avoidance of pain.
Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever
produced happiness of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

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

refers to as theory of life. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the
avoidance of pain are not important principles—they are in fact the only important
principles in assessing an action’s morality.

In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a

framework for evaluating pleasure and pain called felicific calculus. It is a common
currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can produce. An
action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure; duration or
length of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that
pleasure will occur; and propinquity, remoteness, or how soon here will be pleasure.
These indicators allow us to measure pleasure and pain in cation. To evaluate our
tendency to choose these actions, we need to consider two more dimensions:
fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and
purity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the opposite kind. And
when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain, another
dimension is to be considered, extent. Actions are evaluated on this single scale
regardless of preferences and values. Pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ
but not qualitatively differ from other experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.

39
 Mill dissents from Bentham’s single
scale of pleasure. He thinks the
principle of utility must distinguish
pleasures qualitatively and not merely
quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism
cannot promote the kind of pleasures
appropriate to pigs or to any other
animals. He thinks that there are higher
intellectual and lower base pleasures.
We’re capable of searching and
desiring higher intellectual pleasure.
We undermine ourselves only and
primarily when we desire sensuality;
this is because we are capable of
higher intellectual pleasurable goods.
Human pleasures are different from
animal pleasures. It is unfair to assume
we merely pursue pleasures
appropriate for beast even if there are
instances when we choose to pursue
such base pleasures.

Contrary to Bentham, Mill

argues that quality is more preferable
than quantity. An excessive quantity of
what is otherwise pleasurable might
result in pain. (excessive eating) mill
suggest that in deciding over two
comparable pleasures, it is important to
experience both and to discover which
one is actually more preferred than the
other.

As human beings we prefer the pleasures that are actually within our grasp.

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 about our individual pleasures,
regardless of how high, intellectual, or noble it is, but also about the pleasure of the
greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions. Mill explains:

40
 Utilitarianism cannot 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.

It is necessary for us to considers everyone’s happiness, including our own, as

the standards by which by which to evaluate what is moral. Utilitarianism is interested
with everyone’s happiness. In fact, the greater happiness of the greatest number. Mill
identifies the eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways as
examples of utilitarianism. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of
pleasure over displeasure for the greatest number. Because of the premium given to
the consequences of actions, Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in
evaluating actions:

Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number
of people, it is not interested with the intention of the agent.

Justice and Moral Rights

“What is right?”

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

The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are
justified because they contribute to the general good. Society is made happier if its
citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interest are protected and that
society (as a whole) defends it.

41
 Utilitarian argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import
because the category of rights id directly associated with the individual’s most vital
interests. All of these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life. Mill describes:

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. He understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights
are subject to some exceptions:

Mill crates a distinction between legal rights and their justifications. 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 respected. This is
like saying that there are instances when the law is not morally justified and, in this
case, even objectionable.

Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even

violate, an unjust law. The implication is that those who protest over political policies
of a morally objectionable government act is a morally obligatory way. Though it is not
always preferred, it is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil

42
disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher moral good. Mill points out that moral
rights take precedence over legal rights.

Mill provide some extenuating circumstances in which some moral rights can
be overridden for the sake of the greater general happiness.

In this sense, the principle of utility can theoretically obligate us to steal, kill,
and the like. “Theoretically” because this merely constitutes a thought experiment and
need not be actualized. Since what matter in the assessment of what we do is the
resultant happiness, then anything may be justified for the sake of producing the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.

While there is no such thing as a laudable and praiseworthy injustice, Mill

appeals to the utilitarian understanding of justice as an act justified by the greatest
happiness principle. There is no right to violate where utility is not served by the social
protection of individual interest. While he recognizes how utilitarian principles can
sometimes obligate us to perform acts that would regularly be understood as
disregarding individual rights, he argues that this is only possible if it is judged to
produce more happiness than unhappiness. In short, Mill’s moral rights and
considerations of justice are not absolute, but are only justified by their consequences
to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.

For Mill, justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights because justice
promotes the greater social good.

43
 EVALUATION:

1. Are all pleasure commensurable? Why or why not?

2. Mill proposes that “higher” pleasures are those preferred by the majority of
people.
a. Do you agree that this is a good way of distinguishing between higher
and lower pleasures?
b. Can a well-informed majority prefer higher pleasure?
3. Is it justifiable to build basketball court because there are basketball fans, than
to build hospital because there are fewer sick people? Explain.

REFERENCES:

Bulaong, O. Jr. G., Calano, MJ. T., Lagliva, A.M., Mariano, MN. E., Principe, JD. Z.,
(2017). Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. CM Recto Avenue,
Manila Philippines.

44
 Chapter 6:
SYNTHESIS: MAKING
INFORMED DECISIONS
(Week 15-17)
OVERVIEW:

Making informed decisions in the realm of morality entails first understanding

who one is, in order to account for reasons that one comes up with as the agent who
must choose in a moral situation. The mature moral agent must understand how her
society, history, culture, and even religion shape who she is. She must also realize
though that her choices in the end cannot simply be a mere product of these outside
forces, but must be made in the spirit of freedom. Kohlberg teaches that one’s
realization of her own freedom to determine her own moral principles, free from all
conventions, happens in a process of maturity. An essential element in maturity is the
realization that one’s choices, even in the realm of ethics, cannot simply be a function
of rational thought but are inevitably shaped also by the feelings. Thus, there is the
additional responsibility of cultivating one’s feelings as well as one’s reason. The moral
agent must be mature enough to be able to cultivate the necessary steps to ensure a
sound, well-informed moral decision.

OBJECTIVES:

After reading this lesson, learners should be able to:

1. Identify the different factors that shape an individual factor that shape an
individual in her moral decision-making
2. Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decision
3. Apply the ethical theories or framework on moral issues involving the self,
society, and the non-human environment.

DISCUSSION:

What ought I to do? Why out I to do so?

Applying rational deliberation to determine a person’s ethical responsibility to

herself, society, and environment is the overall goal of ethics. We must attempt to
explore the self that must undertake this challenge. We are talking about the moral
agent, the one who eventually must thin about her choices and make decisions on
what she ought to do.

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.

45
 Epimeleia he auto, “know thyself:

Filipino philosopher Ramon C. Reyes (1935-2014) in his essay “Man and Historical
Action,” succinctly explained that “who one is” is a cross point. 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 identified four cross-points: physical, interpersonal,
social and historical.
1. 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. (you inherited the
genetic material of both your biological parents) it is given., this happened or
are still happening whether you want to or not.
2. An individual is also a product of interpersonal cross-point of many events and
factors outside of one’s choosing. One did not choose her own parents, her
personality, character traits, and overall way of doing and thinking about things
have all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they brought up.
it is also affected by the people surrounding her; siblings, relatives, classmates,
playmates, and eventually workmates. Who one is, in the sense of one’s
character or personality, has been shaped by one’s relationships as well as the
physical factors that affect how ones thinks and feels.
3. “who one is” is shaped by one’s society. It pertains to all 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 argue that “who one is”
is molded in large part by the kind of society and their own way of doing things
(pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values (close family ties), and
even their own notions of right and wrong (communal vs. individualistic notion
of rights)
4. The fourth cross-point is historical, which simply the events that one’s people
undergone. One’s people’s history shapes “who one is” right now. For example,
Philippines had a long history of colonization that affected how society has
been formed and how our culture has developed.

These cross-points is just one side of “who one is” because it is also a project
for one’s self. This happens because a human individual has freedom. This freedom
however is not absolute; one does not become something because one chooses to
be. This finite freedom means that one has the capacity to give herself a particular
direction in life according to her own ideal self. One always comes from somewhere.
One is always continuously being shaped by many factors outside of one’s own free
will.

Culture and Ethics

What is the relationship between ethics and one’s own culture?

A common opinion is that one’s culture dictates what is right or wrong for an
individual. How she relates to herself, her close relations, her own society, with other
societies, and with the natural worlds are all predetermined by her membership in her
society and culture.

Filipinos are known for being hospitable. Can we say Chinese are not
hospitable?

46
 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.

American philosopher James Rachels (1941-20023) provided a clear argument

against the validity of cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. He defined cultural
relativism as the position that claims that 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. Each culture has its own standard of right and wrong, its validity confined within
the culture in question.

Beyond his criticism of the logic of cultural relativism, Rachel 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 ensure if the claims is
accepted as such. He posits three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of
cultural relativism.
1. Cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs
of another culture anymore as that culture thinks that what it is doing is correct.
(Jews cannot criticize the Nazi’s plan to exterminate all Jews in WW II since
obviously, the Nazi’s believed that they were doing the right thing.)
2. If cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or
beliefs of one’s own culture. (The Black South African citizens under the system
of apartheid, a policy of racial segregation that privileges the dominant race in
the society could not criticize that official state position)
3. If cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even accept that moral
progress can happen. (the facts that many societies now recognize women’s
rights and children’s rights does not necessarily represent a better situation
than before when societies refused to recognize that women and children even
had rights.

Rachels says that he understands the attractiveness of the idea of cultural

relativism for many people, that is, it recognizes the differences between cultures.
However, he argues that recognizing and respecting differences between cultures do
not necessarily mean that here is no such thing as objective truth in morality.

He argues instead that though different cultures have different ways of doing
things, cultures may hold certain values in common. Rachel’s posits 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. Rachels argues that a hypothetical culture that
promotes murder would immediately cease to exist because the members would start
murdering each other. Rachels ends his article on cultural relativism by noting that
someone can recognize and respect cultural differ maintain the right to criticize beliefs
and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs proper rational deliberation.

This, however, should not be taken as a reconciliation of all differences in the

name of some abstract universal value system. The cultural differences between one
society and another in terms of norms, practices, and beliefs are not trivial matters that
one can disregard. They are actually part of “who one is" and cannot be set aside.
One should instead think of a common human condition, a set of existential situations
that human beings share and that are fleshed out through a group's unique set of
historical experiences and manifested in a group’s particular cultural constructions.

47
 Thus, the challenge of ethics is not the removal of one's 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 to do?"
Ethics, therefore, should neither be reduced to one's own cultural standards,
nor should it simplistically dismiss one's 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 naive assumption that 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 an d with 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. 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 well as the existence of the whole of reality, is found in the beliefs
of that religion. Therefore, the question of morality for many religious followers is
reduced to following the teachings of their own religion. Many questions arise from
this assertion. This is where a philosophical study of ethics enters.

Many religious followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found
either in their sacred scripture (e.g., the Bible for Christians, the Qur'an for Muslims,
etc.) or body of writings (e.g., the Vedas, including the Upanishads, and other texts for
Hindus; the Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, and other Taoist classics for Taoists) or in
other forms (other than written texts) of preaching that their leaders had promulgated
and become part of their tradition.

"What exactly does sacred scripture (or religious teaching) command?

This is a question of interpretation since even the same passage from a

particular religious tradition (e.g., "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" [Genesis 21
:24]) can have many different interpretations from religious teachers even from within
the same tradition. Therefore, based on what Ramon C. Reyes says concerning an
individual's cross-points, one can see that the reading or interpretation of a particular
passage or text is the product of an individual's embodiment and historicity and on the
other hand, her existential ideal. This does not mean that religious teaching is relative
to the individual's particular situation (implying no objective and universal truth about
the matter) but that any reading or interpretation has a historical particularity affected
by the situatedness of the reader, This implies that the moral agent in question must

48
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 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" (whether in general
or in specific situations). Relevant to this is Plato's philosophical question in his
dialogue Euthyphro, which was mentioned in an earlier chapter: "'Is the pious loved by
the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
Philosophers have modified this 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? If a particular preacher teaches her followers to
do something because it is what (for example) their sacred scripture says, a critical-
minded follower might ask for reasons as to why the 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. 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.

The responsible moral agent then is one who does not blindly follow externally-
imposed rules, but one who has a well-developed "feel “for making informed moral
decisions. The following section discusses this need for developing one's feel for
morality.

Moral Deliberation

A maturation in moral reasoning has been the focus of study of many theorists.
One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927—1987)
who theorized that moral development happens in six stages, which he divided into
three levels.

1. The first level is what he called pre-conventional and it corresponds to how

infants and young children think. This pre-conventional level, whose reasoning
is centered on the consequences of one's actions, is 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 serve her self-interest; thus, what is "good" at this age is what the child
thinks can bring her pleasure. Kohlberg used the term pre-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.
2. The second level of moral. development according to Kohlberg is the
conventional since this is the age in which older children, 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 to 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 conform first to the values of one's immediate

49
 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 the laws, rules, and
regulations of her society, and thus her moral reasoning is shaped by
dutifulness to the external standards set by society.

In Kohlberg's reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations of
their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their
religion—even 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. The point of
Kohlberg's theory is not to ascertain what defines the goodness or rightness of
the act. Thus, in this sense, Kohlberg's idea is not an ethical theory. Instead, 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 level, 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
individual must outgrow even the simple following of supposedly right rules.
This is where the third level comes in.
3. 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 (the fifth and the sixth), 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. Moral maturity therefore is
seen in an agent who acts on what she has understood, using her full
rationality, to be what is right. regardless of whether the act will bring the agent
pleasure or pain and even regardless of whether the act is in accordance with
one's community's laws or not. An agent has 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 this theoretical community of rational agents has identified
as morally desirable, whether the agent herself wilt benefit from doing so or
not. Additionally, this notion of the common good is not reducible to preexisting
communal rules, traditions, or laws since even these must be weighed using
rational discourse. Thus, what is good or right is what honors the social
contract; what contradicts it is bad,
4. The sixth and highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond fifth
stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal
ethic principles that one has determined by herself. one realizes that all the
conventions rules, and regulations) of society are only correct if they are based
on these universal ethic principles; they must be followed only if they reflect
universal ethical principles. This is, f Kohlberg, the full maturity of post-

50
 conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that the end, the question of
what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent at her own
rationality. Kohlberg's insight is that, ultimately, one must think for herself what
she ought to do. This stand recognizes the supposed fact that there might be
instances when the agent must choose to go against what the community of
rational thinkers deems good if she really thinks she must, assuming that she
has committed her full rationality

This theory helps, at the very least, point out the differences i moral reasoning:
the more mature kind is seen in people who are not anymore dictate by the logic of
reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules eve if,
theoretically, they are the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature
behavior. One must make free use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral
choice and not remain a creature of blind obedience to either pain and pleasure or to
the demand of the group, if one aspires to moral maturity.

Feelings in Moral Deliberation

Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic

perspectives a 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 purged of all feelings; the moral agent, after a Il, 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. Note that Aristotle does not say, "Remove
all feelings." Instead, he sees that cultivating one's character lies in learning to manage
one's feelings. The emotions are, as much as reason itself, part of what makes one a
human being. There is a popular Filipino saying: "tulak ng bibig; kabig ng dibdib"
(literally, "'The mouth says one thing, but the heart drives you to do another thing.").
This saying can mean that what an individual says, and in that sense what an
individual's mind or intellect dictates what one ought to dot can sometimes be
overcome by what her feelings actually drive her to do. Thus, part of the genius of
Aristotle is his realization that it is possible that there can be a disconnect between
intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual ability of an individual to perform
accordingly. The latter is mainly a function of character formation, that is, of habituating
the proper management of one's feelings. Aristotle accepts that feelings cannot be set
aside in favor of some illusory, purely intellectual acceptance of the good. Instead, he
sees moral virtue as a matter of habitually managing one's feelings in the rightful
manner. As his famous line from Book Il of the Nicomachean Ethics puts it: Anyone
can get angry—that is 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.

The responsible moral agent then as a supposedly "dispassionate" moral

decision maker is an unrealistic ideal. The passions or feelings do not necessarily
detract from making an informed moral decision. One can even argue that making a
moral decision, because it is all about what she values, cannot but involve her most
serious feelings. What she must do then is to educate and to cultivate her feelings so
that they do not remain in the preconvention level, that is, of self-centered feelings
reducible to individualistic notions of pleasure and pain. The morally developed or

51
mature individual or agent therefore must have honed her intellectual capacity to
determine the relevant elements in a moral situation, including the moral principles to
explore. On top of that, she must also have cultivated her feelings so that she neither
simply gives in to childish emotions, nor does she also dismiss the "right feelings"
required for a truly informed moral decision. The mature moral agent realizes that she
is both a product of many forces, elements, and events, all of which shape her situation
and options for a decision. She also realizes that she is not merely a puppet of external
causes. Instead, a meaningful moral decision is one that she makes in full cognizance
of where she is coming from and of where she ought to go. At this point, we are ready
to identify the steps in making informed moral decisions.

Moral Problems

What must a morally mature individual do when she is confronted with a moral
problem?

What we ought to do when confronted with the potential ethical issue:

1. Determine our level of involvement in the case at hand. Do we need to make a
moral decision in a situation that needs action on our part? or are we trying to
determine the right thing to do in a particular situation being discussed? In the
latter situation, we may be making a moral judgment on a particular case, but
one that does not necessarily involve ourselves. We may just be reading about
a case that involves other people but we are not part of the case.
2. 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. Are we 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? But if the
situation we are involved in truly has moral weight, if it strikes one to the core
because it involves what it truly means to be human, then we must now
establish all the facts that might have a bearing on our decision. 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.
3. 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 the particular case. Identifying these
stakeholders forces 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.
This is also where we can be trapped in an immature assumption that the only
thing important is what we "feel" at that moment, which usually is reducible to
Kohlberg's notion of pre-conventional thinking.

When we identify all the stakeholders, we are obliged to recognize all the other
people potentially concerned with the ethical problem at hand, and thus must think of
reasons aside from our own self-serving ones, to come up with conclusions that are
impartial (in the sense that they take consideration of everyone's welfare), though still
thoroughly involved.

52
 Aside from identifying the stakeholders, we must also determine how they may
be 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, we must now identify the ethical issue at hand. There are several types
of ethical problems or issues:
a) The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether a certain
action is morally right or morally wrong. This is where the different ethical
theories or frameworks can serve. Why is murder said to be an unethical or
immoral act? How will utilitarianism explain the moral significance of this
action? How about the natural law theory? Deontology? Virtue ethics?
b) 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 the issue of the ethical value of the death
penalty. Can we say that death penalty is tantamount to murder? What
would the different ethical theories or frameworks say regarding this issue?
There is hardly an ethical problem if the agent's question is clearly about
performing a widely-considered unethical or immoral action, such as 'Ought
I to murder my neighbor?" Murder in almost all, if not all, societies is
unquestionably considered one of the worst acts a human being can
perform.
c) The third type points to the presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemmas
ethical situations in which there are competing values that seem to have
equal worth. The problem can be concerned either with a choice between
two competing moral goods or between two evils. The individual must try to
find the best balance possible that may honor the competing values. She
must then identify the possible choices in a given ethical situation and
weigh which one among them can best meet the interest of all the
stakeholders in question, as well as provide a satisfactory balance between
the values in question. 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. (robin hood scenario)
4. The final step, of course, 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 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.
Some facts may eventually turn out to be misleading, or not true at all, and so
the agent's vigilance and meticulousness in establishing the facts will always
be tested in any given ethical situation.

Responsible moral individual, however, must forge on realizing full well that
cultivating one's capacity for mature mora choice is a continuing journey in her life.
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. Not that
doing so will ever become an automatic process, the way a computer performs
mathematical calculations mechanically. A moral individual is always a human being
whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic, and who is always

53
placed in situations that are unique. There are no automatic moral decisions; therefore,
such a phrase is patently paradoxical.

One must continue to mana e her reason and a respond in the best way
possible to the kaleidoscope of moral situations that she finds herself in.

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?"

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 (and not just in some shallow emotional level) 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 human beings to intuiting what is universally good and to

practicing one's autonomy in determining what one ought to of these the possible roles
of reason and free will in identifying what one ought to do in a given moral situation.
What Aristotle's virtue ethics in the end indicates is the need for the habituation of
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 enough goals for human
reason and will. But what can possibly sustain or brace a moral agent so that she is
able to maintain the effort to implement such rigorous demands on the part of reason?
Aristotle's answer is the solid resolve of one’s character, which can only be achieved
through the right kind of habituation.

What the responsible moral individual must instead perform is to continuously

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 off the theories against one another, noting the
weakness in one for a particular case and possibly supplementing it with the strengths
of another.

54
Self, Society, And Environment
Individual/Self

John Stuart Mill's though seemingly a hedonistic theory given its 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. The genius of Bentham was his addition of extent, (that is, the number of
people affected by an action) to the list of circumstances that an individual must
consider in determining what one ought to do in a particular situation. 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, Thus, there is no selfishness even in Bentham's
version. Mill additionally stresses the difference between kinds of pleasures and
remarks that "It is better to be a Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied." This
important distinction exalts the moral individual over and above her purely physical,
material feelings or emotions. Therefore, what is good or right does not Simply reduce
to what "I feel is good for me! It instead puts premium on the higher kinds of pleasure
that are apt for the human being and which would be of benefit to the greatest number
affected. One's moral or ethical responsibility to herself then is to make sure that
everything she does will be for the greatest happiness, not just in number but in kind
and not just for her but for everyone affected by her acts.

Thomas Aquinas's natural law theory states as its first natural inclination 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 is biological or physical existence is to be deemed good,
while all actions that lead to the destruction of one's 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. Making sure that one lives a healthy life and that one
avoids all things that may hurt one or cause one harm is, for Aquinas, part of a person’s
moral responsibility for herself. On top of this first inclination one may also look at the
third natural inclination that says that part of human nature is to promote the truth and
cultivate a harmonious life in society with other humans. Part of one's responsibility to
herself then is a dedication to the truth (and thus to cultivate an aversion for lies and
Ignorance) and to live a peaceful social life. Aquinas teaches that a person cannot
remain within her own selfish desires since doing so might lead her to harm herself, to
dispense with the truth, or to destroy harmony in her community. Thus, 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, the end goal
of and never merely as the means, Kant goes beyond simply to not others as
instruments. There is nothing wrong with using a human being means or a tool for
one's own purposes because human is not without that happening. What Kant is
concerned with is when someone 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 Many people lose sight of is truly important because they become
consumed with many revenge, domination, and so on. What they seldom realize is that

55
they have lost themselves in the process of attempting to satisfy such desires. Lastly,
Kant's principle of autonomy teaches one that no one else can tell her what she ought
to do in a particular situation; the highest authority is neither the king nor the general
nor the pope. The highest authority, that which is self-legislating in the realm of moral
law, is none other than the rational individual herself. Her moral or ethical responsibility
to herself is to maintain her dignity as a rational agent, and thus become the self-
legislator in the realm of morality. She cannot be the follower or the slave of her own
selfish desires or of external authority.

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 the mark* in a
given moral situation. What the thinker is more concerned with is whether one's actions
lead one to become a better person in terms of cultivating her character, one may
make mistakes from time to time, but in the end. the important question to ask is
whether the person learned from such mistakes and therefore constructed a more or
less orderly life. If the person’s life in the end is one big mistake, then the person has
not become eudaimon or a "happy' (that is, "flourishing” person. Life for Aristotle is all
about learning from one's own experiences so that one becomes better as a person.
But make no mistake about this, one must become a better person and not just live a
series of endless mistakes.

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, Instead, the greatest happiness in
this case where everyone is affected by this particular set of relationships, is what must
take precedence in one's choice of actions. The other, therefore, is as important as
one's self in her consideration of the moral worth of her actions. Thus, in a person’s
relationship with her parents, siblings. Other family members, neighbors, classmates.
playmates, and eventually workmates, she must put into consideration the happiness
of every single individual affected by her actions.

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
(the second natural inclination), as well as to the promotion of the truth and the
peaceful and orderly social life (the third natural inclination), provide guidance on how
one ought to relate with her close relations. Again, the value of human life of proper
education and of promoting the truth and peaceable Social lifer must be upheld by the
individual in her relations with family and friends.

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. Everything else in the universe can be used
by the rational agent as mere means; only a rational agent herself can never be
reduced to mere means, but must always be treated as end it itself. Thus, one must
not abuse either oneself, nor one's human beings (in the context of one's close
relations) by treating them as mere means. "One must always treat humanity, whether
in oneself or in any other, always as end in itself*" as Kant himself said It does often
happen that one can forget the innate value of one’s parents (over and above their
usefulness as one's "source of finances") or one's friends (over and above the fact that
"they entertain me"). Kant reminds one to never reduce a human being to the level of
the instrument or tool.

56
 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 (a
measure that does not necessarily apply to a different situation), which involves
identifying the relevant fee lings 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. There is a
saying that “familiarity breeds contempt." which refers to the tendency of many people
to lapse into an attitude that tends to be hurtful to others one is closest to, this attitude
is a compound of feelings that one has, but these are feelings one most probably has
not yet sifted through. Temperance, therefore, is one Aristotelian virtue that clearly
applies to treating oneself and other people close to oneself fairly and with much
circumspection.

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. The ethical question arises when the
expectations of a particular society come into conflict with one's most fundamental
values. Philippine society, for example, is made up of many ethnolingui5tic 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: can members of indigenous group lay claim to a land that they do not
technically own because they do not have a legal title for it?

Mill's utilitarian doctrine Will always push for the greatest happiness principle
the prime determinant of what can be considered as good whether in the personal
sphere or in the societal realm. Thus, Filipinos cannot simply assume that their action
is good because their culture says so. Instead, the fundamental question ought to bet
this action bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest individual must therefore
think carefully whether her action, even if her culture approves of it (whichever it might
be – a Filipino culture, Ibaloi culture, and Maranaw culture, among others), 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. Should one stop at "what is good for us"
even if it is for the detriment of other people from other lands? Such considerations
suggest that even an action done by Filipinos within the Philippine territory technically
cannot remain a "matter for Filipinos only" if the action can potentially affect those
outside the borders of the nation.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand in his natural law theory has a clear
conception of 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 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 fife will be possible if individuals that comprise such a society do not value
human life, telling the truth and peaceful coexistence. Thus, contemporary social
issues that have to do with the dissemination of "post-truth, “alternative facts," and
"fake news" in the realm of social media are rightful targets of a Thomistic criticism of
what ought and ought not to be allowed in our dealings with each other. On the other
hand, the demand of the natural law for a peaceful and orderly social life can be put in
danger by acts of criminality and terrorism. The morally responsible agent must

57
therefore guard against committing any act that can go against this twofold requirement
of the third natural inclination of human nature.

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. These principles can and should apply directly to the construction of ethical duty in
one’s social life. Thus, no manner of heteronomous rules and expectations should
dictate one’s choice of actions, whether they be laws of the state or international
treaties, cultural norms and customs, or even the laws of one’s religion, According to
Kant's framework. if a person is to follow any of these heteronomous laws it must be
because such a law is in accordance with her understanding of her moral duty, but
must not be in any way contrary to it, Thus, 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 fight thing to do. More
positively, citizens of a particular society ought to make sure that the laws and rules
that they come up with are actually in line with what universalizable 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.8Tlrtues
such as justice, liberality, magnificence, friendliness, and rightful indignation suggest
that they are socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. A person ought to be guided by them
in her dealings with either the local or the wider global society. She must also be aware
that none of these virtues are fixed points; rather, each one will have a mesotes that is
determined by the particular context. This is a very important point. especially if a
person is in discourse with people coming from Other groups within her own society or
even from other societies and cultures. 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. Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), on the other
hand, perform their jobs in other countries abroad, 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 that will be vital here:
In the name of other virtues such as justice, much temperance is needed in dealing
with the other participants in social intercourse. We have seen here how each of the
four ethical frameworks we have covered can be used as a fecund starting point for
thinking through what a person's moral responsibility is toward herself, her close
relations, her fellow members in society, and her fellow human beings in a global
society, AEI four frameworks concern one's relationship with humans. However, one
realm that has only recently been given much attention, but one which seems to
demand an ethical response, is that of the non-human, physical environment that
human beings live in.

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 inter-human relations
rather than humanto-non-human relations. Consequently, some argues that using any
of the four ethical theories or frameworks may be an exercise in anachronism, that is,
in forcing together elements that belong to different time periods. We wilt, therefore,
merely suggest beginning possibilities for further exploration into an environmental
ethics based on any of the four classical ethical theories.

58
 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. Thus, one of the sources of animal ethics is utilitarianism. of course,
animals themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have
reason and free will. Some thinkers, however, will argue that animals can experience
pleasure and Pain. 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, Therefore, though only humans can make
moral decisions, animal ethics proponents argue that humans should always take into
account the potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on animals, What is good
then is not only what is good for the greatest number of human beings affected, but
also for the greatest number of creatures that can feel pleasure or pain. To extend the
argument, though the other members of an ecosystem (e.g., plants) may not have the
capacity for pleasure and pain, humans still ought to perform actions that will not lead
to their destruction, that in turn might lead to pain for the animals that live off them.
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.

Since Kantian deontology focuses on the innate dignity of the human being as
possessing reason, it can be argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims
that, in the end, will lead to an untenable social existence: Can one accept the following
maxim as something that everyone ought to follow: "One ought to not worry about
environmental as long as it produces economic wealth for my society?" Such thinking
is shortsighted and, in the end, does not produce universalizable maxims.

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 from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not
produce a harmonious, peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting the physical
environment because of shortsighted economic goals (e.g., overfishing the waters off
the coast of our islands or cutting down trees in our mountains and hills) will eventually
lead to disasters such as flooding or famines that will affect society in a detrimental
fashion.
Lastly, Aristotle's virtue ethics also pick up on the problem of such shortsightedness
and ask how this can possibly lead to becoming a better person. One may actually
invent a neo-Aristotelian vice here: the vice of myopia. This is a nearsightedness, not
a physical One, but in one's understanding of the implications of her actions. This
problem is therefore connected to a lack of intellectual virtue, to a deficiency in
foresight. How can a person claim that she is cultivating her character (for the purpose
of finally attaining eudaimonia) if she is guilty of the vice of myopia? One becomes a
better person, therefore, if she learns to expand her vision to see beyond what is
merely at close hand, Thus, seeing beyond the immediate is a virtue. One may argue
therefore that Aristotle would support the argument that a person has the moral
responsibility to see beyond what is immediate. If so, 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.

What we have tried to show here in this current section is possibility: that classical
ethical theories contribute to potentially solve twenty-first century problems. The
important point here is not to "force answers" but to be open to real possibilities, as
well as accepting real dead-ends. One must see the value of testing one's hypotheses,
but also of the virtue of accepting that some hypotheses need to be let go.

59
A Closing That Is Really an Opening

At the end of this introduction to ethical study, we should already have a more
or less clear idea of how to make informed moral decisions. You should, at this point,
have sufficient mental and affective equipment to arrive at sound judgments for cases
in discussion or for enacting real-life decisions. The four classical ethical theories or
frameworks that we have taken up are in no way exhaustive. There are many other
theories especially in the twentieth century that have emerged to take up the question
of "What ought I to do? and "Why ought I to do it? "These four frameworks, however,
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. They
are not to be seen as options to dictate on what one is supposed to do in a particular
situation. This is the cynical way these frameworks are sometimes employed: use them
as needed to justify what one wants to do in a particular situation. 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. Test them out: identify their strengths, recognize
their weak points, stretch them out to see up to where they can work and think of what
can be added to the parts where they do not work anymore.

In the end, there is only a beginning: We do not have a computer program here
that can automatically calculate what is the right thing to do in a given situation. It
seems safe to assume that there can never be such a thing. There is only the human
individual along with her community of fellow human beings who need to accept that
they must continue to explore the meaning of what is good and right while hoping to
arrive at the best judgments they can make at this point in time. 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 does mean something in the end—
these are part and parcel of making informed moral decisions.

Do not worry, you can do it!

60
 EVALUATION:

1. How can you be a genuine Filipino if you do not follow customs?

2. What is the distinction between a religious notion of sin and the philosophical
understanding of immoral or unethical acts?
3. How realistic is Kohlberg’s ideal of the highest stage of post-conventional
morality, that of universal ethical principles, given that feelings and emotions
are indispensable from human choice?
4. Given that the human condition is one of finitude, how will you know that you
are sufficiently informed when you finally make your moral judgement?
5. If a global ethics is currently emerging, does this means that the true meaning
of morality changes over time? Explain your answer.
6. Is there a difference between one’s ethical responsibility toward fellow humans
and toward nonhuman nature? Explain your answer.

REFERENCES:

Bulaong, O. Jr. G., Calano, MJ. T., Lagliva, A.M., Mariano, MN. E., Principe, JD. Z.,
(2017). Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. CM Recto Avenue,
Manila Philippines.

Prepared by:

REBECCA D. JASON, RGC, RPM

Instructor

Checked/Noted by:

MELANIE D. SALUMBIDES, EDD

Program Chairperson, CTE

Approved:

VICTORIA M. NOBLE, PHD

Department Head, Academics

61