ETHICS: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUATION

CHAPTER I: THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Chapter Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking:

2. define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking and

3. evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly held
notions on ethics.

INTRODUCTION

In August 2007, newspapers' reported what seemed to be yet another sad

incident of fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the
University of the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early morning hours,
unconscious with large bruises on his chest, back, and legs. He passed away that
morning and the subsequent autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical injuries
were most probably the result of "hazing' (the term colloquially used to refer to initiation
rites in which neophytes may be subjected to various forms of physical abuse) What
exactly happened remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that
night came forward to shed light on what had transpired. Needless to say, none of them
came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris.

Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of
Cris, those members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and
refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general
public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP chancellor
called on all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the
tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It remains that way up to this
day?

No one knows just what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no
definitive testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a
criminal mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking
questions such as "What is the value of one's life?" "What exactly were the wrongs done
to Cris by his so-called fraternity brothers?" or perhaps even "Is there any good to
fraternities?" These questions that concern good and bad, or right and wrong--and
these are questions concerning value-are the kind of questions that we deal with in
ethics.

VALUE

Ethics generally speaking about matters

such as the good thing that we should bad
thing should avoid the right ways in which we
could or should of acting is about what is
acceptable and unacceptable in human may
not obligations that we are expected to fulfill
prohibitions that we are required to respect or
deals that we are encouraged to meet

Ethics as a subject for about determining the

grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life.

CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Recognizing the notions of good and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary of
ethics in order to start it would be useful to clarify the following points.

Kinds of Valuation

Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we
make is that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that I had
just seen was a good one because I enjoyed it or a song had just head on the radio was
a "bad" one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not discussion of ethics. I
may have an opinion as to what is the "right" dip (sawsawan) chicken barbecue, or i
may maintain that it is 'wrong" to wear a leather vest over a Barong Tagalog, and these
are not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the domains of
aesthetics. The word aesthetics is derived from the Greek word aisthesis (“ sense or
feeling”) and refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make
about what we see heat smell, or taste. In fact, we often use the word "taste" to refer to
the personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters such as "his taste in
music or her taste in clothes.

Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions

which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think
that right to knock politely on someone's door, while it is "wrong" to barge into one's
office Perhaps may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by
saying please and otherwise disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in
public. These and other similar examples belong to the category of etiquette, which is
concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not quite
grave enough to belong to a discussion on ethics. To clarify this point, we can
differentiate how i may be pleased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat
on the bus to an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be much greater if i
were to see a man deliberately push another one out of a moving bus.

We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear
in a context that is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake,
for instance/am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first,
such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream, this is the right
thing to do in baking but not one that belongs to a discussion of ethics. This could also
be when learning how to play basketball I am instructed that it is against the rules to
walk more than two steps without dribbling the ball: again obeying this rule to not travel
is something that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical
prohibition. We derive from the Greek word techne the English words technique and
technical" which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things,
but a technical valuation or night and wrong technique of doing things) may not
necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show Recognizing the characteristics
of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough guide as to what belongs
to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that we make in a sphere of human
actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human
life itself.

` Therefore, matters that concern life and death such as war, capital punishment or
abortion and matters that concern human well-being such poverty, inequality, or sexual
identity are often included in discussions of ethics. However, this general description is
only a starting point and will require further elaboration , one complication that can be
noted is that the distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not
always so clearly denned. At times, the question of what is grave or trivial is debatable,
and sometimes some of the most heated discussions in ethics could be on the
fundamental question of whether a certain sphere of human activities belongs to this
discussion. Are clothes always just a matter of taste or would provocative clothing call
for some kind of moral judgment? Can we say that a man who verbally abuses his
girlfriend is simply showing bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger moral
condemnation?

Ethics and Morals

Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words 'ethics and morals.
This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical unethical,
immoral amoral, morality, and so on. As we
proceed, we should be careful particularly
on the use of the word "not" when applied
to the words "moral" or ethical" as this can
be ambiguous. One might say that cooking
is not ethical that is the act of cooking does
not belong to a discussion of ethics, on the
other hand, one might say that lying is not
ethical but the meaning here is that the act
of lying would be an unethical act.

Let us consider those two words further. The term "morals may be used to refer
to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform.
Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual's personal conduct is referred to as his
morals, and he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral.
However, we also have.terms such as "moral judgment or moral reasoning' which
suggest a more rational aspect. The term "ethics" can be spoken of as the discipline of
studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus,
ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy.

However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described

as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and
unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term "professional ethics
(eg, legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal
profession: medical ethics for doctors and nurses, and media ethics for writers and
reporters),

Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the terms
moral and ethics and they may have good reasons for doing so, but there is no
consensus as to how to make that distinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much
less rigid distinction between these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction
as we do not need to occupy ourselves here with the question of how different thinkers
and writers construe that distinction. So, in this book, we will be using the terms "ethical"
and "moral" (likewise, "ethics" and "morality') interchangeably.
 Philosophy is commonly thought of today as a particular discipline in a college
curriculum, perhaps a subject that one could take, or a course in which one could get a
degree. The word "philosophy" is rooted in the Greek words that translate to "love of
wisdom" (philla is the noun often translated into English as some form of "friendship" or
"love," while sophia is the noun often translated into English as "wisdom"). More
specifically, the word "philosophy" had been first used by thinkers to refer to their
striving to better understand reality in a maintained and systematic manner. Historically
speaking, it can be said that philosophy started among the ancient Greeks around two
and a half thousand years ago, when certain people in the Mediterranean made the
mental effort of trying to make sense of the world and of human life in a unique way. As
time passed, asking certain specific questions would develop into specific methods,
these particular topics and the ways of addressing them established themselves as
disciplines in their own right, which is why we now have the empirical sciences such as
biology or the social Sciences such as psychology, Philosophy remains as the unique
discipline that asks significant questions that other fields are unable to address.

The different branches or areas of philosophy correspond to some of these

questions, generally stated as follows: metaphysics wonders as to what constitutes the
whole of reality: epistemology asks what is our basis for determining what we know;
axiology refers broadly to the study of value and is often divided into aesthetics, which
concerns itself with the value of beauty, and ethics, which concerns itself with the value
of human actions.

Descriptive and Normative

Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a

normative study of ethics. A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly
groups, make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against
these valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a
historian (studying different moral standards over time) or a sociologist or an
anthropologist (studying different moral standards across cultures). A normative study of
ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: What
could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a normative
discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or bases for moral
valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize
whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g. noting how filial piety and
obedience are pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative
perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to
show filial piety).

We need to go further. A philosophical discussion of ethics goes beyond

recognizing the characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not simply
accept as correct any normative theory. A philosophical discussion of ethics engages in
a critical consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. This will be
our primary concern throughout this book.

Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that

calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation
wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for
her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the
question of respect for one's property. We should add that 'issue' is also often used to
refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and
inconclusive debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and
euthanasia as moral issues").

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take
something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment
on the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a
friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that it is wrong.

Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad,
and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between
choosing one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred
to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only
one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the
various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child,
but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of a moral
dilemma,

REASONING

Why do we suppose that a certain way of

acting is right and its opposite wrong? The study of
ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we
decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable
while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable?
To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to
decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either
right or wrong?
 A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: "I did not cheat on the exam
because I was afraid that I might get caught," or "I looked after my father in the hospital
because I wanted to get a higher allowance" in a certain sense, fear of punishment and
desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a "reason" for acting in a certain
way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this
way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not
show any true understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after
a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of
punishments can certainly motivate us act, but are not in themselves a determinant of
the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a
particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting
either acceptable or unacceptable?

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

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

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

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

But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should
I maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong?
Returning to the case of fraternity hazing where we started this chapter, why is it wrong
to cause another person physical injury or to take another's life? We can maintain
principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may
differ. So, for example, what makes the death of Cris such a tragedy? One person may
say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life has a
priceless dignity, Still another may put forward the idea that taking another's life does
not contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we
arrive at any of these claims? This is where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a
systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles,
Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can also be referred to as a
framework. We can use this term, "framework," as a theory of interconnected ideas,
and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for
valuing a certain decision or judgment.

There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we
maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can
reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing
better both our moral judgments and moral decisions.

The next chapters of this book will explore different ethical frameworks that have
come down from the history of philosophy. This is not an exhaustive list, and many
worthwhile theories and thinkers have been set aside. But the choice had been made to
discuss more deeply and at greater length just a few of the more significant and
influential thinkers and ideas that have contributed to ethical discernment.

In The Apology of Socrates written by Plato, Socrates makes the claim that it is
the greatest good for a person to spend time thinking about and discussing with others
these questions on goodness and virtue. Hopefully, as we pursue these topics, you will
come to agree with Socrates that this effort is indeed a good thing. We will be returning
to Plato later in this chapter, as he guides us though some further difficulties.

Plato (427-347 BCE)

The Greek thinker Plato is credited as one of the pioneers

of philosophy as his various writings bring up and discuss
carefully and creatively some of the questions that later thinkers
will find to be of lasting significance to humankind, such as "Can
virtue be taught?" "What is beauty?" and "What is love?" He
started a school in Athens which would be known as the Academy
and is believed to be the first institution of higher learning in the
Western world.

Before turning to the ethical theories, we will spend the rest

of this chapter exploring certain notions of ethics that are commonly maintained, but
further thought on these notions will reveal that these are quite problematic. These
involve either an appeal to a particular form of authority or to a particular way of
understanding the self.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Frankfurt, Harry, "Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person." The Importance of
What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988, pp. 11-25.

Nagel, Thomas. "The Fragmentation of Value." Mortal Questions. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 128-41.

Rachels, James. "Can Ethics Provide Answers?" The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 10,
No. 3, June 1980, pp. 32-40.

Reyes, Ramon Castillo. "The Relation between Ethics and Religious Belief." The Moral
Dimension: Essays in Honor of Ramon Castillo Reyes, edited by Nemesio S. Que, Jr.,
Oscar G. Bulaong, Jr., and Michael Ner E. Mariano, Quezon City: Office of Research
and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University, 2003, pp. 107-112.