1

MODULE 4 Deontology

TIME 1 week
ALLOTMENT
INSTRUCTOR TERESA B. LOPO

FACEBOOK Terry B. Lopo

EMAIL [email protected]
CELL NUMBER 09466740436

I. OVERVIEW
This module is designed for independent study. Deontology as a theory suggests that
actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules.
II. TARGETED COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME

CLO8 Practice learned concepts on implementing laws and regulations that will mold
responsible citizens.
CLO 9 Express oneself in an appropriate and dignified manner worthy of the
profession.

III. TARGETED TOPIC LEARNING OUTCOME

1. Apply the concepts of agency and autonomy to one’s moral experience; and
2. Evaluate actions using the universalizability test.

IV. ASSESSMENT

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

V. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES
A. Engage
What comes into your mind if you hear the word “Duty”?

B. EXPLORE
As a student, what are your duties at home, in school and in the society?

C. EXPLAIN
What is Duty of care and Dignity of risk?
D. ELABORATE
Provide more details on the maxims that you observed in Philippine culture which
manifest
”universalizability “?
 2

E. EVALUATE
Cite the importance of the study of deontology.

Module 4

Deontology

I. Introduction

While a radio program was in live broadcast one Monday morning, a certain Felipe
dela Cruz was praised by the radio announcer for exhibiting honesty in the performance
of his task or practice of his profession. Felipe is an employee of a Janitorial Firm
responsible for cleanliness and sanitation in the Province’s Bus Terminal. A week ago a
passenger in the name of Berta Araneta left her bag pack in the waiting area prior to the
Bus Trip scheduled that very morning. The bag contained essential items, a cellphone
worth Php 15,000.00 and a purse containing Php 20,000.00.
Upon the discovery of Felipe, the bag was sent to the main office for safekeeping and
the same incident was reported to the authorities. With the help of social media, the
incident became viral which then helped call the attention of the owner.
Considering the difficult times right now, anyone can just get the bag and consume its
contents for purposes of survival. Yet, Felipe returned the bag in good condition without
a promise of a reward. For now, let us suppose his main reason was simply because it
was right to return lost property to the rightful owner, no matter how tempting. It is
simply the right thing to do as perceived b Felipe.
As we previously said, perhaps, Felipe believed that it was the right thing to do.
Even if he felt that he could have benefitted from the proceeds of the valuable items in
the bag pack , he must have believed the principle that it is right to do the right thing.
Felipe could be holding on to this moral conviction as a principle of action. To hold a
moral conviction means believing that it is one’s duty to do the right thing. What is duty?
Why does one choose to follow his duty even if doing otherwise may bring her more
benefits.

III. Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes

Duty and Agency

Viewed objectively, duty means anything that ought to be done or omitted.

Subjectively, duty means the moral obligation of a person to respect the rights of others.
As a moral obligation, duty binds the will or it is laid on the will. Duty may come in six
kinds namely, natural, positive, affirmative, negative, perfect, and imperfect. A natural
duty is one imposed by the natural law such as the duty to preserve human life. Positive
duty is one which comes from positive law such as the duty to hear mass on Sundays and
to pay taxes. Affirmative duty refers to the moral obligation to do an act. Negative duty
refers to the moral obligation of a person to avoid or omit something an example of
which is “ do not steal”. A perfect duty is one which obliges one under strict justice such
as the payment of a just wage. Lastly, an imperfect duty is one which does not obligate a
person from the standpoint of justice, but from the standpoint of charity or other virtues.
Giving donations during calamities can be a perfect example ( Babor, page 222 ).
 3

The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science
(or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those
kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or
permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that
guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to
those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue]
theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices, deontologists
—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to
consequentialists (Stanford ).
Deontology is best known for the study of duty and obligation. The main proponent is
none other than Immanuel Kant, a German enlightenment philosopher who wrote,
Groundwork Towards a Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. In this work Kant brings our
attention to the fact that we, human beings, have the faculty called rational will, which is
the capacity to act according to principles that we determine for ourselves. Rational will
set humans different from animals. Furthermore, rationality consists of the mental faculty
to construct ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings. This is the
capacity for mental abstraction, which arises from the operations of the faculty of reason.
Thus, we have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing. We can remove
ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect on our actions
and how such actions affect the world. We can imagine a different and a better world,
and create mental images of how we interact with other people in that world. Like an
architect first constructs her blueprint of a house in her mind. When the draft of that
construction is drawn, she can give instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build
the actual house, which becomes the second construction. The first construction consists
in how we imagine things and the second on implementation. Through the capacity for
imagination and reflection, we conceive of how we could affect, possibly even change
the world we live in.

On the other hand, the rational will refers to the faculty to intervene in the world,
to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason. Unlike animals, humans have reason
which intervenes between impulse and act. We have the ability to stop and think about
what we are doing to evaluate our actions according to principles. Simply stated, we are
not only reacting to our surroundings and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of
ways to act according to certain rational principles. In many cases the rational will is
victorious over bodily impulses. This triumph clarifies the meaning of rational will, the
capacity of a person to be the cause of her actions based on reasons and not merely to
mindlessly react to the environment and base impulses. In philosophical discussions
about human freedom this capacity is called agency, which is the ability of the person to
act based on her intentions and mental states.
Going back to Felipe, the moment he discovered that the bag pack was left
behind, he reacted according to his rational will- to return the bag and its contents. He
determined that it was his duty to return it inasmuch as his rational will had conceived
such duty.
Hence, to act according to a duty is a specifically human experience. Animals, if it is true
that they do not possess the faculty of rational will, cannot conceive of having duties.
This is the starting point of deontology. We may claim that as long as we have
rationality, there will always be the tension between our base impulses and our rational
will.

Autonomy

Kant claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy, which is the
opposite of heteronomy. Autonomy refers to self-law and ( or self-legislating ) and
 4

heteronomy means other law. Consider the trivial example of brushing one’s own teeth,
which is not yet a moral dilemma but is sufficient to explain the difference between
autonomy and heteronomy. As far as we can tell, children do not like to brush their teeth,
but parents know that children should, to maintain oral hygiene. In that regard, parents
are the ones that legislate the principle that children should brush their teeth before they
go to bed and impose such a principle by using threats or incentives. Decades later, these
children would soon realize that proper hygiene is a must and brushing is an imposed
activity before going to bed. Putting all these together, it also refers to the willing of the
adopted principle into reality. Are they autonomous? Yes, certainly.
According to Kant, the will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also
subject to the law in such a way that it gives the law to itself ( self-legislating ), and
primarily just in this way that the will can be considered the author of the law under
which it is subject. Imagine a policeman who apprehends a suspected criminal by forcing
him on the ground and putting handcuffs on his wrists. Incidentally, subject comes from
the Latin words sub ( under ) and jacere ( to throw ). When combined, the two words
refer to that which is thrown or brought under something. The will must comply with the
law, which is the authority figure.
On one hand, heteronomy is the simple legislation and imposition of a law by an
external authority. Their parents are the authority figures, and the law is imposed
externally by rewards or punishments. In other words, autonomy belongs to the grown up
and already rational individuals, who have adopted such a law about brushing their teeth.
They regularly impose such a law on themselves out of the enactment of the will to
follow the law. The distinguishing point here is the locus of the authorship of the law. In
any given scenario where a person complies with the law, we ask where the author is,
whether it is external or internal. If the author of the law is external, the will is subjected
to an external authority, thus heteronomous will. In contrast, if the author was he will
itself , imposing the law unto itself, then we describe the will as autonomous.
Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal impulse.
He reiterated that, the choice that can be determined by pure reason is called free choice.
That which is determinable only by inclination ( sensible impulse, stimulus ) would be
animal choice. Human choice, in contrast, is a choice that may indeed be affected but not
determined by impulses, and is therefore in itself not pure, but can nevertheless be
determined to do actions from pure will.
Thus, there is a difference between what determines a choice or decision, whether
is caused by a sensible impulse of by pure reason. Bodily instincts and desires, such as
the urge to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse, comprise the set of human
compulsions for survival and the propagation of the species. Kant calls this set of actions
that are caused by sensible impulse animal choice or arbitrium brutum.
On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is determined by pure reason.
Free choice, argues that freedom resides in his capacity of reason to intervene, to “
mediate” within arbitrium brutum. This mental capacity is what makes the intervention
possible between stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of reason, a person can break
the immediacy of stimulus and reaction by stopping to deliberate and assess possible
alternative actions.
What does it mean for a human to be affected but is not determined by sensible
impulse? It implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be reduced to
mere animality. This is where the correlative conjunction not only” but also” is useful.
When we claim, “ The human person is not only an animal, but is also rational, “ we
admit to two possible causes of our actions: sensible impulses and the faculty of reason.
Human freedom resides in that distinction.
Autonomy is a property of the will only during instances when the action is determined
pure reason. When the action is determined by sensible impulses, despite the source of
those impulses being nevertheless internal, it is considered heteronomous. We can thus
make the conclusion that heteronomy of the will occurs when any foreign impulse,
 5

whether it is ext ernal or sensible is what compels a person to act. In contrast, autonomy
is the property of the will in those instances when pure reason is the cause of the action.

Universalizability

To figure out how the faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous action,
we need to learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate autonomy of the
will. A substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific actions that
comprise that theory. As such, it identifies the particular duties in a straightforward
manner that the adherents of the theory must follow. The set of Ten Commandments of
the udeo-Christian tradition is an unambiguous example of a substantive moral theory.
The specific laws are articulated mostly in the form of a straightforward moral command:
“ Honor your father and mother,” You shall not kill,” and so forth.

In contrast, a formal moral theory does not supply the rules or command
straightaway. It does not tell you what you may or may not do. Instead, a formal theory
provides us the “ form” or “ framework of the moral theory. To provide the “ form” or “
framework” of a moral theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria for determining,
on one’s own, the rules and moral commands. Metaphorically, we can think of a
cookbook as akin to a formal moral theory . In using a cookbook, we are given
instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we are not given the actual food
themselves, which would be “ substantive “. In a recipe for example, anyone could add a
slight variation to the ingredients and sequence of steps. To be exact, a formal moral
theory will not give us a list of rules or commands. Instead, it will give us a set of
instructions on how to make a list of duties or moral commands.
Kant wrote in 1785, the Grundlegung ur Metaphysik der Sitten, which embodies a
formal theory in what he calls the categorical imperative, which provides a procedural
way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of an action. Furthermore he mentioned,
act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that it become a
universal law.
There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative, namely
action, maxim, will, and universal law. Kant states that we must formulate an action as a
maim, which he defines as a “ subjective principle of action “. We have many maxims in
our daily lives, and we live according to them. A maxim that is universalizable is a
personal rule, adopted and complied by everyone, thus imagining a maxim as a law
which everyone is ought to follow.
The test for universalizability makes possible that self-legislation, for the result of
the categorical imperative, is nothing other than the capacity to distinguish between
permissible and impermissible moral acts. Any rational will can then begin the work of
producing a list of duties , what a rational and autonomous will believes to be right and
wrong actions.

V. Learning Activities

Discuss/ Enumerate your duties and responsibilities as a student and as a Filipino

citizen. What difficulties do you face in the exercise of these duties at present?
 6

VI. Assessment

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

VII.Enrichment Activities

What maxims have you observed in Philippine culture which manifest” universalizability
“? Discuss with your family members ( parents, grandparents, etc. ) Are these maxims
beneficial as we face the “new normal”?

VIII. Assignment

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

MODULE V Virtue Ethics

TIME 2 weeks
ALLOTMENT
INSTRUCTOR Teresa B. Lopo, PhD.
 7

FACEBOOK Terry B. Lopo

EMAIL [email protected]
CELL NUMBER 09466740436

VI. OVERVIEW
The study of Ethics will enable a person to understand better what his conscience is, how
he acquired it, how far he is likely to be able to trust to its deliverances, with safety, and
he can improve it and make it more intelligent.
VII. TARGETED COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME
CLO 7 Demonstrate qualities of an empowered individual in its personal and
professional life
CLO 8 Practice learned concepts on implementing laws and
regulations that will mold responsible citizens.
CLO 9 Express oneself in an appropriate and dignified manner
worthy of the profession.
VIII. TARGETED TOPIC LEARNING OUTCOME
Virtue Ethics
1. Happiness and Ultimate Purpose
2. Virtue as Excellence
Moral Virtue and Mesotes
IX. ASSESSMENT
Write an essay that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino
character at this time. From your work categorize the traits as virtue or vices. Create
a table to distinguish the two categories. Which of these traits are very visible as we
face the challenges of the current pandemic crisis? Why?

X. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES
A. ENGAGE

B. EXPLORE
Investigate on-line or on personal experience where people do not follow rules and
regulations. Cite specific situations.

C. EXPLAIN
Expound the saying, “Sa mata ng bata, ang ginagawa ng matanda ay tama.”  (In
the eyes of the young, what the elders do is right.)

D. ELABORATE
The local saying “ madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao”.

E. EVALUATE
What it means to be a virtuous human being?

MODULE V
 8

I. Introduction

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

Forget What You Learned in School

Source: https://www.powerwheels.com.ph/opinion-the-real-influencers/

There’s a Tagalog saying that goes, “Sa mata ng bata, ang ginagawa ng matanda

ay tama.” (In the eyes of the young, what the elders do is right.) So, imagine a young
impressionable child getting into or alighting from a jeepney or a bus with one or both of
his/her parents or a guardian in an area that’s clearly marked “No Loading or
Unloading”. Children are taught in school to obey rules and regulations but they can see
just by this example that it’s quite common to ignore traffic signs and that even their
parents or guardian violate laws with impunity and get away scot-free.

Jeepney stops to pick up passengers at the foot of the Shaw Boulevard bridge…
 9

II. Lesson/Unit/Study

Guide/Notes Virtue Ethics

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

is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based
approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By practicing
being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and
moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely
make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.
To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark
White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the
opportunity to kill the Joker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOVso5ttv0U
Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse killing the Joker. By taking this
one life, Batman could save multitudes. Deontologists, on the other hand, would
reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a virtue ethicist
“would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want
to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.
So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being.
And, it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving
ethical dilemmas.
 10

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

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

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

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

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

The guidelines were launched following months of consultations among the

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

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

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

Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the
good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. Ancient Greek
philosophers Plato, and Aristotle are known authorities on the study of ethics.
Aristotle came up with comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue ethics in his
book entitled Nicomachean Ethics.
 11

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

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

Happiness and Ultimate Purpose

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

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

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

What defines a person therefore is his or her function or activity of reason. One’s
action to be considered as truly human must be an act that is always in accordance to
the dictates of reason . A dancer, for example, becomes different from a chef because
of her function to dance while the chef is to cook. A good individual therefore stands
closer to meeting the conditions of happiness because her actions are of a higher
purpose. The local saying “ madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao” can be
understood in the light of Aristotle’s thoughts on the function of a good person. Any
human being can perform the activity of reason; thus, being human is achievable.
However, a good human being strives hard in doing an activity in an excellent way.
Therefore, the task of being human becomes more difficult because doing such
activity well take more effort on the part of the person.
Virtue as Excellence
Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function
according to reason and to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of
doing things is called virtue or arête by the Greeks. According to Aristotle, virtue is
something that one strives for in time. One does not become an excellent person
overnight. This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act. It is
commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle-blower, exposing all
the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be careful in
judgment of calling immediately that individual as being a “ person of virtue “. Being
an excellent individual works on doing well in her day-to-day existence.
 12

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

one needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed
by her rational activity in an excellent way. The human soul is divided into two parts
according to Aristotle: the irrational element and the rational faculty. The irrational
element consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect
functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a person.
As an irrational element, this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised
because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect
of the soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical activities and growth
of a person. Whereas, the appetitive aspect works as a desiring in itself is an impulse
that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to go along with
reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for
example, is so strong in a person that one tends to ignore reasonable demands to
control such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect, the desiring faculty of
man can be subjected to reason.

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

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

In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of
practical wisdom in steering the self toward the right choices and actions. Knowing
the good is different from determining and acting on what is good. But a morally
 13

good person has to achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom to perform the
task of being moral. For Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of
intellectual excellence. Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally
virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual excellence does not necessarily
mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the good that needs
to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish.

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

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

Moral Virtue and Mesotes

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

Bro. Armin Luistro, with his practical wisdom and experience, has observed the
possible effect of television violence on the young so he issued guidelines on
television viewing for children. He says that good values instilled on children are
 14

“ sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people “ because of television

violence. As former Secretary of the Department of Education, he possibly learned
so much about the consequence of such situation on the young.
As maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or mesotes for the Greeks
that is aimed at by a morally virtuous person.

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

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

Amorally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of targeting
the mean is always difficult because every situation is different from one another.
Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance where she is
in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by Aristotle, the mean
is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral involves
seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly every
particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean. Mesotes determines
whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient.
In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for
protecting and assisting the young on their personal development should act in view
of the middle measure. The government could have dismissed the issue or could have
banned television shows portraying violence. But such extremes censure the citizen’s
freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in another issue.
Wisely, the government acted on the side of the middle measure by going through a
series of consultations to address the issue of television violence-implementing the
rules and guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of television airtime for
child-friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code that took into
account the “ sensibilities of children “. It seems that the government acted in a
manner that is not deficient and excessive.

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

Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character
identified out of her habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is seen
 15

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

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

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

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

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

Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness
 16

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

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

III. Learning Activities

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

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

IV. Assessment

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

V. Enrichment Activities

In your own opinion, how is a person’s character formed? What factors influence a
person’s character?
Looking at your own experience, who influenced you the most in terms of character
formation? How did such person/persons contribute to your character formation?
Discuss.
 17

VI. Assignment

Read an article/s about the famous British Serial Killer Robert John Maudsley
which inspired the award winning film Hannibal Lecter, then, answer the questions
below:
a.) Write a brief profile of Robert John Maudsley.
b.) How did his early life lead to deep psychological scars?
c.) In a documentary, many psychologists said that unlike other crimes, his crimes
were only committed in prison as a way to avenge other victims. What can you say
about this?
d.) In response to the call of establishing a society that manifests moral virtues
among its citizens , what can you contribute ? Discuss your answers.
 18

MODULE VI Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions

TIME 2 weeks
ALLOTMENT
INSTRUCTOR Teresa B. Lopo, PhD.

FACEBOOK Terry B. Lopo

EMAIL [email protected]
CELL NUMBER 09466740436

XI. OVERVIEW
Module VI identified and explained the steps in making informed decisions when
confronted with moral problems and internalize the necessary steps toward making
informed moral decisions. The different factors that shape an individual in her moral
decision-making Will also be discussed.
XII. TARGETED COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME
CLO7 Demonstrate qualities of an empowered individual in its personal and
professional life
CLO8 Practice learned concepts on implementing laws and regulations that will mold
responsible citizens.
XIII. TARGETED TOPIC LEARNING OUTCOME
1. Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision-
making;
2. Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions; and
3. Apply the ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self,
society, and, the non-human environment.
XIV. ASSESSMENT
In relation to local, national and international pandemic scenarios, discuss the
relevance of the following concepts:
a.) Cultural Relativism
b.) Moral Agent
c.) Ethical
Responsibility
d.) Culture
e.) Environment
XV. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES
F. ENGAGE
What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics?
G. EXPLORE
Given that the human condition is one of the finitude, how will you know that you
are sufficiently informed when you finally make your moral judgment?
H. EXPLAIN
If global ethic is currently emerging, does this mean that the true meaning of
morality changes over time? Please explain your answer.
I. ELABORATE
The ancient Greeks had a famous saying “Ipimeleia he auto”, translated into
English as “Know thyself”. Please elaborate this saying.
J. EVALUATE
Examine your feeling or emotions regarding the issue of organ trafficking. Did
you feel sympathetic to the person who is about to sell his kidney?
 19

Module VI

Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions

I. Lesson Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

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

II. Introduction

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

Ethics teaches us that moral valuation can happen in the level of the personal, the
societal (both local and global), and in relation to the physical environment. Personal
can be understood to mean both the person in relation to herself, as well as her
relation to other human beings on an intimate or person-person basis. Ethics is clearly
concerned with the right way to act in relation to other human beings and toward self.
How she takes care of herself versus how she treats herself badly is a question of
ethical value that is concerned mainly with her own person. Personal also refers to a
person’s intimate relationships with other people like her parents, siblings, children,
 20

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

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

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

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

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

III. Lesson/Unit/Study

Guide/Notes The Moral Agent

and Contexts

The one who is tasked to think about what is “right” and why it is so, and to
choose to do so, is a human individual. Who is this individual who must engage
herself in ethical thought and decision- making? Who one is, in the most fundamental
sense, is another major topic in the act of philosophizing. The Greeks were known for
the saying “know thyself “. Ramon C. Reyes a Filipino philosopher in his essay “Man
and Historical Action “ explained that “ who one is “ is a cross-point by this, he
means that one’s identity , who one is or who I am, is a product of many forces and
 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Ethics

A common opinion many people hold is that one’s culture dictates what is right
or wrong for an individual. For such people, saying “when in Rome, do as the
Romans do” by St. Ambrose applies to deciding on moral issues. This quote implies
that one’s culture is inescapable, that is, one has to look into the standards of her
society to resolve all her ethical questions with finality. How one relates to oneself,
 22

society and other elements with the natural world are all predetermined by her
membership in her society and culture.

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

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

Beyond his criticism of the logic of cultural relativism, Rachels also employs a
reduction ad absurdum argument. It is an argument which first assumes that the claim
in question is correct, in order to show the absurdity that will ensue if the claim is
accepted as such. He uses this argument to show what he thinks is the weakness of the
position. He posits three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of cultural
relativism. First, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the
practices or beliefs of another culture anymore as long as that culture thinks that what
it is doing is correct. But if that is the case, then the Jews for example, cannot criticize
the Nazi’s believed that they were doing the right thing. Secondly, if cultural
relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the Nazi’s plan to exterminate
all Jews in World War II, since obviously, the Nazis believed that they were doing the
right thing. Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even
criticize the practices or beliefs of one’s own culture. If that is the case, the black
South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a policy of racial segregation
that privileges the dominant race in a society, could not criticize that official state
position. Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot accept the moral
progress which may happen. The fact that many societies now recognize women’s
rights may not necessarily represent a better situation for these women and children at
present. Furthermore, Rachels argues that recognizing and respecting differences in
cultures do not necessarily mean that there is no such thing as objective truth in
morality. He also reiterated that cultural relativism can recognize and respect cultural
differences and still maintain the right to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks
are wrong, if she performs proper rational deliberation.
 23

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

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

Religion and Ethics

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

teachings of their own religion that define what is truly “ right “ or “ wrong “, “ good
or “ bad “. The question of the proper relationship between religion and ethics,
therefore, is one that demands philosophical exploration. There are many different
 24

religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of the
largest religious groups in the world at present, based on population. The Philippines
is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet many other religions continue to flourish in the
archipelago. Beyond all the differences, however, religion in essence represents a
group’s ultimate, most fundamental concerns regarding their existence. For followers
of a particular religion, the ultimate meaning of their existence, as the existence of the
whole reality, is found in the beliefs of that religion. Therefore, the question of
morality for many religious followers is reduced to following the teachings of their
own religion. Many questions arise from this assertion.

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

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

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

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

Moral Deliberation

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to
do and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This
necessary growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of
study of many theorists. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence
 25

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

The second level of moral development according to Kohlberg is the

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

In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rule and regulations of
their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion-
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. For Kohlberg it is a
psychological theory, that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s growth in
moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both ( 1)
the pre-conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered
kind of thinking, an egoism, as well as ( 2 ) the conventional 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 individuals must outgrow eve the simple following of
supposedly right rules.

The third and highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls
post-conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good or
right is not reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question of
understanding personally what one ought to do and deciding., using one’s free will, to
act accordingly. This level, which is also divided into two stages, represents the
individual’s realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take
precedence over even the rules or conventions that her society dictates. An agent has
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
 26

moral agent sees the value of the social contract, namely, agreements that rational
agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be
considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow. This notion of
common good is post-conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to
what tis theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally desirable,
whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not.

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

Feelings in Moral Deliberation

Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspectives

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

Moral Problems

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

After ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need
to make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a
moral situation or not. We must set aside all details that have no connection to the
situation. We must also identify whether an item in consideration is truly factual or
merely hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded assumption, and thus unsupportable.
 27

This is where such things as “ fake news “ and “ alternative facts “ have to be
weeded out. Letting such details seep into our ethical deliberation may unfairly
determine or shape our ethical decision-making process, leading us into potentially
baseless choices or conclusions. The responsible moral individual must make sure
that she possesses all the facts she needs for that particular situation, but also only the
facts that she needs- no more, no less.

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

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

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

The final step, is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision,
whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a
concrete action she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very
difficult enough to make and for so many different reasons. Not all the facts in a
given case may be available to the agent for her consideration. The responsible moral
individual, however, must forge on realizing full well that cultivating one’s capacity
for mature moral choice is a continuing journey. Aristotle recognizes the importance
of continuous habituation in the goal of shaping one’s character so that she becomes
more used to choosing the right thing. A moral individual is always a human being
whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic, and who is always
placed in situations that are unique.
 28

The Value of Studying Ethical Theories or Frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

The responsible moral individual must test the cogency and coherence of the
ethical theory or framework in question against the complexity of the concrete
experience at hand. In such a spirit of experimentation, the moral individual is able to
play of the theories against one another, noting the weakness in one for a particular
case and possibly supplementing it with the strengths of another.
 29

Self, Society, and Environment

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

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

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

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

Natural law theory, through its recognition of the inviolable value of human life
whomever it belongs to, immediately offers an ethic of interpersonal relationships.
Coupled with this, the value that Aquinas gives to the production and care for
offspring, as well as to the promotion of the truth and the peaceful and orderly social
life, provide guidance on how one ought to relate with her close relations.
 30

Kant’s deontology recognizes the principle of humanity as end in itself and as a

cornerstone of ethical decision-making because this theory recognizes the full
autonomy of every single rational agent. Thus, one must not abuse either oneself, nor
one’s fellow human beings by treating them as mere means.

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

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

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

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

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

Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the guide to all the actions that a
person has to take, even in her dealing with the larger community of people. Virtues
such as justice, liberality, magnificence, friendliness, and rightful indignation suggest
that they are socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. A person ought ought to be
 31

guided by them in her dealings with either the local or the wider global society.
Within the Philippines, there are around 175 ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own
language and culture, and therefore each with its own set of beliefs and practices.
Filipino workers abroad, on the other hand, perform their jobs in other countries, and
so they must balance the need for acculturation on one hand and keeping one’s
Filipino identity on the other. Temperance once again presents itself as one
Aristotelian virtue other than, justice in dealing with the other participants in social
intercourse.

The Non-Human Environment

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

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

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

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk about the physical
environment and human moral responsibility to it as such, but one can try to infer
from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not
produce a harmonious, peaceful society.

Lastly, according to Aristotle, one becomes a better person if she learns to epand
her vision to see beyond what is merely at close hand. One must see beyond the
satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make sure that harming the
environment for the sake of such will not eventually lead to something much worse.
 32

A Closing that is Really an Opening

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

IV. Learning Activities

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

V. Assessment

In relation to local, national and international scenarios, discuss the relevance of the
following concepts. You may cite the pressing issues of the time in your output.
a.) Cultural Relativism
b.) Moral Agent
c.) Ethical Responsibility
d.) Culture
e.) Environment

VI. Enrichment Activities

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

VII. Assignment

Reminder: These questions are very practical in such a way that they involve issues such
as the distribution of SAP, corruption, ECQ, economic recession and depression,
insurgency etc. Your observations and honest assessment are very useful in internalizing
and understanding Ethics as a course.
These are the steps in making informed decisions when confronted with moral
problems. The steps can be summarized as follows:
 33

1. Determine your involvement in the moral situation ( your participation in the

situation ).
2. Gather the necessary facts ( give the current situation ).
3. Identify the stakeholders ( parties involved or affected ).
4. Name all the alternative choices possible and their potential effects on all
stakeholders.
( what choices/ options may be done and the possible effects to stakeholders )
5. Identify the type of ethical issue at hand ( Is it ethical or unethical? Or is there an
ethical dilemma? )
6. Make your ethical conclusion or decision ( what ought to be done? )

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