Chapter Objectives:

1. Determine the ethical theories of each philosophers given in the chapter lesson
below;

2. Identify the Social life in the Philippine context and;

3. Discuss the problem included in social life in the Philippine context and apply it in
relation to the reality.

INTRODUCTION
In the realm of the self, as noted earlier, one has to pay attention not just on how
one deals with oneself, but also on how one interacts with other in personal relations.
One may respond to the demand for an ethically responsible care for the self" by
making full use of the four ethical theories or frameworks.

John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism-though seemingly a hedonistic theory given its

emphasis on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the human element
above the animalistic and above the merely selfish. Mill builds on the earlier version of
utilitarianism, the one espoused by Jeremy Bentham, which first posited that what
makes an action good is that it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. The genius of Bentham was his addition of extent (that is, the number of
people affected by an action to the list of circumstances that an individual must consider
in determining what one ought to do in a particular situation. Greatest happiness for
Bentham then means quantity, but not just for oneself since the other half of his maxim
refers to the greatest number" that points to the extent or number of people affected by
this happiness. Thus, there is no selfishness even in Bentham's version. Mill additionally
stresses the difference between kinds of pleasures and remarks that it is better to be a
Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied. This important distinction exalts the
moral individual over and above her purely physical, material feelings or emotions.
Therefore, what is good or right does not simply reduce to what 'I feel is good for me." It
instead puts premium on the higher kinds of pleasure that are apt for the human being
and which would be of benefit to the greatest number affected. One's moral or ethical
responsibility to herself then is to make sure that everything she does will be for the
greatest happiness, not just in number but in kind and not just for her but for everyone
affected by her acts.

Thomas Aquinas's natural law theory states as its first natural inclination the
innate tendency that all human beings share with all other existing things; namely, the
natural propensity to maintain oneself in one's existence. Any action therefore that
sustains and cultivates one's biological or physical existence is to be deemed good,
while all actions that lead to the destruction of one's existence is to be called bad or evil.
Aquinas thus specifies that taking care of one's being is a moral duty that one owes to
herself and to God. Making sure that one lives a healthy life and that one avoids all
things that may hurt one or cause one harm is, for Aquinas, part of a person's moral
responsibility for herself. On top of this first inclination, one may also look at the third
natural inclination that says that part of human nature is to promote the truth and
cultivate a harmonious life in society with other humans. Part of one's responsibility to
herself then is a dedication to the truth (and thus to cultivate an aversion for lies and
ignorance) and to live a peaceful social life. Aquinas teaches that a person cannot
remain within her own selfish desires since doing so might lead her to harm herself, to
dispense with the truth, or to destroy harmony in her community. Thus, the moral
philosophy of Aquinas calls on a person to go beyond what she thinks she wants and to
realize instead what her innermost nature inclines her to do, which is the promotion of
life, of the truth, and of harmonious coexistence with others.

Kant's deontology celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets it
above merely sentient beings. Kant's principle of universalizability challenges the moral
agent to think beyond her own predilections and desires, and to instead consider what
everyone ought to do. His principle of humanity as end in itself teaches one to always
treat humanity, whether in her own self or in any other individual , as the end or goal of
all human actions and never merely as the means. Kant goes beyond simply telling
people to not use others as instruments. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using a
human being as a means or a tool for one's own purposes because human interaction is
not possible without that happening. What kant is concerned with is when someone
merely uses a human being, whether another person or herself, and forgets to treat that
human being as the goal or purpose of an action in and of herself. Many people lose
sight of what is truly important because they become consumed with many other
perceived goals financial wealth, revenge, domination, and so on. What they seldom
realize is that they have lost themselves in the process of attempting to satisfy such
desires. Lastly, Kant's principle of autonomy teaches one that no one else can tell her
what she ought to do in a particular situation, the highest authority is neither the king nor
the general nor the pope. The highest authority, that which is self-legislating in the realm
of moral law, is none other than the rational individual herself Her moral or ethical
responsibility to herself is to maintain her dignity as a rational agent, and thus become
the self-legislator in the realm of morality. She cannot be the follower or the slave of her
own selfish desires or of external authority.

Aristotle's virtue ethics teaches one to cultivate her own intellect as well as her
character to achieve eudaimonia in her lifetime. For Aristotle, one's ethical or moral
responsibility to herself is one of self-cultivation. Aristotle is quite forgiving when it
comes to individual actions, knowing full well the difficulty of hitting the mark" in a given
moral situation. What the thinker is more concerned with is whether one's actions lead
one to became a better person in terms of cultivating her character. One may make
mistakes from time to time, but in the end, the important question to ask is whether the
person learned from such mistakes and therefore constructed a more or less orderly
life. If the person's life in the end is one big mistake, then the person has not become
eudaimon or a "happy" (that is, "flourishing") person. Life for Aristotle is all about
learning from one's own experiences so that one becomes better as a person. But make
no mistake about this, one must become a better person and not just live a series of
endless mistakes.

The realm of the personal also extends to one's treatment of other persons within
one's network of close relations. Utilitarianism's recognition of the greatest happiness
principle shows that even in interpersonal interaction, what must rule is not one's own,
subjective notion of what is pleasurable. Instead, the greatest happiness, in this case
where everyone is affected by this particular set of relationships, is what must take
precedence in One's choice of actions. The other, therefore, is as important as one's
self in her consideration of the moral worth of her actions. Thus, in a person's
relationship with her parents, siblings, other family members, neighbors, classmates,
playmates, and eventually workmates, she must put into consideration the happiness of
every single individual affected by her actions.

Natural law theory, through its recognition of the inviolable value of human life
whomever it belongs to immediately offers an ethic of interpersonal relationships.
Coupled with this, the value that Aquinas gives to the production and care for offspring
(the second natural inclination), as well as to the promotion of the truth and the peaceful
and orderly social life (the third natural inclination), provide guidance on how one ought
to relate with her close relations. Again, the value of human life, of proper education,
and of promoting the truth and peaceable social life, must be upheld by the individual in
her relations with family and friends.

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

cornerstone of ethical decision-making because this theory recognizes the full
autonomy of every single rational agent. Everything else in the universe can be used by
the rational agent as mere means; only a rational agent herself can never be reduced to
mere means, but must always be treated as end it itself. Thus, one must not abuse
either oneself, nor one's fellow human beings (in the context of one's close relations) by
treating them as mere means. "One must always treat humanity, whether in oneself or
in any other, always as end in itself, as Kant himself said. It does often happen that one
can forget the innate value of one's parents (over and above their usefulness as one's
"source of finances") or one's friends (over and above the fact that "they entertain me").
Kant reminds one to never reduce a human being to the level of the instrument or tool.

Finally, Aristotle's Virtue Theory teaches that one must always find and act on
the mesotes whether in treating oneself or any other human being. This mesotes points
to the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific moral situation (a measure
that does not necessarily apply to a different situation), which involves identifying the
relevant feelings that are involved and being able to manage them. It happens too often
in one's personal relationship with others, whom one is close to, that "feelings" get in the
way of forming meaningful, constructive bonds. There is a saying that "familiarity breeds
contempt" which refers to the tendency of many people to lapse into an attitude that
tends to be hurtful to others one is closest to. This attitude is a compound of feelings
that one has, but these are feelings one most probably has not yet sifted through.
Temperance, therefore, is one Aristotelian virtue that clearly applies to treating oneself
and other people close to oneself fairly and with much circumspection.

SOCIAL LIFE: IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE

One's membership in any society brings forth the demands of communal life in
terms of the group's rules and regulations. The ethical question arises when the
expectations of a particular society come into conflict with one's most fundamental
values. Philippine society, for example, is made up of many ethnolinguistic groups, each
with its own possibly unique culture and set of traditions. The demands of the nation-
state, as seen in the laws of the land, sometimes clash with the traditions of indigenous
culture. One example is the issue of land ownership when ancestral land is at stake:
Can members of an indigenous group lay claim to a land that they do not technically
own because they do not have a legal title for it? As we had seen earlier in this chapter
in the discussion of cultural relativism, it is problematic for an individual to simply
accede to her groups given set of beliefs and practices. How would each ethical
framework discuss this problem?

Mill's utilitarian doctrine will always push for the greatest happiness principle as
good because their culture says so. Instead, the fundamental question ought to be, will
or in the societal realm. Thus, Filipinos cannot simply assume that their action is his
action bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number?" An individual must
therefore think carefully whether her action, even if her culture approves of it (whichever
it benefit everyone affected by it. The notion of the greatest number" can also go
beyond the might be "Filipino culture , Ibaloi culture, and Maranaw culture, among
others), will truly borders of one's own perceived territory. Should one stop at "what is
good for us" even if it is for the detriment of other people from other lands? Such
considerations suggest that even an action done by Filipinos within the Philippine
territory technically cannot remain a "matter for Filipinos only if the action can potentially
affect those outside the borders of the nation.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, in his natural law theory, has a clear
conception of the principles that should guide the individual in her actions that affect her
larger society. Once more, human life, the care and education of children, and the
promotion of truth and harmonious social living should be in the mind of an individual
when she performs actions directed to the larger whole. For Aquinas, no harmonious
social life will be possible if individuals that comprise such a society do not value human
life, telling the truth and peaceful coexistence. Thus, contemporary social issues that
have to do with the dissemination of "post-truth,"alternative facts, and "fake news" in the
realm of social media are rightful targets of a Thomistic criticism of what ought and
ought not to be allowed in our dealings with each other. On the other hand, the demand
of the natural law for a peaceful and orderly social life can be put in danger by acts of
criminality and terrorism. The morally responsible agent must therefore guard against
committing any act that can go against this twofold requirement of the third natural
inclination of human nature.

Immanuel Kant argues for the use of the principles of universalizability and of
humanity as end in itself to form a person's autonomous notion of what she ought to do.
These principles can and should apply directly to the construction of ethical duty in
one's social life. Thus, no manner of heteronomous rules and expectations should
dictate one's choice of actions, whether they be laws of the state or international
treaties, cultural norms and customs, or even the laws of one's religion. According to
Kant's framework, if a person is to follow any of these heteronomous laws, it must be
because such a law is in accordance kant is not saying that a person ought not to follow
any heteronomous laws. Instead, she must make sure that if she were to follow such a
law, that she understands why it is truly the right thing to do. More positively, citizens of
a particular society ought to make sure that the laws and rules that they come up with
are actually in line with what universalizable moral duty will prescribe.
 Aristotle's virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the guide to all the actions that a
person has to take, even in her dealing with the larger community of people. Virtues
such as justice, liberality, magnificence, friendliness, and rightful indignation suggest
that they are socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. A person ought to be guided by them
in her dealings with either the local or the wider global society. She must also be aware
that none of these virtues are fixed points; rather, each one will have a mesotes that is
determined by the particular context. This is a very important point, especially if a
person is in discourse with people coming from other groups within her own society or
even from other societies and cultures. Within the Philippines, there are around 175
ethno-linguistic groups, each with its own language and culture, and therefore each with
its own set of beliefs and practices. Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), on the other
hand, perform their jobs in other countries abroad, and so they must balance the need
for acculturation on one hand and keeping one's Filipino identity on the other.
Temperance once again presents itself as one Aristotelian virtue that will be vital here:
In the name of other virtues such as justice, much temperance is needed in dealing with
the other participants in social intercourse.

We have seen here how each of the four ethical frameworks we have covered
can be used as a fecund starting point for thinking through what a person's moral
responsibility is toward herself, her close relations, her fellow members in society, and
her fellow human beings in a global society. All four frameworks concern one's
relationship with humans. However, one realm that has only recently been given much
attention, but one which seems to demand an ethical response, is that of the non-
human, physical environment that human beings live in the non human environment.

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

beings have toward the non-human world, only appeared in the twentieth century.
Previously, most ethical theorists focused more on inter human relations rather than
human- to-non-human relations. Consequently, some argues that using any of the four
ethical theories or frameworks may be an exercise in anachronism, that is, in forcing
together elements that belong to different time periods. We will, therefore, merely
suggest beginning possibilities for further exploration into an environmental ethics
based on any of the four classical ethical theories. In the case of utilitarianism, some
scholars point out that this hedonistic doctrine that focuses on the sovereignty of
pleasures and pains in human decision-making should extend into other creatures that
can experience pleasures and pains; namely, animals. Thus, one of the sources of
animal ethics is utilitarianism. Of course, animals themselves cannot become moral
agents because they do not seem to have reason and free will.

Some thinkers. however will argue that animals can experience pleasure and
pain. Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principle covers the
greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain, then that number
should include animals. Therefore, though only humans can make moral decisions,
animal ethics proponents argue that humans should always take into account the
potential pleasure or pain that they may inflict on animals. What is good then is not only
what is good for the greatest number of human beings affected, but also for the greatest
number of creatures that can feel pleasure or pain. To extend the argument, though the
other members of an ecosystem (eg, plants) may not have the capacity for pleasure and
pain, humans still ought to perform actions that will not lead to their destruction, that in
turn might lead to pain for the animals that live off them, There is a general call for
actions that do not just benefit humans but the whole ecosystem as well , since it is
possible that nonhuman creatures might be harmed by neglecting the ecosystem since
Kantian deontology focuses on the innate dignity of the human being as possessing
reason, it can be argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims that, in the end,
will lead to an untenable social existence. Can one accept the following maxim as
something that everyone ought to follow: "One ought to not worry about environmental
destruction, as long as it produces economic wealth for my society?" Such thinking is
shortsighted and, in the end, does not produce universalizable maxims.

Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk about the physical
environment and human moral responsibility to it as such, but one can try to infer from
his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not produce a
harmonious, peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting the physical environment
because of shortsighted economic goals (eg, overfishing the waters off the coast of our
Islands or cutting down trees in our mountains and hills) will eventually lead to disasters
such as flooding or famines that will affect society in a detrimental fashion,

Lastly, Aristotle's virtue ethics also pick up on the problem of such

shortsightedness and ask how this can possibly lead to becoming a better person. One
may actually invent a neo Aristotelian vice here: the vice of myopia. This is a
nearsightedness, not a physical one, but in one's understanding of the implications of
her actions. This problem is therefore connected to a lack of intellectual virtue, to a
deficiency in foresight. How can a person claim that she is cultivating her character (for
the purpose of finally attaining eudaimonia) If she is guilty of the vice of myopia? One
becomes a better person, therefore, if she learns to expand her vision to see beyond
what is merely at close hand. Thus, seeing beyond the Immediate is a virtue. One may
argue therefore that Aristotle would support the argument that a person has the moral
responsibility to see beyond what is immediate. If so, one must see beyond the
satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make sure that harming the environment
for the sake of such will not eventually lead to something much worse.

What we have tried to show here in this current section is possibility: that
classical ethical theories contribute to potentially solve twenty-first century problems.
The important point here is not to "force answers" but to be open to real possibilities, as
well as accepting real dead-ends. One must see the value of testing one's hypotheses,
but also of the virtue of accepting that some hypotheses need to be let go.

A CLOSING THAT IS REALLY AN OPENING

Have sufficient mental and affective equipment to arrive at sound judgments for
cases in At the end of this introduction to ethical study, we should already have a more
or less clear idea of how to make informed moral decisions. You should, at this point
discussion or for enacting real-life decisions. The four classical ethical theories or
frameworks that we have taken up are in no way exhaustive. There are many other
theories especially in the twentieth century that have emerged to take up the question of
"What ought to do?" and "Why ought to do it?" These four frameworks, however, have
proven to be some of the most influential in human thought and should serve as an
introduction to other theories or to further discussions on moral philosophy. They are not
to be seen as options to dictate on what one is supposed to do in a particular situation.
This is the cynical way these frameworks are sometimes employed: use them as
needed to justify what one wants to do in a particular situation. The more productive use
of these frameworks instead is to employ them as beginning guides to one's further
exploration into the topic of morality. Test them out: identify their strengths, recognize
their weak points, stretch them out to see up to where they can work, and think of what
can be added to the parts where they do not work anymore.

In the end, there is only a beginning: We do not have a computer program here
that can automatically calculate what is the right thing to do in a given situation. It
seems safe to assume that there can never be such a thing. There is only the human
individual along with her community of fellow human beings who need to accept that
they must continue to explore the meaning of what is good and right while hoping to
arrive at the best judgments they can make at this point in time. Realizing the finitude of
human understanding and of the capacity to make choices, but at the same time hoping
that one's best attempt at doing what is right does mean something in the end-these are
part and parcel of making informed moral decisions.

Do not worry, you can do it!!!!!

 SUMMARY

Who one is, in order to account for reasons that one comes up with as the agent
who must Making informed decisions in the realm of morality entails first understanding
choose in a moral situation. Reyes explains that one's self is a cross-point of many
forces and factors that shape one's choices but do not dictate upon them. The mature
moral agent must understand how her society, history, culture, and even religion shape
who she is. She must also realize though that her choices in the end cannot simply be a
mere product of these outside forces, but must be made in the spirit of freedom.
Kohlberg teaches that one's realization of her own freedom to determine her own moral
principles, free from all conventions, happens in a process of maturity. An essential
element in maturity is the realization that one's choices, even in the realm of ethics,
cannot simply be a function of rational thought but are inevitably shaped also by the
feelings. Thus, there is the additional responsibility of cultivating one's feelings as well
as one's reason. The moral agent must be mature enough to be able to cultivate the
necessary steps to ensure a sound, well-informed moral decision. With the aid of the
different ethical theories or frameworks discussed in the previous chapters, the morally
mature agent will be able to appreciate her responsibility toward herself, her society,
and her environment.
SUGGESTED READINGS:

Jócano, F. Landa. Filipino Indigenous Ethnic Communities: Patterns, Variations, and

Typologies (Anthropology of the Filipino People, in. Quezon City: Punlad Research
House, 1998.

Pojman, Louis P, Paul Pojman, and Katie McShane. Environmental Ethics: Readings in
Theory and Application. 7th ed., Boston: Cengage Learning, 2017,

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: Random House, 1986.
Schlegel, Stuart A. Tiruray Justice: Traditional Tiruray Law and Morality. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1970.

Singer, Peter. One World Now: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2016.

Smith, David Whitten and Elizabeth Geraldine Burr. Understanding World Religions: A
Road Map for Justice and Peace. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Smith, Huston. The World's Religions, New York: HarperOne, 2009. 126 Ethic
Foundations of Moral Valuation 2017.

Steger, Manfred B. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Van Manen, Max. Pedagogical Tact: Knowing what to Do When You Don't Know
What to Do (Phenomenology of Practice, Volume 1). London: Routledge, 2015.