LEARNING MODULE 1/CHAPTER 1 OUTLINE

Course/Subject Module Overview

Chapter 1 Morality and the Law, defines and examines personal and public morality, identifying
assumptions and value of the law and looking at both conventional and natural laws and the intertwining
of morality and the law.
PRELIMINARY TERM
First Semester 2022-2023
BSIS 2nd Year
WEEK 1-4
Chapter 1 Morality and the Law
Learning Outcomes
 Explain the relationship between morality and religion.
 Discuss what it means to have moral principles, the nature of conscience, and the relationship
between morality and self-interest.
 Distinguish between morality and etiquette, law, and the professional code of conduct.

VALUES INTEGRATION
 Integrity witnesses of faith, upholds our Claretian principle and lives a moral and dignified
life.
 Excellence strives for perfection and holiness, pursues academic excellence in achieving
holistic transformation.
OVERVIEW:
Whether you believe in a supreme being or you are atheist, you acknowledge the
existence of human life because you are alive. You are alive because someone nurtured you and
protected you from all adversities. Whoever did so follow a set of rules of conduct that kept both
of you alive. Such shared rules, written or not, play a vital role in all human existence.
Human beings do not live randomly. We follow a script —a life script. In that script are
hundreds of subscripts we follow both for survival (e.g., eating and sleeping) and for specific tasks.
For example, when you meet a stranger, you follow a subscript different from the one you follow
when you meet a long-lost friend. If you are hungry, the subscript you follow is different from the
one you use to overcome anger. Within each subscript are variations we introduce to suit the
situation. For example, when meeting an old friend, some people cry and others jump up and
down, but both responses remain within the same subscript of meeting an old friend. The most
important purpose of all these subscripts is human life, our own as well as others.

Believing in human life implies that we also believe life has a purpose. And because no one
wants to live a life of pain, every human being believes in happiness as a purpose for life. To be happy,
we need those conditions that create happiness, namely life, liberty, and property. Each condition is

1 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

embodied in each of the three basic human survival subscripts: morality, ethics, and law. In this
ABSTRACTION: Let’s Add to
chapter, we discuss morality
Whatand
Youlaw
Know

Morality

Morality is a set of rules for right conduct, a system used to modify and regulate our behavior. It is a
quality system in human acts by which we judge them right or wrong, good or bad. This system creates
moral persons who possess virtues such as love for others, compassion, and a desire for justice; thus, it
builds character traits in people. In particular, morality is a survival script we follow in our day-to-day
living. According to Wikipedia, morality has three different definitions:

A descriptive definition according to which morality means a set of rules (code) of conduct that
governs human behavior in matters of right and wrong. An example of the descriptive usage could be
“common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time.”

A normative and universal definition that is more prescriptive and refers to an ideal code of conduct
that would be observed by all rational people under specified conditions. An example is a moral value
judgment such as “murder is immoral.”

A definition of morality that is synonymous with ethics. Ethics is the systematic philosophical study of
the moral domain.

In each one of these definitions, morality concerns itself with a set of shared rules, principles, and
duties, independent from religion, applicable to all in a group or society, and having no reference to
the will or power of any one individual whatever his or her status in that group or society. Although
moral values are generally shared values in a society, the degree of sharing these values varies greatly.
We may agree more on values such as truth, justice, and loyalty than on others. To paraphrase
Shakespeare, life is but a stage on which there is continuous acting from the subscript of morality.
Every time we interact in a society or group, we act the moral subscript that was developed by that
society or group for its members over time.

Because morality is territorial and culturally based, so long as we live in a society we are bound to live
within that society’s guidelines. The actions of individuals in a society only have moral values if taken
within the context of this very society and the culture of the individual. A number of factors influence
the context of morality, including time and place.

Moral Theories

If morality is a set of shared values among people in a specific society, why do we have to worry about
justifying those values to people who are not members of that society? In other words, why do we
need moral theories? What do moral theories have to do with the moral subscripts? If you write a
script for a play, you want both the audience and the cast to understand the message of the play. If
2 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)
you can find a way to help them get that message and believe it, then you have put credibility in the
script. This is where moral theories come in. According to MacDonald, moral theories “seek to
introduce a degree of rationality and rigor into our moral deliberations”. They give our deliberations
plausibility and help us to better understand those values and the contradictions therein. Because
many philosophers and others use the words moral and ethical synonymously, we delay the discussion
of moral theories until we discuss ethics.

Moral Decision Making

E very human action results from a decision process. Because every human action follows a subscript,
the decision-making process follows a subscript as well. A decision is morally good if the result from it
is good. A good moral decision embodies nearly all moral theories and usually takes into consideration
the following points:

All the facts surrounding the situation, taking into account the interests of all parties involved, and

The moral principles involved and how they will affect all others involved

Combining points 1 and 2 implies there must be reasoning and impartiality in any moral decision.
Moral and ethical theorists have outlined four ways of ensuring reason and impartiality in moral
decision making, as follows:

1. The use of the rational intuition of moral principles, which helps us perceive moral principles such as
the notion of justice and deciding what is good.

2. The use of reason to determine the best way to achieve the highest moral good. 3. The ability to
distinguish between primary and secondary moral principles. Primary moral principles are more
general; secondary principles are more specific and are generally deduced from the primary ones.

4. The rational calculation of the consequences of our actions. The calculation should tell us whether
the action is good or bad depending on the consequences.

Nearly all moral theories embody one or more of these themes.

Moral Codes

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines moral c odes as rules or norms within a group for
what is p roper behavior for the members of that group. The norm itself is a rule, standard, or measure
for us to compare something else whose qualities we doubt. Moral codes are often complex definitions
of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined group’s value systems.

In a way, moral codes are shared behavioral patterns of a group. These patterns have been with us
since the beginnings of human civilization and have evolved mainly for the survival of the group or
society. Societies and cultures survive and thrive because of the moral code they are observing. History

3 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

has shown failures of societies and cultures such as the once mighty civilizations and great empires of
the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Byzantines, probably because their code failed to cope with the
changing times.

Although different cultures have different codes, and we have established that morality is relative to
time, there have been some timeless and culture-free (moral) codes that have been nearly universally
observed. Such codes include this partial list created by the astronomer Carl Sagan:

1. The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Versions of the Golden Rule in Different Religions

BUDDHIST: Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful.

CHRISTIAN: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

CONFUCIAN: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

HINDU: This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.

ISLAMIC: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

JAIN: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own
self.

JEWISH: Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another.

SIKH: As thou deemest thyself, so deem others.

TAOIST: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

ZOROASTRIAN: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not
good for itself.

The Silver Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” Great men like
Mahatma Gandhi followed this rule almost to the letter.

The Bronze Rule: “Repay kindness with kindness.” This rule is widely observed because of its many
varying interpretations. Some people call it the “carrot-and- stick” rule. However, you interpret it, it
seems to support the vendetta syndrome.

The Iron Rule: “Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you.” This rule, if followed by a
leader, can create dictatorships. It seems to say, “He who is on the floor cannot make rules” or “Do it if
you can get away with it.”

The Tin Rule: “Pay homage to those above you and intimidate those below you.” This is what many call
the bully rule.
4 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)
The Nepotism Rule: “Give precedence in all things to close relatives, and do as you like to others.” This
rule legitimizes corruption.

Because most of these rules seem vindictive, corruptible, dictatorial, and abusive, Sagan proposes the
following as what seems to be a good culture-free and timeless universal set of moral codes:

Be friendly at first meeting.

Do not envy.

Be generous; forgive your enemy if he or she forgives you.

Be neither a tyrant nor a patsy.

5. Retaliate proportionately to an intentional injury (within the constraints of the rule of the law).

6. Make your behavior fair (although not perfectly) clear and consistent.

Other timeless, culture-free, but less widely practiced and less universally accepted codes are those
observed by small groups of people with similar interests (e.g., religious and professional groups).
Examples of such moral codes include the Native American Ten Commandments, the Jewish and
Christian Ten Commandments, and the Unix Users Group Ten Commandments, as outlined here:

The Christian Ten Commandments

I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have any other gods besides Me.

You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.

Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.

Honor your father and your mother.

You shall not kill.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

5 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

Moral Standards

A moral standard is a moral norm, a standard to which we compare human actions to determine their
goodness or badness. This standard guide and enforces policy. Morality is a system that, in addition to
setting standards of virtuous conduct for people, also consists of mechanisms to self-regulate through
enforcement of the moral code and self-judge through guilt, which is an internal discomfort resulting
from disappointment in self-mediated conscience.

Guilt and Conscience

Moral guilt is a result of self-judging and punishing oneself for not living up to the moral standards set
for oneself or for the group. If individuals judge that they have not done “good” according to moral
standards, they can activate the guilt response, which usually makes them feel bad, hide their actions
from both self and others, and find a fitting punishment for themselves, sometimes a very severe
punishment. This internal judgment system is brought about because human beings have no sure way
of telling whether an action is good or bad based independently on their own “standards.” Individual
standards are usually judged based on group standards. So, individuals judge themselves based on
group standards, and self-judgment comes into play whenever one’s actions fall short of the group’s
standards.

The problem with guilt is that it can be cumulative. If individuals commit acts repetitively that they
judge to be below moral standards, they tend to become more and more withdrawn. This isolation
often leads individuals to become more comfortable with the guilt. As they become comfortable living
with the guilt, their previous actions, which were previously judged below standards, begin to look not
so bad after all. Individuals become more and more complacent about the guilt and begin to look at
the whole moral system as amoral.

Guilt can be eased by encouraging people to focus on the intentions behind the actions. Sometimes the
intentions may be good but the resulting action is bad. In such a case the individual should not feel so
guilty about the action. Besides looking for intentions of actions, one should also have the will and
ability to forgive oneself. Self-forgiveness limits the cumulative nature of guilt and hence helps an
individual to keep within the group.

Our moral code, and many times the law, lay out the general principles that we ought not do this or
that because it is wrong to do it. The law also tells us not to do this or that because it is illegal to do so.
However, neither system specifically tells us whether a particular human action just committed is an
immoral or illegal act. The link must be done by the individual—a self-realization. It is this individual
inner judgment to tell us that the act is right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, that we call our conscience.
Additionally, conscience is the capacity and ability to judge our actions ourselves based on what we set
as our moral standards. The word conscience comes from the Latin word conscientia, which means
knowing with. It is an “inner voice” telling us what to do or not do. This kind of self-judgment is based
6 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)
on the responsibility and control we have over our actions. Conscience is motivated by good feelings
within us such as pride, compassion, empathy, love, and personal identification. Conscience evolves as
individuals grow. The childhood conscience is far different from the adult conscience because our
perception of evil evolves with age. The benefits of conscience are that the actions done with good
conscience, even if they end up being bad, do not make one guilty of the actions.

Fr. Fagothey writes that conscience applies to three things:

1. The intellect as a faculty for forming judgments about right and wrong individual acts

The process of reasoning that the intellect goes through to reach such judgment

The judgment itself, which is the conclusion of this reasoning process

We have seen in this section that morality does not belong to any individual, nor does it belong to any
society or group of people. Thus, it cannot be localized. However, those parts of the moral code that
can be localized become law.

Morality and Religion

Religion, in contrast to morality, draws much from the divine. Most religious belief systems include or
are built around the idea of divine will and divine judgment. However, many of these systems usually
correspond to a moral code of conduct, and because of this, many religions claim that religion and
morality are intimately connected.

Law

According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a law is a binding custom or practice of a community; a

rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling
authority; the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules. Black states that law is an art we can
create and model, and contemporary critics define law as an instrument of exercising power.

Bryan Bourn combines both these definitions of law and describes it as both an art and an instrument
for exercising power. He bases his definition on the fact that law on many occasions strives forcefully
to create something desirable without following a precise and exact process or formula that can be
reproduced (thus the art component). Fr. Fagothey defines laws as a rule and measure of actions
directing them to proper ends. It obliges us to make our conduct conform to the norm of morality. He
goes on to divide law into two types:

1. Physical law, which directs non-free irrational beings to uniform action toward their ends by inner
necessity of their nature, that is, imposing physical necessity

2. Moral law or natural law, which directs free rational beings toward their ends by imposing
obligations on the free will—thus imposing moral necessity

7 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

However, one defines law, whether as a rule, an injunction, an art, or an exercise of power, there is
always a component of force that must be obeyed with the purpose of creating something desirable
for the community that the law is intended to serve. This goal is achieved through the reign of equal
justice for all in the community. We tend to obey two types of laws: the natural and the conventional.

The Natural Law

Natural law is an unwritten but universal law. It is a theory that an eternal, absolute moral law can be
discovered by reason and is derivable from reason. It is distinct from the law of nature, applies to all
rational creatures, exists independently of human preferences and inclinations, and is applied cross-
culturally. According to James Donald, natural law “follows from the nature of man and the world, and
consists of rights like the right to self-defense and the right to individual property. So naturally it is
‘higher’ than any other conventional law enacted by a human authority like a government because no
conventional law has jurisdiction over natural law.” Natural law has been known since the time of Plato
and Aristotle (ca. 500 BC) but has its clear formulation and definition in the writings of Thomas
Aquinas, a thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian.

Natural law is the anchor of our rights of self-preservation, liberty, and property. Before organized
human societies, humans existed because of natural law. It secured the environment in those human
settlements for those activities that sustain life, beginning with hunting and progressing through
business and commerce. Even today, there are human societies that exist without conventional law.
Present-day examples include those states with collapsed governments because of political strife.
People in these states, even in the absence of a central governing authority and a functioning legal
system, are still living their lives, many of them happily. Although they may not enjoy all the pleasures
of life, they have a way of protecting life, liberty, and personal property. Ironically, there are even
states that supposedly live with organized authorities resembling government yet have no rule of
conventional law; they are surviving on natural law.

The existence of natural law has been debated for centuries. In fact, there are many who do not
believe in natural law and are always advocating the supremacy of conventional law. Thomas Hobbes,
the famous English philosopher, argued that the nature of man is not such that one could deduce
natural law from it, that the natural law so deduced does not place any significant limits on the powers
of civil law, and that social order is a creation of state power.

Conventional Law

Conventional law is a system created by and for human beings, usually in public deliberations such as a
council of elders or representatives in national legislatures. It derives from that part of the m oral code
that is enforceable and varies from society to society and from culture to culture. Although history and
experience have shown that natural law has been used as the basis for some conventional laws, and
there are examples such as the English Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights;

8 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

judgment is not based on natural law. In day-to-day judgment, decisions are based on facts and the
matching of facts to words, not on natural law.

Conventional law takes two forms: (1) declarative, which simply restates what the natural law
declares, such as forbidding murder, theft, etc., and (2) determinative, which fixes ways of acting in
accordance with natural law, such as in contracts, taxes, traffic, and other types of laws. Conventional
law has a long history of evolution from natural law. Some of the outstanding examples follow:

Law of nature. Originating from the Roman jus gentium. The Romans developed jus gentium from a
mosaic of nations that formed the Roman Empire. Jus gentium was a common factor of all laws of all
nations in the empire. When the empire collapsed, the resulting states developed this law of nations
into the modern European legal system.

English common law. A result of centuries of unwritten precedents and decisions of common courts,
statutes, and acts of the English Parliament.

The English common law gave birth to the modern English and American law.

The Purpose of Law

Both conventional and natural laws exist to protect the life, liberty, and property of the group covered
by these laws. According to Fr. Fagothey, laws are needed for the following reasons:

The ignorant need instruction and control by the wise

Earthly penalties are required for the safety of society

Concerted action demands teamwork and leadership

Society must meet changed conditions harmoniously

The Penal Code

Laws are always useless unless there is a right to punish and an enforcement mechanism is in place.
The penal code is a system of set rules prescribing punishment for unlawful acts. In a way, the penal
code is that enforcement mechanism. The punishment system consists of three functions:

Retributive —by paying back the victim for the crime committed, reestablishing the equal balance of
justice, and reasserting the authority.

Corrective— by trying to improve the offender; in other words, rehabilitating the offender back into
society.

Deterrent —by trying to prevent similar actions in the future by the offender, and indeed the offender
community, that is, forewarning the offender community by the state, which is the law maker.

9 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

The enforcement is different in criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, the punishment may lead to
denial of certain individual rights for a period of time. The period of incarceration depends on the
nature and types of violations. In civil cases, punishments are usually damage awards to those whose r
ights w ere infringed upon.

Morality and the Law

Conventional laws of a society are determined by the moral beliefs of that society. Many people
disagree with this statement. In fact, there are two views. The proponents of natural law believe that
conventional laws are valid if they meet certain standards of morality, whereas opponents of natural
law, usually referred to as legal positivists, do not believe in the validity of conventional laws based on
morality. Whatever your camp, both morality and the legal system serve the purpose of keeping
society stable and secure. They are both used in making judgments about people’s actions, and such
judgments are justifiable by reason. Although morality and the law seem to have a common purpose
and the means to achieve the stated purpose, the implementation of these means to achieve the
purpose is different. The following are some of the major differences:

The process of making codes and laws: Laws are enacted by authorities such as councils of elders and
assemblies of the people’s representatives. Moral codes, however, are developed not by one central
authority but by all members of a society, over a period of time, from experiences and reason.

Enforcement Laws are enforced by the authority that enacted them or representatives of that
authority, such as judges and courts, and security forces such as the police. However, morality is self-
enforced, not enforceable by courts, nor is it enforceable by any authorized security force. There is no
moral or ethical court to judge moral wrongdoers. For example, no one can impose penalties for not
obeying the Ten Commandments.

Nature of punishments: Unlawful acts are punishable by penalties that depend on the type, nature,
and civility of the action. If it is criminal, it may result in incarceration, and if it is civil, it may result in
payment of damages. However, if the act is judged to be immoral, the judgment is usually based on the
individual’s perception of that society’s morality, and the penalties imposed are also individually based.

Conflict resolution: Laws are used to resolve interpersonal conflicts in a society. However, morality is
mostly used to harmonize intrapersonal conflicts.

Types of judgment: Morality passes judgment on a person’s intentions and character based on what is
in your heart. Although courts do not always ignore a person’s intention or state of mind, the law
cannot normally govern what is in the person’s heart.

Because of these differences, it is correct to say that in any society not all laws are based on the
morality of that society. Because morality is a higher and superior system, there is only a small area
where the two overlap, and there are many times when the two conflict. Let us look at examples. In

10 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

February 1997 came the startling news of the results of a bold genetic engineering experiment. The
Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, reported that a team of researchers led by embryologist Dr. Ian
Wilmut had successfully cloned two identical sheep. Wilmut’s team beat the odds predicted by
researchers around the world by taking a mammary cell from an adult sheep, preparing its D NA to be
accepted by the egg from another sheep, moving the egg’s own DNA, and replacing it with the DNA
from the adult sheep by fusing the egg with the adult cell. The fused egg began to grow normally to
form an embryo, which scientists then implanted into another sheep, and that sheep later gave birth to
a cloned lamb they named Dolly.

Although the experiment was done purely for animal reproduction, many scientists saw the potential
for drug manufacturing and replacing human parts. Animals could be used to produce
pharmacologically useful proteins for manufacturing drugs, literally making animals serve as drug
factories. Animal clones could also be used to “manufacture” animal parts with human characteristics
that could later be used in human transplants.

The cloning experiment created substantial legal, ethical, and moral problems. In many countries, it is
not illegal to clone human beings, but because of the potential for abuse, such countries are already
scrambling to enact laws that will make such an act illegal. Moral and ethical issues also need to be
addressed. For example, what will prevent an unethical scientist from cloning a person he or she loves,
or a person on whom to experiment, and what will stop governments strapped by lack of labor from
cloning thousands of their best living human beings who have exhibited extraordinary intelligence or
skills?

In the rush to create ourselves, we may end up creating monsters that could destroy us, because
although the physical characteristics of clones will be similar, behavior characteristics will be as
unpredictable as ours! Wilmut acknowledges the potential for misuse of this scientific breakthrough. It
is a daunting moral dilemma for which the society must find solutions.

Imagine seeing someone drowning and calling desperately for help while you simply look on and enjoy
the show. Your action is not only repugnant, but immoral, and depending on whether the laws of
deliberate indifference apply to you, your action may even be illegal. In another example, authorities in
some societies fight teen violence by imposing a night curfew on the teens. In such societies, it is illegal
for teens to venture out after curfew hours, although it is not immoral. Another good illustrative
example is free speech. Consider a situation that occurred on a college campus in which a list of male
students, posted by a group of female students led by a faculty member, warned that those male
students were potential rapists. Such an act is repugnant, yet it is legal to post such a list. Consider also
the trade in pornographic images both in print and on the Internet. These images not only degrade the
men, women, and children depicted, they also contribute to other related crimes such as rape. In most
cases, however, trading in such images is legal.

11 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)

These examples illustrate that even though both morality and conventional law are integral parts of
human life, they do not cover the same domains. There are hundreds of similar cases where the legal
system, although protecting civil liberties, unintentionally obscures morality.

Morality, Etiquettes, and Manners

Etiquette refers to a code of behavior, a set of norms of correct conduct expected by a society, group,
or social class. It is a generally expected social behavior. These rules of the code or the set of norms are
usually unwritten, but aspects of these may reflect an underlying moral code.

Manners are unenforced standards of conduct or cultural norms that show that an individual is
“refined” and “cultured” with a society or group. These norms codify or set a standard for human
behavior. However, in contrast to laws that also codify human behavior, manners, just like morality,
have no formal system for punishing transgressions other than social disapproval.

12 |IS 102 PRELIM (1)