THE KEY CONCEPTS IN ETHICS

Learning outcomes:

In this lesson, you are expected to:

1. Differentiate between ethics and morality; human acts and acts man; and moral and non-moral
standards;
2. Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human existence;

Introduction:

Knowing the nature of ethics is the first basic step to strengthen the foundation of a personal and
a lifelong commitment. To be ethical does not only require knowledge of ethics but also the willingness to
live ethically. The willingness and moral conviction to live the virtuous life, we alone cultivate our moral
sense as we alone make the decision to do what is good or we alone make the decision to refuse to do
the right thing (Brady, 2015).

This lesson will acquaint us with some key concepts in ethics. This will teach us to make moral
decisions by using dominant moral frameworks to analyze and solve moral dilemmas.

Discussion:

1. Ethics and Morality

I have explained the meaning and types of ethics. I have also explained there very briefly the
difference between ethics and morality. Now, I will clearly distinguish morality from ethics by explaining
the meaning, nature, and dynamics of morality. Hence, this article will briefly address the question “What
is morality?”.

It must be noted, however, that the difference between ethics and morality is not that significant.
In fact, the former is essentially synonymous with the latter. Etymologically speaking, ethics comes from
the Greek word ethos, while morality from the Latin word mos (or mores, if it’s used in a plural form), both
words referring to customary behavior (Worthington, 2005). For this reason, we may use the word
“immoral” in lieu of the word “unethical”, or we may use the word “moral” instead of the word “ethical”.
This is the reason why we say that a “moral person” or “ethical person” is one who is good and does the
right thing, and an “immoral person” or “unethical person” is one who is bad and does what is wrong.

As we can see, the terms ethics and morality can be used interchangeably. However, there is a
fine line that divides the two. In other words, we can distinguish one from the other in some respects.

The first idea that came to our mind when we ask the difference between morality and ethics is
that the latter generally refers to the systematic study of the rightness and wrongness of a human action,
while the former is generally understood as the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In this way, we
can say that ethics is the specific branch of philosophy that studies the morality (that is, the rightness or
wrongness) of a human act. With this, we may initially conclude that ethics is the science of “morals”,
while morality is the practice of ethics (Okasha, 2016).

Based on the above initial discussion on the difference between the two terms, we can now draw
the idea that ethics attempts to provide systems of moral principles and the reasons why these principles
are valid. Hence, ethics is more concerned with theories that can be used to explain why a particular
moral principle is valid or not, right or wrong. It is for this reason that ethicists have come up with some of
the basic ethical principles that may help determine the rightness or wrongness of a human action.
Some of these basic ethical principles are: 1) Respect for persons, 2) Truthfulness and Confidentiality, 3)
Autonomy and Informed Consent, 4) Beneficence, 5) Non-maleficence, and 6) Justice (Brady, 2015;
Worthington, 2005).
 Now, as already mentioned, morality refers to principles of right and wrong behavior or rightness
and wrongness (that is, goodness and badness) of human actions. And more importantly, in
determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions, the moral agent is guided by the broader rules
or principles of ethics. For instance, the person’s moral belief that killing is wrong may stem from the basic
ethical principle of “Respect for persons” or “Non-maleficence”. Indeed, this example further explains the
basic difference between ethics and morals: if ethics says that killing is wrong because it violates the
basic ethical principles of “Respect for persons” or “Non-maleficence”, morality, on the other hand, says
“Do not kill” because it is wrong. Again, this is the reason why ethics is understood as the science of
morals, while morality is the practice of (the basic principles of) ethics.

2. Human acts and Acts of Man

The term human act has a fixed technical meaning. It means an act (thought, order, deed,
desire, omission) performed by a human being when he is responsible; when he knows what he is doing;
and when he wills to do it (Encylopedias, 2020; Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com, 2010). Acts
performed by an individual which are not subject to his will and reason are not called strictly human acts
but rather natural acts (Artigas, 1990). An act is perfectly human when it is done with full knowledge and
full consent of the will' and with full and unhampered freedom of choice. If the act is done without
knowledge or consent it is not a human act at all (Encylopedias, 2020;
Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com, 2010). An act done by a human being but without knowledge
and consent is called an act of a man/person but not a human act (Artigas, 1990). Acts of man,
therefore, are acts shared in common by man and other animals, whereas human acts are proper
to human beings. In the terminology of classical realistic philosophy, a human act is “actus humanus”,
while an act of a person is “actus hominis” (Encylopedias, 2020).

According to The essential elements of a human act are three.

a. Knowledge: A person is not responsible for an act done in ignorance, unless the ignorance is the
person’s own fault, and is therefore willed (invincible ignorance) in which case he has knowledge
that he is in ignorance and ought to dispel it. Thus, in one way or another, knowledge is
necessary for responsible human act (Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com, 2010).
b. Freedom: A person is not responsible for an act over which he has no control, unless he
deliberately surrenders such control by running into conditions and circumstances which rob him
of liberty. Thus, freedom is necessary for every human act
(Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com, 2010).

c. Actual choice or voluntariness: A person is not responsible for an act which he does not will,
unless he wills to give up his self1control. (as a man does, for instance, in allowing himself to be
hypnotized or by deliberately becoming intoxicated. Thus, voluntariness or actual choice enters
into every human act (Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com, 2010).

Now, a human act is a willed act. It proceeds from the will, following the knowledge and judgment
of the mind or intellect. Since what refers to the freewill is usually described as moral, a human act is a
moral act. Since the will is free a human act is a free act (Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com, 2010).

3. Moral Standards versus Non-moral Ones

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are
deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral
implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional
Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of
dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is
despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind
if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy
and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may
have pitied the Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up
daringly despicable (Gallinero, 2018).

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter
of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of
moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which
may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know,
violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural problem?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is, of
what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste)
comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but understanding the
difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once we have distinguished
moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the principles and theories in ethics,
we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions (Unknown, 2018).
Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running
the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and
homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point
here is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to
impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then
we may have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common
moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings
(Gallinero, 2018).

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to
be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally
bad (De Guzman, 2017). Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being
of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans
ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In
other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as
general rules about our actions or behaviors (De Guzman, 2017). For example, we may say “We are
always under the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is
absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements about
what is good and desirable or not (De Guzman, 2017). For example, we may say “Helping the poor is
good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics (Gallinero, 2018),
namely: 1) moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals,
and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are not established or
changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the
adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back
up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral standards are overriding,
that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially of self-interest; 4) moral
standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just; and 5) moral
standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right,
wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or
wrong in a non-moral way (Gallinero, 2018). Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette
by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as
legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should
not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous
observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards
also does not pose any threat to human well-being (Gallinero, 2018).

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says
“Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving”
or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”. Furthermore, non-moral standards are practical, meanwhile moral
standards are normative.

4. Dilemma and Moral Dilemmas

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and dynamics of moral
dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person has choices to
make that will all have results she does not want (De Guzman, 2017). For example, a town mayor faces a
dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers
for economic development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose
between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can say is that that
person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that
person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem (Gallinero, 2018).

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or
moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics,
are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a
morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example:

Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an ectopic
pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. In
other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this happens, the
development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Lindsay continues with her
pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the best way to save
Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus,
then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.
 In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting options, namely,
either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time jeopardizes her moral integrity
or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay is faced with a
huge moral dilemma.

According to De Guzman (2007), there are three conditions that must be present for situations to
be considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a
decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and act
accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of
action. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already pointed out
above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur. And
third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised. This
means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according
to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong
which implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something
which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person
also fails on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas (De Guzman, 2017; Gallinero, 2018)

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are categorized into
the following: 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas, 3)
obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and 4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict
with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes
precedence over the other (Gallinero, 2018). In other words, the moral agent here does not know which
option is morally right or wrong. For instance, I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early,
but on my way home I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to the hospital. Where does my
actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there are conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we need
to note that we want a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is an important purpose being served by my
getting home early? How serious is the condition of the sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which
option is morally right in this situation. However, one option must be better than the other; only, it needs
fuller knowledge of the situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas. Ontological moral
dilemmas, on the other hand, involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with
each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say
that the moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that
neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose
between the conflicting moral requirements (Gallinero, 2018). For instance, a military doctor is attending
to the needs of the wounded soldiers in the middle of the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a
blood transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is available at the moment. To whom shall the doctor
administer the blood transfusion? For sure, we could not tell whether administering a blood transfusion to
Soldier A is more moral than administering a blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

Self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings (Gallinero, 2018). For
example, David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the campaign period, he promised
the indigenous peoples in his community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the
same time, he seeks financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the elections,
yet he is faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at the same time
allows the mining corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through his own actions, David created a
situation in which it is impossible for him to be discharged from both obligations. World-imposed moral
dilemma, on the other hand, means that certain events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral
conflict (Gallinero, 2018). William Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie
Zawistowska has been asked to choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the gas
chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to only one of
Sophie’s children. If she does not choose which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their
death. Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the Children’s
Camp.”

Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory,
while prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden (Gallinero, 2018).
The famous “Sartre’s Student” is a classic example. It reads:

The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of prohibition dilemmas.

Finally, in single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all
things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is
compelled to act on two or more equally the same moral options but she cannot choose both (Gallinero,
2018). For instance, a medical doctor found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor
may experience tension between the legal requirement to report the case and the desire to respect
confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics acknowledges our obligation to follow legal
requirements and to intervene to protect the vulnerable. In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand,
“…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though
each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” According
to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have
chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses
B instead of A and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs in situations that involve
several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is expected to come up with
consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. A family may be torn between choosing to terminate or
prolong the life of a family member. An organization may have to choose between complying with the
wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying them below the required
minimum wage. The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also entails that
the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation to do what is
right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to be defended on
moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent the organization from breaking apart”.

Conclusion:

It was emphasized that ethics is a science of morals, while morality is the practice of (the basic
principles of) ethics. An act which man performs knowingly, freely and voluntarily is called human act.
While, acts of man are those actions which happen in man’s instinctive, without knowledge, and are not
within the control of the will. Thus, the concerned of ethics is merely on human acts.

The rightness and wrongness of human act is easily identify in the context of moral and non-
moral ones. If a moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral
standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”. So, if someone is immoral,
you can be sure they know right from wrong. If someone is moral, you can be sure they do right things
and avoid always what is an evil deed.

Given the personal nature of morals, there are situations where person/s, who are forced to
choose between two or more conflicting options. This is what we called dilemma. However, if a person is
in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a
dilemma.

Assessment:

CRITERIA
Score Rubrics RATING SCORE
7-10 Answers are sufficiently made and supply all evidence supports to the
answers
4-6 Answers are partially made and some evidence supports to the answers

1-3 Answers are not clearly made and vague supports to the answers

0 No answer.

Total Score

Bibliography:

Philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com. (2010, August 3). Retrieved July 3, 2020, from Philosophy

Encylopedia. (2020, june 15). Retrieved june 21, 2020, from

Artigas, M. (1990). Introduction to Philosophy. Metro Manila: Sinag-tala Publishers.

Brady, M. (2015). Ethics. In D. Pritchard, What is this thing called Philosophy? (p. 7). New York:
Routledge.

De Guzman, J. A. (2017). Ethics: Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society. Malabon City: Mutya
Pub. House INC.

Gallinero, W. (2018). Ethics. Malabon City: Mutya Pub. House INC.

Https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/.

Okasha, S. (2016). Philosophy of Science: A very Short Introduction. united Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.

Pasco, M. O. (2018). Ethics. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.

Unknown. (2018, June 8). https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards.

Worthington, R. (2005). Ethics and Plliative Care: a Case-based manual. United Kingdom: Radcliffe
Publishing.