The Great Plebeian College

College Department
Alaminos City, Pangasinan
Term: 1st Semester

Instructor: Miss Jessa V. Gallardo

Email Account: [email protected]
Contact Number: (0930-005-0066)
Consultation time: M-F / 8:00AM-6:00PM

Dear Learner,

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

 Greetings of Peace!
Welcome to first term!
This academic year is different among the previous school years you had
enrolled and finished. Amidst the crisis brought about by the COVID-19
Pandemic, The Great Plebeian College continue to look for ways and alternatives
for us to continue provide a relevant learning assuring the deliverance of quality
instruction to all Plebeian Learners. The Education sector is highly affected but
in spite of it, we, your teachers will continue to strive in order for us to provide
you an accessible, affordable and easy access modal of learning for you to cope
up with the trends of the 21 st century and so-called “New Normal”. The
transition stage of the new normal in education continues and shouldn’t be a
hindrance for you to achieve your dreams.
This learning module is especially designed for you since face-to-face
learning is not yet possible as of this time. Learning tasks, activities, reading
texts, illustrations and graphics are provided in this module for your thorough
study at home. Every topic goes with a task which is aligned with the course
syllabus. You will accomplish every task within a time frame. You will be notified
with the schedule of retrieving your accomplished tasks.
We hope that this home-based learning will give you an opportunity to
learn and become productive. Indeed, this is a new experience for all of us
which requires us to adjust and adapt for the first few weeks or months. It may
seem difficult that we will not be able to interact but through your cooperation
along with your parents or guardian’s support and understanding, we will make
it through.
Enjoy studying and God bless!

Table of Contents
ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 2
Introduction
1.0 Introduction: Key concepts
1.1 Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards

1.2 What are dilemmas?

1.3 Three levels of moral dilemmas (individual, organizational, systemic)
1.4 Foundation of morality: Freedom-responsibility for one’s act to others
Activity 1-4

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 3

Introduction

This module aims to analyze the nature of mores and values in ethics. It discusses the
in-terplay between the individual as a free moral agent, and his/her society or environment, as
well as the process of value experience, including the difference between values and moral
values. In broad strokes, it gives a background on the nature of morality and the mores which
are the subject matter of ethics. It examines the nature of mores, including the development of
the notion of what is ‘right’ in our culture. The module also examines the notion of freedom as
it relates to morality, together with the wide range of values and moral values, including the
nature and basis of the choices that we make.

Module Map

ETHICS
PRELIMINARY
I. Basic MODULE II. The
Concepts Moral Agent

 Moral vs. non- A. Culture in moral

moral standards behavior

 What are B. The moral agent:

dilemmas? Developing virtue as
habit
 Three levels of
moral dilemmas
(individual,
organizational,
systemic)

 Foundation of
morality: Freedom-
responsibility for
one’s act to others

STUDY GUIDE:

FOLLOW the
GUIDELINES
ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 4
IN ANSWERING THE ACTIVITIES IN THIS MODULE
 Read the direction/instruction in each activity carefully

Learning Outcomes
After studying this module, you should be able to:
1. Discuss the nature of mores and values in ethics;
2. Explain the difference between values and moral values;
3. Differentiate between a moral judgment and a moral decision; and
4. Explore the difference between intellectual choice and practical choice.

1.0 Introduction: Key concepts

This section addresses the following questions:
 What are moral standards, and how do they differ from other rules of lives?
 What is a moral dilemma?
 Why is freedom crucial in our ability to make moral decisions?
 What is the advantage of owning moral standards (morality and ethics) over merely
abiding by moral standards?

A. Basic Concepts
 Moral vs. non-moral standards
 What are dilemmas?
 Three levels of moral dilemmas (individual, organizational, systemic)
 Foundation of morality: Freedom-responsibility for one’s act to others

1.1 Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards

Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right and
wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or relating to
human behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong)
behavior.
 
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are
morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe
are morally good and morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral
values and moral principles.

Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations.

Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense.
Basic examples of non-moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in
games, and various house rules.
 
Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances) are
non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and
contexts.
 
The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them
from non-moral standards:
 
a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit human
beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following or violating

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 5

some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one’s life
or wellbeing.
 

b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral standard states
that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do that
even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.
 
Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take precedence over
other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones. A person may be
aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life to painting, but
morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to
save one’s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so. When a particular law becomes
seriously immoral, it may be people’s moral duty to exercise civil disobedience.
 
There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the injustice of
an evil law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such as the
antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).
 
c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or persons such
as nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the
process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor nullified
by the decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing about these standards, nonetheless,
is that its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the reasons that are considered to
support and justify them.
 
d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more accurate,
however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly similar
situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally right
for anybody relevantly similar to P.
 
This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you would them do
unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of Justice, “It cannot be right
for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, merely on the ground
that they are two different individuals, and without there being any difference  between the
natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a reasonable ground for difference
of treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of the principle of consistency, that is, one
ought to be consistent about one’s value judgments.
 
e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain person or
group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each
person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.
 
Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in morality
requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned
parties.
 
f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards. These moral
standards are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no
unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for use, to advise,

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 6

and to influence to action. Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign
praise and blame, and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt.
 
If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is not
surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards. On the
contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g. refusing to
wear tattered jeans). 

The Role of Society and the Individual in the Emergence of Mores William Graham Sumner, a
well known sociologist and anthropologist, claims that our notion of what is ‘right’ stems from
our basic instinct to survive. That is, human beings formed groups in order to meet the task of
survival, and from living in groups they ob-served best practices and developed the most
practical way of doing things. From these practices emerged traditions and notions of the right
thing to do. For example, for each group of people there is a right way of catching game, a
right way of treating guests, and a right way of dressing up. Sumner refers to these notions of
‘right’ and ‘true’ as ‘folkways’.

Sumner states further that mores come from folkways, with the added element of societal
welfare embodied in them. In order to preserve society and its accepted norms and prac-tices,
the individual, consciously or unconsciously, defends and upholds society’s notions of what is
right. At the same time, the group as a whole develops social rules and sanc-tions, which may
be implicit or explicit, in order to preserve the group practices and to control the behavior of the
individual for the purpose of maintaining order in society. Thus, customs emerge out of
repeated practices, while from the individual observance of group practices emerge habits. This
becomes the culture of a particular group or society.

Mores become the compelling reason to do what ought to be done, because it is the right thing
to do to preserve and protect society. Mores exert social pressure on the individual to conform
to society’s expectations in terms of character and behavior — that is, to come as close as
possible to the ideal man or woman.

1.2 What are dilemmas?

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

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

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

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

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

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 7

Linday is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately, it is found out that Linday is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an
ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the
fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus.
Now, if this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if
Lindsay continue with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According
to experts, the best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies
killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Lindsay, as we as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conditioning options,
namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time.

How to Solve an Ethical Dilemma?

The biggest challenge of an ethical dilemma is that it does not offer an obvious solution that
would comply with ethics al norms. Throughout the history of humanity, people have faced
such dilemmas, and philosophers aimed and worked to find solutions to them.

The following approaches to solve an ethical dilemma were deduced:

 Refute the paradox (dilemma): The situation must be carefully analyzed. In some

cases, the existence of the dilemma can be logically refuted.
 Value theory approach: Choose the alternative that offers the greater good or the
lesser evil.
 Find alternative solutions: In some cases, the problem can be reconsidered, and
new alternative solutions may arise.

Examples

Some examples of ethical dilemma examples include:

 Taking credit for others’ work

 Offering a client a worse product for your own profit
 Utilizing inside knowledge for your own profit

Ethical Dilemmas in Business

Ethical dilemmas are especially significant in professional life, as they frequently occur in the
workplace. Some companies and professional organizations (e.g., CFA) adhere to their
own codes of conduct and ethical standards. Violation of the standards may lead to disciplinary
sanctions.

Almost every aspect of business can become a possible ground for ethical dilemmas. It may
include relationships with co-workers, management, clients, and business partners.

People’s inability to determine the optimal solution to such dilemmas in a professional setting
may result in serious consequences for businesses and organizations. The situation may be
common in companies that value results the most.

In order to solve ethical problems, companies and organizations should develop strict ethical

standards for their employees. Every company must demonstrate its concerns regarding the
ethical norms within the organization. In addition, companies may provide ethical training for
their employees.

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 8

1.3 Three levels of moral dilemmas (individual, organizational, systemic)

Individual - conflict arrives when a person is asked to choose between two important values
for him or her for example, choosing between one’s duties to his or her family one’s love for
another person.

Organizational - encountered by institutions, business, or organizations in their decision-

making process, at this level the dilemmas that the organizations’ experiences usually affect
more than one person and they can be part of the internal group or part of an external
stakeholder.

Structural - affect a network of institutions and operative theoretical paradigms like universal
care, juvenile laws, and immigration. This type of dilemma can affect a community and even a
society at large.

1.4 Foundation of morality: Freedom-responsibility for one’s act to others

Freedom and Morality The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to
individual rights, has been widely used in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a
whole. Freedom as a concept that pertains to the moral realm is examined in this section. An
important question that must be brought to light is: What is freedom and how is it exercised in
the realm of morals?

John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of radical freedom by claiming
that “man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man” as an uncon-strained free moral
agent in the sense that he always has a choice in every aspect of his life. Even if somebody
points a gun at his head, he still has a choice whether to follow the wishes of his captors. Sartre
claims that “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.” “Man” is never compelled
or determined; he is totally free and therefore, totally responsible for all the things that he
does.

When you exercise freedom in making your choices, you are taking control and assuming full
responsibility for those choices. However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this
freedom is not absolute. You cannot do anything that you please without taking into
consideration the norms of your society. Mores are there to serve as a form of social control to
limit, govern, or regulate your behavior in order to maintain order in your soci-ety. For example,
you cannot just go about killing people you consider as obnoxious. You are perhaps familiar
with the saying ‘your freedom ends where my freedom begins’. Within the given parameters of
our environment, including the economic, political and social environment, we assume freedom.
Our discussion will come to nothing if we as-sume otherwise — i.e. that human beings are not
free and their choices are always deter-mined by factors or forces in their environment. This
deterministic view is tantamount to saying that human beings are like robots or machines
whose actions and functions can be predicted like cause and effect given the parameters of the
variables in his/her environ-ment. Nor can we embrace fully the extreme view of radical
freedom without taking into consideration the norms of our society.

Freedom of the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free moral
agent. Moral, in this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accor-dance with
one’s own moral discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full responsibility for
one’s own actions and is using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as a moral being. Aside
from our reason and critical thinking, we also have the ability to empathize or to feel what other
beings feel and to situate ourselves in their shoes.

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 9

Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligation According to John Mothershead,
there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur: freedom and obligation. As explained
above, freedom is assumed when one is making choices and is the agent taking full
responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her
actions for some future goal. This is in accor-dance with the individual’s moral and rational
capacity to know and discern what is right and wrong. This condition of freedom can be seen as
limiting or constraining the realm of morals for human beings. Animals do not have the capacity
to look forward and con-sciously plan for the future. Even when ants hoard their food for the
rainy days, this action is based on instinct. Only human beings are capable of planning for their
future, planning their life, and setting their goals as a result of these plans.

The assumption of freedom entails another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral sense,
obligation is construed as a one’s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral
being. In other words, it is seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this bud-geting and
planning for the future because the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by
being obliged to do so.

In other words, you are not free to be unfree. In making moral decisions and choices, it is
within the capacity of the human person as an active and free moral agent to exercise his/her
freedom of choice as his/her obligation to him/herself.

Our discussion of freedom entails this basic presupposition: That the human person is free in
the exercise of making choices in the realm of morality — that is, in making choices with regard
to determining what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her own life.
This can be summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full
responsibility for your actions and being obliged to do so.

When was the last time you blamed other people for a mistake that you made? There is a
tendency for people to blame others for their choice of a course of action. For example, a
couple who freely choose to marry each other out of love could, when the marriage sours,
blame each other for their predicament and end up saying he/she was forced or coerced by the
other into the marriage. However, it is one’s obligation to oneself to exercise one’s ca-pacity for
deliberation and reflection by thinking about the consequences before making a decision. In
other words, this is an exercise of one’s rationality to the fullest without for-getting one’s
humanity and his/her capacity for empathy.

Activity 1
Read William Sumner’s “The Case for Ethical Relativism” in Philosophy: The Basic Is-sues, pp.
496-511, and then answer the questions below based on what you understood from the
reading.
1. How do you develop your notion of ‘what is the right thing to do’ in society?
2. What is the connection between your choices as an individual and that of your society?
3. To what extent do the mores of your society shape your notion of “good/bad” or
“right/wrong”?
4. Do mores change? How? Cite an example.

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

0
 Activity 2!
Watch the 40-minute HBO documentary “Saving Face” at
http://www.alluc.to/documen-taries/watch-saving-face-2012-online/448019.html.
After watching the documentary about acid attacks on women in Pakistan, answer the following
questions:
1. Explain these incidents of acid attack on women in terms of the mores of their culture.
2. Do you think women should be freed from this bondage? Do you agree with Zakia’s pursuit
of justice? Explain your answer.
3. Is it your obligation as a moral being to enlighten and empower women and other
marginalized sectors from their own culture by educating them about their rights in order that
they could assert and enjoy freedom in their own culture? Why/Why not?

Be ready to discuss your answers in class.

Activity 3
Read Benedict, R. (1934). Anthropology and the abnormal. Journal of General Psycholo-gy,
10(1), 59-82 and answer the questions below. 1. Explain Benedict’s concept of the
“normal/abnormal” and relate it with Sumner’s dis-cussion of the mores of society. 2. Explain
and analyze the normal practices or norms in the cultures of the tribes de-scribed by Benedict
in terms of the discussion about mores and social sanctions to maintain, preserve, and protect
the welfare of one’s society. 3. Compare the norms described by Benedict to our own standard
of what is “normal/abnormal” in our culture. How will you justify these ‘abnormal’ practices? Be
ready to discuss your answers in class.

Activity 4
A. Read Mothershead’s Ethics: Modern Conception of the Principles of Right, Chapter 2 (pp. 21-
36), “The Problem of the Scope of Morality” and answer the study questions be-low.
1. When does a value become a moral value? Is money a value? Can money become a moral
value? Why/Why not? Can you think of other examples?
2. Why do we have this tendency to render moral judgements on others so easily? Ex-plain
your answer.
3. Is your practical choice always in consonance with your intellectual choice? Why/Why not?

B. Think of an example of a morally significant act that you have done in the past which you
consider as an exercise of your freedom.
1. Explain how, in your exercise of this freedom, you also considered society’s role in limiting
your behavior.
2. And then explain how your exercise of this freedom is a moral obligation on your part. "Write
your answer in your journal and then share your views in class.

ETHICAL REASONING COMPETENCY RUBRIC

Student Mastering Advancing Developing Beginning
will be 4 3 2 1
able to…
Articulate Discusses in detail Discusses in detail Articulates both ethical Students is
Ethical and analyses both and analyses both beliefs and the origins unable to
Values ethical beliefs and the etical beliefs and of core beliefs articulate either
origins of core beliefs, the origins of core ethical beliefs or
and discussion has beliefs. core beliefs or
greater depth and does so with little
clarity. Engages in substance
discussions with
greater depth and
clarity while
respecting other
viewpoints

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

1
Evaluate States a position, and States a position, State a position, and States a position
Different can state and defend and can state and state the objections to, but cannot state
Ethical against the objections respond to the assumpstions and the objections to
Perspectiv to assumptions, and objections to, implications of different assumptions and
es/Concep implications of assumptions and ethical perspectives limitation of the
ts different ethical implications of concepts but does not different
perspectives/ different ethical respond to them (and perspectives/conc
concepts, and the perspectives/conce ultimately objections, epts.
student’s defense is pt, but the assumptions, and
adequate and student’s response implications are
effective. is inadequate. compartmentalized by
student and do not
affect student’s
position.)
Discuss Recognizes ethical Recognizes ethical Recognizes basic and Does not cope up
Ethical issues when issues when obvious ethical issues. the discussions
Issues presented in a presented in a Discusses with a limited about the
complex context and complex context perspective the complexities of
engages in and leads and engages in complexities of the ethical issues.
conversation about conversations issues.
the complexities of about the
the issues. complexities of the
issues.

References

1. Mañebog Jensen DG. (2018). Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards Retrieved from
https://www.ganintegrity.com/compliance-glossary/ethical-dilemma/

2. Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. (2010). Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work
values. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7 (2). Retrieved from
http://www.socialworker.com/jswve.
3. Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Education policy and accreditation standards
(EPAS). Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/2A 81732E-1776-4175-AC42-
65974E96BE66/0/2008EducationalPolicyandAccreditationStandards.pdf.
4. Dolgoff, R., Lowenberg, F. M., & Harrington, D. (2009). Ethical decisions for social work
practice (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
5. Congress, E. P. (1999). Social work values and ethics: Identifying and resolving professional
dilemmas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thompson Learning.
6. National Association of Social Workers. (1996, revised 1999). Code of Ethics of the National
Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author.
7. Reamer, F. (1995). Social work values and ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Robison, W., & Reeser, L. C. (2002). Ethical decision making for social workers. New York:
Allyn & Bacon.
9. Wilshere, P. J. (1997). Personal values: professional questions. The New Social Worker, 4
(1), 13.
10. Karen Allen, Ph.D., LMSW, is an associate professor at Oakland University’s Social Work
Program.
II. The Moral Agent
This section addresses the following questions:

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

2
  How does culture shape moral behavior?
 Why should culture not be the ultimate determinant of values?
 Is there a Filipino understanding of right and wrong? Why this interpretation? What are
its influences?

A. Culture in moral behavior

1. Culture and its role in moral behavior
2. What is cultural relativism? Why is it not tenable in ethics?
3. Are there an Asian and a Filipino understanding of moral behavior Strengths and
weaknesses?

B. The moral agent: Developing virtue as habit

1. How is a moral character developed? The circular relation of acts that build character
and acts that emanate from character
2. Moral development
a. The stages of moral development
b. How do we get to the highest level, conscience-based moral decisions?

2.0 Moral Agent

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held
accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause
unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their
actions. Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be
moral agents. Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme
situations, like being held hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they
cause others.

So, do corporations have moral agency? As artificial intelligence develops, will robots have
moral agency? And what about socially intelligent non-human animals such as dolphins and
elephants?

Indeed, future philosophers and legal scholars will need to consider moral agency as it applies
to these situations and others.

2.1 Culture in moral behavior

Key Points

 Culture refers to the outlook, attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by a group,
organization, or society.
 Interpretation of what is moral is influenced by cultural norms, and different cultures can
have different beliefs about what is right and wrong.

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

3
  According to the theory of cultural relativism, there is no singular truth on which to base
ethical or moral behavior, as our interpretations of truths are influenced by our own
culture.

Key Terms

 ethnocentric: Of the idea or belief that one’s own culture is more important than, or
superior to, other cultures.
 moral relativism: Refers to any of several philosophical positions concerned with the
differences in moral judgments among different people and across different cultures.
 norms: Rules or laws that govern a group’s or a society’s behaviors.

Culture describes a collective way of life, or way of doing things. It is the sum of attitudes,
values, goals, and practices shared by individuals in a group, organization, or society. Cultures
vary over time periods, between countries and geographic regions, and among groups and
organizations. Culture reflects the moral and ethical beliefs and standards that speak to how
people should behave and interact with others.

Cultural norms are the shared, sanctioned, and integrated systems of beliefs and practices that
are passed down through generations and characterize a cultural group. Norms cultivate
reliable guidelines for daily living and contribute to the health and well-being of a culture. They
act as prescriptions for correct and moral behavior, lend meaning and coherence to life, and
provide a means of achieving a sense of integrity, safety, and belonging. These normative
beliefs, together with related cultural values and rituals, impose a sense of order and control on
aspects of life that might otherwise appear chaotic or unpredictable.

This is where culture intersects with ethics. Since interpretations of what is moral are influenced
by cultural norms, the possibility exists that what is ethical to one group will not be considered
so by someone living in a different culture. According to cultural relativists this means that there
is no singular truth on which to base ethical or moral behavior for all time and geographic
space, as our interpretations of truths are influenced by our own culture. This approach is in
contrast to universalism, which holds the position that moral values are the same for everyone.
Cultural relativists consider this to be an ethnocentric view, as the universal set of values
proposed by universalists are based on their set of values. Cultural relativism is also considered
more tolerant than universalism because, if there is no basis for making moral judgments
between cultures, then cultures have to be tolerant of each other.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM: the view that ethical and social standards reflect the cultural
context from which they are derived.
Cultural relativists uphold that cultures differ fundamentally from one another, and so do the
moral frameworks that structure relations within different societies. In international relations,
cultural relativists determine whether an action is 'right' or 'wrong' by evaluating it according to
the ethical standards of the society within which the action occurs. There is a debate in the field
on whether value judgements can be made across cultures. Cultural relativism should not be
confused with moral relativism, which holds that moral absolutes guiding individual behavior do
not exist as a matter of principle

Filipino understanding of Morality: Strengths and WeaknessesWith Southeast Asian tradition

that is both tribal and animist, Hispanic Catholic tradition, and American and Japanese
influences, Filipino culturebecame the foundation of Filipino morality. Filipinos as Asians are also
collectivists who identify what is good and bad through their relationship with their families,
regional affiliations, andpeer groups. Family basically determines moral behaviors and what
good Filipino is. The self-concept as moral person and moral standards are stronglytied with the
family’s interrelationship with others. Even if there are many ethnic groups with distinct culture
in the Philippines so that Filipino culture may seem arbitrary, the selected popular Filipino moral

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

4
values or standards embody the local ethnic values. They have both strengths and
weaknesses.The moral agent: Developing virtue as habit

2.2 Character development: Integrating ethical understanding, care, and action

The theories described so far all offer frameworks for understanding how children grow into
youth and adults. Those by Maslow, Kohlberg, and Gilligan are more specific than the one by
Erikson in that they focus on the development of understanding about ethics. From a teacher’s
point of view, though, the theories are all limited in two ways. One problem is that they focus
primarily on cognition—on what children think about ethical issues—more than on emotions and
actions. The other is that they say little about how to encourage ethical development.
Encouragement is part of teachers’ jobs, and doing it well requires understanding not only what
students know about ethics, but also how they feel about it and what ethical actions they are
actually prepared to take.
Many educators have recognized these educational needs, and a number of them have
therefore developed practical programs that integrate ethical understanding, care, and action.
As a group the programs are often called character education, though individual programs
have a variety of specific names (for example,  moral dilemma education, integrative ethical
education, social competence education, and many more). Details of the programs vary, but
they all combine a focus on ethical knowledge with attention to ethical feelings and actions
(Elkind & Sweet, 2004; Berkowitz & Bier, 2006; Narvaez, 2010). Character education programs
goes well beyond just teaching students to obey ethical rules, such as “Always tell the whole
truth” or “Always do what the teacher tells you to do.” Such rules require very little thinking on
the part of the student, and there are usually occasions in which a rule that is supposedly
universal needs to be modified, “bent,” or even disobeyed. (For example, if telling the whole
truth might hurt someone’s feelings, it might sometimes be more considerate—and thus more
ethical—to soften the truth a bit, or even to say nothing at all.)
Instead, character education is about inviting students to think about the broad questions of his
or her life, such as “What kind of person should I be?” or “How should I live my life?”
Thoughtful answers to such broad questions help to answer a host of more specific questions
that have ethical implications, such as “Should I listen to the teacher right now, even if she is a
bit boring, or just tune out?” or “Should I offer to help my friend with the homework she is
struggling with, or hold back so that learns to do it herself?” Most of the time, there is not
enough time to reason about questions like these deliberately or consciously. Responses have
to become intuitive, automatic, and embodied—meaning that they have to be based in fairly
immediate emotional responses (Narvaez, 2009). The goal of character education is to develop
students’ capacities to respond to daily ethical choices not only consciously and cognitively, but
also intuitively and emotionally. To the extent that this goal is met, students can indeed live a
good, ethically responsible life.
Is Virtue a Habit?

According to Aristotle, virtue is a habit:

“Ethics is not merely a theoretical study for Aristotle. Unlike any intellectual capacity, virtues of
character are dispositions to act in certain ways in response to similar situations, the habits of
behaving in a certain way. Thus, good conduct arises from habits that in turn can only be
acquired by repeated action and correction, making ethics an intensely practical discipline.”
Aristotle believed that virtue as a habit requires an intentional choice when you begin. The habit
of virtue is not yet developed, but over time one becomes used to behaving virtuously and after
a while one acts virtuously without needing to use volition. You have become virtuous—it’s now
part of you and how you act.
Aristotle’s theory leaves a lot of questions unanswered (some of those questions he addresses
in other places). It doesn’t tell you which acts are virtuous or why, for example. As a guide to
practical action, however, conceiving of virtue as a habit is useful.
Life can be complicated, and the more parts of it that you handle without needing to think
about them, then the easier it gets. Much of my life is governed by habits, and that’s often the

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

5
part of life that works the best. I get up when the alarm rings; brush my teeth; turn on the
coffee; bring in the paper; and let the dog out.

Moral development: forming a sense of rights and responsibilities

Moral development refers to changes in moral beliefs as a person grows older and gains
maturity. Moral beliefs are related to, but not identical with, moral behavior: it is possible to
know the right thing to do, but not actually do it. It is also not the same as knowledge of  social
conventions, which are arbitrary customs needed for the smooth operation of society. Social
conventions may have a moral element, but they have a primarily practical purpose.
Conventionally, for example, motor vehicles all keep to the same side of the street (to the right
in the United States, to the left in Great Britain). The convention allows for smooth, accident-
free flow of traffic. But following the convention also has a moral element, because an
individual who chooses to drive on the wrong side of the street can cause injuries or even
death. In this sense, choosing the wrong side of the street is wrong morally, though the choice
is also unconventional.

When it comes to schooling and teaching, moral choices are not restricted to occasional
dramatic incidents, but are woven into almost every aspect of classroom life. Imagine this
simple example. Suppose that you are teaching, reading to a small group of second-graders,
and the students are taking turns reading a story out loud. Should you give every student the
same amount of time to read, even though some might benefit from having additional time? Or
should you give more time to the students who need extra help, even if doing so bores
classmates and deprives others of equal shares of “floor time”? Which option is more fair, and
which is more considerate? Simple dilemmas like this happen every day at all grade levels
simply because students are diverse, and because class time and a teacher’s energy are finite.

Embedded in this rather ordinary example are moral themes about fairness or justice, on the
one hand, and about consideration or care on the other. It is important to keep both themes in
mind when thinking about how students develop beliefs about right or wrong. A morality of
justice is about human rights—or more specifically, about respect for fairness, impartiality,
equality, and individuals’ independence. A morality of care, on the other hand, is about
human responsibilities—more specifically, about caring for others, showing consideration for
individuals’ needs, and interdependence among individuals. Students and teachers need both
forms of morality. In the next sections therefore we explain a major example of each type of
developmental theory, beginning with the morality of justice.

Kohlberg’s morality of justice

One of the best-known explanations of how morality of justice develops was developed by
Lawrence Kohlberg and his associates (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983; Power, Higgins, &
Kohlberg, 1991). Using a stage model similar to Piaget’s, Kohlberg proposed six stages of moral
development, grouped into three levels. Individuals experience the stages universally and in
sequence as they form beliefs about justice. He named the levels simply preconventional,
conventional, and (you guessed it) postconventional. The levels and stages are summarized in
Table 1.

Table 1: Moral stages according to Kohlberg

Moral stage Definition of what is “good”

Preconventional Level

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

6
Stage 1: Obedience and punishment Action that is rewarded and not punished
Stage 2: Market exchange Action that is agreeable to the child and child’s
partner
Conventional Level
Stage 3: Peer opinion Action that wins approval from friends or
peers
Stage 4: Law and order Action that conforms to the community
customs or laws
Postconventional Level
Stage 5: Social contract Action that follows socially accepted ways of
making decisions
Stage 6: Universal principles Action that is consistent with self-chosen,
general principles

Preconventional justice: obedience and mutual advantage

The preconventional level of moral development coincides approximately with the preschool

period of life and with Piaget’s preoperational period of thinking. At this age the child is still
relatively self-centered and insensitive to the moral effects of actions on others. The result is a
somewhat short-sighted orientation to morality. Initially (Kohlberg’s Stage 1), the child adopts
an ethics of obedience and punishment—a sort of “morality of keeping out of trouble.” The
rightness and wrongness of actions is determined by whether actions are rewarded or punished
by authorities such as parents or teachers. If helping yourself to a cookie brings affectionate
smiles from adults, then taking the cookie is considered morally “good.” If it brings scolding
instead, then it is morally “bad.” The child does not think about why an action might be praised
or scolded; in fact, says Kohlberg, he would be incapable at Stage 1 of considering the reasons
even if adults offered them.
Eventually the child learns not only to respond to positive consequences, but also learns how
to produce them by exchanging favors with others. The new ability creates Stage 2, an ethics
of market exchange. At this stage the morally “good” action is one that favors not only the
child, but another person directly involved. A “bad” action is one that lacks this reciprocity. If
trading the sandwich from your lunch for the cookies in your friend’s lunch is mutually
agreeable, then the trade is morally good; otherwise it is not. This perspective introduces a type
of fairness into the child’s thinking for the first time. But it still ignores the larger context of
actions—the effects on people not present or directly involved. In Stage 2, for example, it would
also be considered morally “good” to pay a classmate to do another student’s homework—or
even to avoid bullying or to provide sexual favors—provided that both parties regard the
arrangement as being fair.

Conventional justice: conformity to peers and society

As children move into the school years, their lives expand to include a larger number and range
of peers and (eventually) of the community as a whole. The change leads to conventional
morality, which are beliefs based on what this larger array of people agree on—hence
Kohlberg’s use of the term “conventional.” At first, in Stage 3, the child’s reference group are
immediate peers, so Stage 3 is sometimes called the ethics of peer opinion. If peers believe,
for example, that it is morally good to behave politely with as many people as possible, then the
child is likely to agree with the group and to regard politeness as not merely an arbitrary social
convention, but a moral “good.” This approach to moral belief is a bit more stable than the
approach in Stage 2, because the child is taking into account the reactions not just of one other

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

7
person, but of many. But it can still lead astray if the group settles on beliefs that adults
consider morally wrong, like “Shop lifting for candy bars is fun and desirable.”
Eventually, as the child becomes a youth and the social world expands even more, he or she
acquires even larger numbers of peers and friends. He or she is therefore more likely to
encounter disagreements about ethical issues and beliefs. Resolving the complexities lead to
Stage 4, the ethics of law and order, in which the young person increasingly frames moral
beliefs in terms of what the majority of society believes. Now, an action is morally good if it is
legal or at least customarily approved by most people, including people whom the youth does
not know personally. This attitude leads to an even more stable set of principles than in the
previous stage, though it is still not immune from ethical mistakes. A community or society may
agree, for example, that people of a certain race should be treated with deliberate disrespect,
or that a factory owner is entitled to dump waste water into a commonly shared lake or river.
To develop ethical principles that reliably avoid mistakes like these require further stages of
moral development.

Postconventional justice: social contract and universal principles

As a person becomes able to think abstractly (or “formally,” in Piaget’s sense), ethical beliefs
shift from acceptance of what the community does believe to the process by which community
beliefs are formed. The new focus constitutes Stage 5, the ethics of social contract. Now an
action, belief, or practice is morally good if it has been created through fair, democratic
processes that respect the rights of the people affected. Consider, for example, the laws in
some areas that require motorcyclists to wear helmets. In what sense are the laws about this
behavior ethical? Was it created by consulting with and gaining the consent of the relevant
people? Were cyclists consulted and did they give consent? Or how about doctors or the
cyclists’ families? Reasonable, thoughtful individuals disagree about how thoroughly and fairly
these consultation processes should be. In focusing on the processes by which the law was
created, however, individuals are thinking according to Stage 5, the ethics of social contract,
regardless of the position they take about wearing helmets. In this sense, beliefs on both sides
of a debate about an issue can sometimes be morally sound even if they contradict each other.
Paying attention to due process certainly seems like it should help to avoid mindless conformity
to conventional moral beliefs. As an ethical strategy, though, it too can sometimes fail. The
problem is that an ethics of social contract places more faith in democratic process than the
process sometimes deserves, and does not pay enough attention to the content of what gets
decided. In principle (and occasionally in practice), a society could decide democratically to kill
off every member of a racial minority, for example, but would deciding this by due process
make it ethical? The realization that ethical means can sometimes serve unethical ends leads
some individuals toward Stage 6, the ethics of self-chosen, universal principles. At this
final stage, the morally good action is based on personally held principles that apply both to the
person’s immediate life as well as to the larger community and society. The universal principles
may include a belief in democratic due process (Stage 5 ethics), but also other principles, such
as a belief in the dignity of all human life or the sacredness of the natural environment. At
Stage 6, the universal principles will guide a person’s beliefs even if the principles mean
disagreeing occasionally with what is customary (Stage 4) or even with what is legal (Stage 5).

Activity 1

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

8
 1. Can you think of examples of universal values that supersede the particularities of cultures?
What are the challenges associated with determining international standards for morality within
cultural relativism?
2. Societies and aspects of their moral frameworks change with time. How is social progress
possible within cultural relativism theory? Who are the agents of change?

3. What are the main contributions of cultural relativist thought to the study of international
relations? What would you say are its deficiencies or dangers, if any?
4. Consider the different interpretations of marriage in the article, "When Rites Are Rights:
Cultural Challenges To Marriage Laws". In your opinion, should rites be protected as cultural
rights? Explain.
5. Read "This Forest Is Ours". The Kenyan government views the Mukogodo forest as a
strategic national resource worthy of protection whereas the Indigenous Yiaaku view the
Mukogodo as a cultural heritage and as inseparable from Yiaaku life. In your opinion, who
should have access to the forest? Why
Are there an Asian and a Filipino understanding of moral behavior Strengths and weaknesses?

Activity 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4
Watch the video and make/ give your reaction/reflection ff the format below
I. Introduction
II. Content / Body
III. Reaction

ETHICAL REASONING COMPETENCY RUBRIC

Student Mastering Advancing Developing Beginning
will be 4 3 2 1
able to…
Articulate Discusses in detail Discusses in detail Articulates both ethical Students is
Ethical and analyses both and analyses both beliefs and the origins unable to
Values ethical beliefs and the etical beliefs and of core beliefs articulate either
origins of core beliefs, the origins of core ethical beliefs or
and discussion has beliefs. core beliefs or
greater depth and does so with little
clarity. Engages in substance
discussions with
greater depth and
clarity while
respecting other
viewpoints
Evaluate States a position, and States a position, State a position, and States a position
Different can state and defend and can state and state the objections to, but cannot state
Ethical against the objections respond to the assumpstions and the objections to
Perspectiv to assumptions, and objections to, implications of different assumptions and
es/Concep implications of assumptions and ethical perspectives limitation of the
ts different ethical implications of concepts but does not different
perspectives/ different ethical respond to them (and perspectives/conc
concepts, and the perspectives/conce ultimately objections, epts.
student’s defense is pt, but the assumptions, and
adequate and student’s response implications are
effective. is inadequate. compartmentalized by
student and do not
affect student’s
position.)

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 1

9
Discuss Recognizes ethical Recognizes ethical Recognizes basic and Does not cope up
Ethical issues when issues when obvious ethical issues. the discussions
Issues presented in a presented in a Discusses with a limited about the
complex context and complex context perspective the complexities of
engages in and leads and engages in complexities of the ethical issues.
conversation about conversations issues.
the complexities of about the
the issues. complexities of the
issues.

References:

Copyright © 2021 Ethics Unwrapped - McCombs School of Business – The University of Texas
at Austin Web Privacy Policy | Web Accessibility

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-management/chapter/ethics-an-overview/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4

Prepared by: Miss Jessa V. Gallardo

ETHICS: PRELIM MODULE 2

0