Chapter One: Understanding Civics and Ethics

1.1 The Definition and Nature of Ethics and Morality

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand people‘s moral beliefs and actions.
Ethicsormoral philosophy, considers theories about what human beings are capable of doing, alongside
accounts of what they ought to do if they are to live an ethically good life. Ethics also explores the meaning
and the ranking of different ethical values, such as honesty, autonomy, equality and justice, and it
considers ethical quandaries that human beings face in the course of living their own independent but, also,
socially interdependent lives.Occasionally the term ethics is used interchangeably with morals. Although
this is acceptable, a precise usage would apply the term‘s morals and moral to the conduct itself, while the
terms ethics and ethical would refer to the study of moral conduct or to the code that one follows. Thus, the
specific act of telling the caller you were home could be described as moral or immoral. But what makes
any act moral or immoral, right or wrong fall within the province of ethics.
When we speak of moral problems then, we generally refer to specific problems, such as ―Is lying ever
right?Or ―Is stealing always wrong? in contrast, we can look at ethical problems as being more
general and theoretical. Thus, ―what makes any act, such as lying or stealing, right or wrong?and ―what
makes any entity good?are ethical problems. In short, morality refers to the degree to which an action
conforms to a standard or norm of human conduct. Ethics refers tothe philosophical study of values
and of what constitute good and bad human conduct.
Ethics Morality
Is philosophical study of the code, standards refers to the code of conduct one follows while ethics
or norm of human conduct and it is more is the study of moral conduct or the study of the
theoretical and general one. code that one follows

Ethics establish the standards, norms, or codes is the conformity of human behavior to
to be followed by human beings; itis the the established code of conduct .If an
study of morality, moral principles, and action conform to the established code,
moral decision making. it is called moral ,if not immoral
Is the development of reasonable standards refers to the effort to guide one‘s
andprocedures for ethical decision-making? conduct by reason while giving equal
weight to the interests of each individual
who will be affected by one‘s conduct

1.2. Ethics and Law

1
As against morals and ethics, laws are norms, formally approved by state, power or national or
international political bodies. Many laws are instituted in order to promote well -being, resolve
conflicts of interest, and promote social harmony. However, there are several reasons why ethics is not law.
1. Some actions that are illegal may not be unethical. Speeding is illegal, but one mighthave an ethical
obligation to break the speed limit in order to transport someone to a hospital in an emergency.
2. Some actions that are unethical may not be illegal. Most people would agree that lying is unethical but
lying is only illegal under certain conditions, e.g. lying on an income tax return, lying when giving sworn
testimony, etc.
3. Laws can be unethical or immoral. The United States had laws permitting slavery in the 1800s but most people
today would say that those laws were unethical or immoral. Although we have moral and ethical obligations
to obey the law, civil disobedience can be justified when immoral or unethical laws exist.
1.3. The Importance/Goal of Moral and Civic Education
Civic education is a discipline that deals with virtue traits rooted in values of respect and culture of tolerance to make
individuals responsible and efficient member of their community. It teaches the values and sense of commitment
that define an active and principled citizen, how to make responsible decisions, solve problems, care about
others, contribute to society, and be tolerant and respectful of diversity.
In higher educational institutions of Ethiopia, civics and ethics/moral education is given with the aim of educating
students about democratic culture, ethical values and principles, supremacy of constitution, the rule of law,
rights and duties of citizens. Generally, the necessity of delivering the course emanates from:
1) The need to instill citizens about their rights and duties:
2) The Need for Participant Political Culture
3) The Need for Relevant Knowledge, Skills and Positive Attitudes
4) The issue of fostering intercultural societies:
5) The issue of peace-building
6) The issue of inclusiveness
Moral and Civics Education is based on and seeks to promote in students core moral, ethical, democratic,
and educational values, such as:
 Respect for life
 Respect for reasoning
 Fairness
 Concern for the welfare of others
 Respect for diversity
 Peaceful resolution of conflict

2
Chapter Two: Approaches to Ethics
All moral theories address the questions of what is Good, why it‘s Good, and where the Good is located? If
there is anything ―easy about moral inquiry it‘s the fact that there are only three basic kinds of
prescriptive moral theories: teleological theories, deontological theories, and virtue-based theories.
2.1 Normative Ethics
Normative ethics;
 Offers theories or accounts of the best way to live. These theories evaluate actions in a
systematic way, i.e., they may focus on outcomes or duties or motivation as a means of
justifying human conduct.
 Includes ethical theories or approaches such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics,
principlism, narrative ethics and feminist ethics.
Normative ethics poses questions of the following kind:
 Are there general principles or rules that we could follow which distinguish between right and
wrong? Or:
 Are there virtues and/or relationships that we can nurture, in order to behave well?
2.1.1 Teleological Ethics (Consequentialism)
It is referred as ―the end justifies the means. It believes in purpose, ends or goals of an action, it stress
that the consequences of an action determines the morality or immorality of a given action. Which
means an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral depending on what happens because of
it. One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral principles but if the result,
moral act is harmful, or bad it must be judged as morally or ethically wrong act.
2.1.2. Egoism: Ethical and psychological Egoism
2.1.2.1. Ethical Egoism
This theory is called ethical egoism simply because it is an ethical theory, a normative theory about how
we ought to behave. The theory implies that we ought to be selfish. Or, to put it more gently, we ought
to be self-interested. Calling the theory ―ethical does not suggest that there might be a decent way to
be selfish; it just means that ethical egoism is a theory that advocates egoism as a moral rule.
Ethical egoist insisted that if you don‘t take advantage of a situation, you are foolish. The claim that it
makes good sense to look after yourself, and morality is a result of that self –interest. If I mistreat
others, they mistreat me, so I resolve to behave myself. This is a rather twisted version of the
Golden Rule (Do un to others as you would have them do unto you).
2.1.2.2 Psychological Egoism
The main argument that has been used as a basis for ethical egoism is a psychological one, an
argument from human nature. We are all so constituted, it is said, that one always seeks one's own

3
 advantage or welfare, or always does what he thinks will give him the greatest balance of good over
evil. The psychological egoist claims that all actions are inevitably motivated by self-interest.
Regardless of appearances to the contrary, we are all selfish. When I stop to help an old lady cross the
street, it might appear that I am being unselfish, but not so, says the psychological egoist. There is some
selfish motive lurking beneath the surface that is the real motivation. Perhaps I want others to think
highly of me or maybe I hope that she will reward me with money. It is a psychological theory, a claim
about human nature rather than a theory of morality. Psychological egoism makes a claim about what
we can (and cannot) do, not what we should and should not) do
2.1.3 Utilitarianism: Producing the best consequences
That action is best, which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. We have
already examined one type of teleological ethics: ethical egoism, the view that the act that produces the
most amount of good for the agent is the right act. Egoism is teleological ethics narrowed to the
agent himself or herself. Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism is a universal teleological system. It
calls for the maximization of goodness in society—that is, the greatest goodness for the greatest
number—and not merely the good of the agent.
Thus utilitarianism is:___
 the doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of good over evil.
 the doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.
 The doctrine that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Generally, it is the ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people.
Bentham’s Version: Quantity over Quality: When Bentham presses for the greatest balance of
pleasure over pain, his idea of pleasure is a purely quantitative one. The greatest pleasure for the
greatest number means for Bentham the most pleasure.
The doctrine of Sanctions: Bentham realized that there is a difference between knowing what we
ought to do and doing it. This is especially true in those situations where the happiness of others
means self-sacrifice and pain for you. Here, Bentham’s doctrine of the Four Sanctions is relevant:
nature, law, opinion, and God. By “sanctions” Bentham means something like binding forces or
threats, but it will do to think of these Four Sanctions as motivations for ethical behavior.
If, in fact, we fail to do what we should, well, natural laws, civil laws, public or personal opinion,
and God himself will make it unpleasant for us—in either this life or the next, or in both! Nature,

4
law, opinion, and God “persuade” us to overcome our perverse inclinations and to act in
accordance with social utility
Mill’s Version: Quality over Quantity
Where Mill really split with Bentham was over Bentham’s purely quantitative view of pleasure.
Without denying that quantity is a consideration in the calculation of pleasure, Mill believed that it
is not as important as the consideration of quality.
For Mill, as for most, it hardly needs arguing that although push-pin may be more fun than poetry,
it yields an inferior happiness. And can the joy of sex really compare with the joy of the intellect?
(The answer is No.) Or to use Mill’s language, wouldn’t you rather be a dissatisfied human than a
satisfied pig, or a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool? For Mill, as for Bentham, the action is
to be pursued that makes for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But whereas for
Bentham “greatest” meant most, for Mill it meant best.
Bentham: “If the game of push-pin furnishes more pleasure, it is more valuable.”
• Mill: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
His Moral Sanctions: External and Internal
• External sanctions: Motivations or coercions for moral behavior that derive from outside
ourselves, such as respect for the natural order, fear of civil punishment, fear of social
disapproval, and fear of God’s judgment.
• Internal sanctions: Motivations or coercions for moral behavior that lie within ourselves, such as
conscience.
2.1.3 Deontological Ethics (Non- Consequentialism)
Deontological moral theory is diametrically the opposite of utilitarianism. It is referred as ―the means
justifies the end. It is coined as ―deontics. This is a theory that the rightness or wrongness of moral action
is determined, at least partly with reference to formal rules of conduct rather than consequences or result of
an action. It is an emphasis on the intentions, motives, moral principles or performance of duty
rather than results, as the sign of right action/morality and immorality. It is a duty based and according
to this theory, the consequences or results of our action have nothing to do with their rightness or
wrongness.
2.1.2.1 The Divine Command Theory
According to one view, called the divine command theory (DCT), ethical principles are simply the
commands of God. They derive their validity from God‘s commanding them, and they mean

5
―commanded by God. Without God, there would be no universally valid morality. We can analyze the
DCT into three separate theses:
1. Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God.
2. Moral rightness simply means ―willed by God, and moral wrongness means ―being against the will of
God.
3. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons for action, no
further reasons for action are necessary.
2.1.2.2 Rights Theory
There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights.
 First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments.
 Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country.
 Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of
gender, race, or handicap.
 Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person,
such as by selling myself into slavery.
2.1.2.3 Kant’s Categorical Imperative
A Kant‘s duty-based theory is emphasizes a single principle of duty. Kant agreed that we have moral duties
to oneself and others, such as developing one‘s talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant
argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It
is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the ―categorical imperative.
A categorical imperative (unconditional morality), he argued, is fundamentally different from
hypothetical imperatives(conditional morality) that hinge on some personal desire that we have. For
example, ―If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to college. By contrast, a categorical
imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one‘s personal desires, such as ―You ought to do X.
The Good Will: For Kant a good will, or a pure will, is an intention to act in accordance with moral law,
and moral law is what it is no matter what anything else is. To act out of a good will is, then, to do X
because it is right to do X, and for no other reason. This would be rational morality.
Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be
called good without qualification except a good will.
The Categorical Imperative:
• Isn’t concerned with what you do but how you do it, since if the how is right the what will be right.
• Doesn’t address specific moral issues but the nature of morality itself.
• Doesn’t prescribe the rightness or wrongness of particular actions but what makes any action right or
wrong.

6
Two versions of the Categorical Imperative:
1. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.
2. Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and
never as a means only.
The Categorical Imperative in general:
• It is an imperative because it commands you to do something.
• It is categorical because it commands you to do something unconditionally— that is, without regard to
consequences or personal desires.
What the Categorical Imperative unconditionally commands is that in situation X you act in such a way as
you could will everyone in situation X to act. If you can do that, then you stand a chance of acting from duty
or out of a concern for what is right.
2.1.4 Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics: Challenging the adequacy of rule-based theories. Virtue ethics‖ is a technical term in
contemporary Western analytical moral philosophy, used to distinguish a normative ethical theory
focused on the virtues, or moral character, from others such as deontology (or contractarianism) and
Consequentialism.
A deontologist will emphasize the fact that in offering help, I will be acting in accordance with a moral rule
or principle such as ―Do unto others as you would be done by; a consequentialist will point out that the
consequences of helping will maximize well-being; and a virtue ethicist will emphasize the fact that
providing help would be charitable or benevolent – charity and benevolence being virtues.
2.1.4.1 Aristotle’s Ethics
The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, (384-322 B.C.) first wrote a detailed discussion of virtue morality
in the Nichomachean Ethics. Virtues he understood as strength. Correspondingly, specific virtues are seen
as strengths of character.
Key questions which virtue ethical systems ask include:
 What sort of person do I want to be?
 What virtues are characteristic of the person I want to be?
 What actions will cultivate the virtues I want to possess?
 What actions will be characteristic of the sort of person I want to be?
2.2 Non-Normative Ethics/Meta-ethics
2.2.1 What is Meta-ethics?
Normative ethics thus seeks to discover the general principles underlying moral practice, and in this way
potentially impacts upon practical moral problems: different general principles may yield different

7
verdicts in particular cases. [Metaethics] is not about what people ought to do. It is about what they are
doing when they talk about what they ought to do. Meta-ethics concerned with questions about the
following:
(a) Meaning: what is the semantic function of moral discourse? Is the function of moral discourse
to state facts, or does it have some other non-fact-stating role?
(b) Metaphysics: do moral facts (or properties) exist? If so, what are they like? Are they identical
or reducible to some other type of fact (or property) or are they irreducible and sui generis?
(c) Epistemology and justification: is there such a thing as moral knowledge? How can we know
whether our moral judgments are true or false? How can we ever justify our claims to moral
knowledge?
(d) (Phenomenology: how are moral qualities represented in the experience of an agent making a
moral judgment? Do they appear to be 'out there' in the world?
(e) (e) Moral psychology: what can we say about the motivational state of someone
making a moral judgment? What sort of connection is there between making a moral judgment
and being motivated to act as that judgment prescribes?
(f) Objectivity:can moral judgments really be correct or incorrect? Can we work towards finding
out the moral truth?
2.2.2 Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism
Some philosophers, called cognitivists, think that a moral judgment such as this expresses a belief. Beliefs
can be true or false: they are truth-apt, or apt to be assessed in terms of truth and falsity. So cognitivists
think that moral judgments are capable of being true or false. On the other hand, non-cognitivists think that
moral judgments express non-cognitive states such as emotions or desires. Desires and emotions are not
truth -apt. So, moral judgments are not capable of being true or false.
2.2.2 .1.Strong Cognitive; naturalism
Strong cognitivist theories can be either naturalist or non-naturalist. According to a naturalist, a moral
judgment is rendered true or false by a natural state of affairs, and it is this natural state of affairs to which a
true moral judgment affords us access.
A natural property is a property which figures in one of the natural sciences or in psychology:
examples might include the property of being conducive to the greatest happiness of the greatest number
and the property of being conducive to the preservation of the human species. A natural state of affairs is
simply a state of affairs that consists in the instantiation of a natural property
2.2.2.2Strong Cognitive: Non-Naturalism
Non-naturalists think that moral properties are not identical to or reducible to natural properties. They are
irreducible and sui generis (unique: unique or occupying a class of its own).

8
Generally, Meta-ethics:
 Examines the meaning of moral terms and concepts and the relationships between these
concepts
 Explores where moral values, such as personhood and autonomy come from.
 Considers the difference between moral values and other kinds of values.
 Examines the way in which moral claims are justified.
Meta-ethics also poses questions of the following kind:
 What do we mean by the claim, life is sacred‘?
 Are moral claims a matter of personal view, religious belief or social standard, or, are they
objective in some sense?
 If they are objective, what make them so?

Chapter Three: Ethical Decision Making and Moral Judgments

1.1 How Can We Make Ethical Decisions And Actions?
Individuals could give their own justification to testify that they are Right or correct! We often claim that
we make right decision and actions. We regret when we make wrong decision and action. The ethical nature
of our action and decision, however, is very much dependent upon our notion of Good and Bad, Right and
wrong.
Before we see how human beings judge the morality of their actions, let raise some puzzling questions:
What things are good or bad?
There are things which we consider good or desirable for their result-for what they lead to. There are also
things which we consider good not because of what they lead to but because of what they are in themselves:
this are considered as worth having or perusing not merely as way of getting other things but because of
their own intrinsic nature. The first kind of good is called instrumental good because the goodness of these
things lies in their being instruments towards the attainment of the other things which are considered good
not simply as instruments. The second category of good is called intrinsic good because we value these
things (whatever they may turn out to be) not for what they lead to but for what they are.
Have you ever think of the opposite. Yes, there are things which are instrumentally bad and intrinsically
bad. Some things can fulfill both qualities. In our country things such as Female Genital Mutilation, early
marriage, kidnapping, abduction, Ignorance, poverty, corruption, murder some of the things which are
considered to be unethical or bad or evil practices which are to be eradicated

9
One of the key tasks of ethical reasoning, generally, is to analyze and critically consider the values we hold
and the claims we make in relation to the perceived obligations that we might have towards one another. A
second key task of ethics is to evaluate the adequacy of reasons that we give for our actions:
The tasks of weighing ethical values and evaluating different ethical arguments are unlike many other kinds
of human tasks. Ethical values are usually not as easy to understand as other kinds of values, e.g., it is
probably easier to explain the (mainly) practical value of energy than it is to explain the ethical value of
courage. In turn, it is easier to test a person‘s blood pressure than it is to determine whether or not they are
virtuous.
1.2 Thinking Ethically: A framework for Moral Decision Making
The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues
create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although
obvious is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked. But having the facts is not
enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting
the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values.
To guide our reflection on difficult questions, philosophers, religious teachers and other thinkers have
shaped various approaches to ethical decision-making. The five different approaches to values to
deal with moral issues are: Fairness and Justice, the common Good, the Utilitarian (remember this
idea is discussed previously), the Rights, and the Virtues.
a. Fairness and Justice Approach: Fairness and Justice Approach
Aristotle who said that ―equals should be treated equally and unequal‘s unequally. The basic moral
question in this approach is:
 How fair is an action?
 Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?
Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out;
discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom the burdens are not
imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.
Generally, this approach focuses on how fairly or unfairly our actions distribute benefits and burdens among
the members of a group. This approach asks what is fair for all stakeholders, or people who have an
interest in the outcome. Fairness requires consistency in the way people are treated. The principle states:
―Treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them.‖
b. The Common Good Approach
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our
actions should contribute to that life. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are

10
important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire
departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreation areas.
c. The Rights Approach
People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do
not freely choose. Many different but related rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights can be
thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose. Among these rights are:
 The Right to the Truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about
matters that significantly affect choices.
 The Right of Privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our
personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
 The Right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and
knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such
injuries.
 The Right to what is agreed: We have the right to what has been promised those with whom we
have freely entered into a contract or agreement.
In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this approach, we must ask, does the
action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent they violate the rights of
individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.
1.3 To Whom or What Does Morality Apply?
In discussing the application of morality, four aspects may be considered: religious morality, morality and
nature, individual morality, and social morality.
a. Religious Morality
Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to a supernatural being or beings. In the Jewish
and Christian traditions, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments pertain to this kind
of morality. These commandments deal with a person‘s relationship with God, not with any other
human beings. By violating any of these three commandments, a person could, according to this particular
code of ethics, act immorally toward God without acting immorally toward anyone else.
b. Morality and Nature
Morality and nature refers to a human being in relationship to nature. Natural morality has been prevalent in
all primitive cultures, such as that of the Native American, and in cultures of the Far East.
c. Individual Morality
Individual morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an individual code of
morality that may or may not be sanctioned by any society or religion. A person may or may not

11
perform some particular act, not because society, law, or religion says he may or may not, but because he
himself thinks it is right or wrong from within his own conscience.
d. Social Morality
Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other human beings. It is probably the most important
aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in more ethical
systems than any of the others.
2.4 Who is Morally/Ethically Responsible?
When we use the terms moral and ethical, we are using them in reference only to human beings. We do
not hold a wolf morally responsible for killing a sheep, or an eagle morally responsible for killing a
chicken. We may kill the wolf or fox for having done this act, but we do not kill it because we hold the
animal morally responsible. We do it because we don’t want any more of our sheep or chickens to be killed.
At this point in the world’s history, only human beings can be moral or immoral, and therefore only human
beings should be held morally responsible for their actions and behavior.
2.5 Moral Judgments
Moral judgments refer to deciding what is right and what is wrong in human relations. in judging
conduct or action we have to consider motives, means, and consequences and sometimes the situation.
a. Motives
The motive refers to the intention or why an action is done. A good motive is a prerequisite to conduct that
we approve without qualification. If a good motive is present when an act, through some unforeseen
factor, leads to harmful effects, we tend to disapprove less severely and to say, ―Anyway, he
meant well.
b. Means
The term means can be defined as an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end. Though we
expect people to use the best available means to carry out their purposes, we condemn them if their
choice of means impresses us as unjust, cruel, or immoral.
c. Consequence
Consequences are the effects or results of a moral decision based on a value. We expect the consequences
of an act that we call ―right to be good.
In general, society judges conduct ―right if it proceeds from a good motive, through the use of the best
available means, to consequences that are good. If these conditions are not fulfilled, we condemn the action
or approve it with reservations. We rarely approve an action when the results are evil or wrong.
1.4 What Makes an Action Moral
Sometimes we think of ―moral means morally good. But, philosophically, it refers to an action which
comes within the scope of morality. Not all actions have a moral sense. Many of the actions we perform in

12
life , such as putting on a raincoat, sharpening a pencil, or counting apples, standing on your head, are not in
themselves either good or bad acts.
Such actions are morally neutral or non-moral. By contrast, stealing from your libraries, punching people or
helping the disadvantage are considered as morally significant actions. But, what makes an act enter the
moral arena or what features of action make us judge them to be good or bad, right or wrong? The
following are features that make an action moral:
a. A moral act involves an agent
If something is a natural event or an action performed by animals, then it is morally neutral - it does
not appear on our moral radars. Humans can be moral agents, or any creatures that can freely and
thoughtfully choose its actions will count as a moral agent.
b. A moral act involves intention
An intention here refers to our motives that are important to determine the rightness or wrongness of an
action. If an action is done accidentally, it may be counted as a morally neutral action. However, some
unintentional acts, such as those done through negligence, can be moral. Neglecting our duties, even
accidentally, make us morally culpable.
c. A moral act affects others
A moral action needs not only an agent and to be deliberate but also needs to affect others (those we might
call moral patients) in significant ways, that is, an action that has harmful (be it physical, psychological,
emotional, or depriving others of happiness) or beneficial consequences for others.
The claim that morality only governs behavior that affects others is somewhat controversial. Some have
claimed that morality also governs behavior that affects only the agent herself, such as taking recreational
drugs, masturbation, and not developing one's talents.
Generally, a moral action is one which:
 Is performed by agents, creatures that are capable of free choice/ free will
 Is the result of intention; the action was done on purpose with a particular motive
 Has a significant consequence on others in respect of harm or benefits it brings about.
1.5 Why Should Human Beings Be Moral?
There can be no society without moral regulation; man is man only because he lives in a society; take away
from man all that has a social origin and nothing is left but an animal compare with other animals.
a. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest
An argument is being presented that if everyone tried to do and be good and tried to avoid and prevent bad,
it would be in everyone’s self-interest. For example, if within a group of people no one killed, stole, lied,
or cheated, then each member of the group would benefit.
b. Argument from Tradition and Law

13
This argument suggests that because traditions and laws, established over a long period of time,
govern the behavior of human beings, and because these traditions and laws urge human beings to be
moral rather than immoral, there are good reasons for being so.
c. Common Human Needs
All human beings have many needs, desires, goals, and objectives in common. For example, people
generally seem to need friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace, creativity, and stability in their
lives, not only for themselves but for others. in order to satisfy these needs, people must establish and
follow moral principles that encourage them to cooperate with one another and that free them from fear
that they will lose their lives, be mutilated, or be stolen from, lied to, cheated, severely restricted, or
imprisoned.
In general, in a society wherein morality is declined, crime, death, looting, instability, social deviance,
suicide, human right violation/ gross human right violation/, corruption and other socio, economic and
political crises will prevail.
Why be moral? among the more common answers are these:
 Behaving morally is a matter of self-respect.
 People won‘t like us if we behave immorally.
 People won‘t like us if we behave immorally.
 People won‘t like us if we behave immorally.
 Parents need to be moral role models for their children
More specifically, the five social benefits of establishing and following moral rules accomplish the
following:
 Keep society from falling apart.
 Reduce human suffering.
 Promote human flourishing.
 Resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways
 Assign praise and blame, reward and punishment, and guilt.

14