Xavier University – Ateneo de Cagayan

A DISCUSSION ON THE THESIS STATEMENTS IN ETHICS

A DISCUSSION ON THE THESIS STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN
ETHICS

PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT

Submitted by:
Camannong, TJ Carlyle A.
 March 23, 2022
CONTENTS

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1

Thesis Statements No. 1….…………………………………………………………2

Thesis Statements No. 2…………………………………………………………….7

Thesis Statements No. 3……………………….…………………………………...15

Thesis Statements No. 4….…………………………………………………………2

Thesis Statements No. 5…………………………………………………………….7

Thesis Statements No. 6……………………….…………………………………...15

Thesis Statements No. 7….…………………………………………………………2

Thesis Statements No. 8…………………………………………………………….7

Thesis Statements No. 9……………………….…………………………………...15

 INTRODUCTION

Philosophy has ever been the overarching field, connecting its roots into various other
endeavors. Whether it be in law, medicine, education, or business, you will always see a
philosophical aspect of its identity that is required to be taken into consideration. One can
also see it outside of its application in various professions, if one is self-aware enough of the
thoughts they conjure at the sight of something unfamiliar or totally alien. What is this? And
perhaps more importantly, why is this? The moment one begins to start questioning things,
reasoning out their experiences, diving deeper into what is unclear, they begin to
philosophize. It would not be a stretch to say that for as long as humanity persists,
philosophy’s presence will never die out - considering that it is quite literally connected to
every aspect of humanity and society, from the grandest to the most minute scales and details.
Questioning, rationalizing, and describing, however, are only a part of the philosophical
whole. There is another part that, in the context of this discussion, requires attention; this
will be the focus of a more demanding thought process, one that compels its thinkers to do
more than just think.

Ethics, in the words of Joseph de Finance S.J., is the “categorically normative science
of human action, pursued by the natural light which reason casts”. In other words, it is a
philosophy that dictates how one should conduct themselves, guided by reason inasmuch as
the human mind can comprehend, because how we act is ultimately guided by our higher
faculties of rationality. It is a dynamic, working (as in continuously changing and developing)
philosophy that calls to question the acts we commit within the world, and how they affect
others, and even ourselves in the process of these actions. All these definitions considered,
however, one must ask: Why learn Ethics? Why should I be moral?

In being a moral creature, humanity has the power to affect his kin in various ways,
and it is important that we answer these questions as best as we can because of all the
consequences an action can lead to. And so, with rationality upheld in the highest pedestal,
we endeavor to learn all and more of Ethics, that we may answer these questions and conduct
ourselves in ways truly becoming of a creature endowed with reason. This we dedicate to the
goodness we hope for as we live, as the truly humane way to go through life.
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 1

Thesis Statement 1: There is no single, incontrovertible definition of “how we ought to

live.” We know, though, that the source and ground of all ethics is that capacity of the human
being for self-determination (freedom). How the human being ought to live requires his/her
effort to be guided by good reasons while at the same time giving equal weight to everyone’s
interest.

In our moral life, the experience of moral evil puts into question the very sense of this whole
fundamental project of the self-seeking to realize itself. However, our moral quest is consoled
by the belief in the promise of some form of everlasting in union with the Transcendent, the
Absolute.

Possible Questions:

1. What is Ethics according to Joseph de Finance?

Outline of the Thesis:

 Joseph de Finance - Introduction to Ethics

 Formal definition of Ethics

 “A categorically normative science of human action, pursued by natural light

which reason casts”

 Plato and Aristotle

 Plato’s world of Ideals as noted by O’Connell

 Aristotle’s rule of Means, teleology, eudaimonia through virtue

Discussion/Answer:

Ethics is a practical, normative science, not like the “legitimate” sciences grounded on
hard facts. It prescribes the right way of living, it does not just “find” truths. Ethics, therefore,
dictates how one should live. Ethics can be broken down into two subsets: Meta Ethics and
Normative Ethics. The difference between them is that Meta Ethics is a sort of descriptive
endeavor, like that of the legitimate sciences, whereas Normative Ethics dictates the actions
of a person; it tells us what we ought to do, instead of just defining and describing
phenomena in the world. Related to the subject of Ethics, freewill is the ability to exercise
one’s individuality, though Normative Ethics would have us go beyond this definition and
have us uphold this freedom as a responsibility instead.
 De Finance would propose a synthesis of Deontological and Teological ethics; they
are two sides in coin. It is not enough to have good intentions but bad means of achieving
them and vice-versa. In addition to J. De Finance’s formal definition, we may also see some
insights on the self-realization in our moral lives from the ancient philosophers Plato and
Aristotle; they were very much concerned with how one conducted themselves within the
moral cosmos, and we would see this reflected on one’s pursuit of happiness or the true
knowing of some moral superlatives respectively.

Insight:

I think it’s important to formally define Ethics because of how broad of a word it can
be, on top of how many contexts it can be thrust into. Knowing that Ethics is a normative
practice, it’s in understanding these ideas that we are able to conduct ourselves in society in
such a way that we uphold our rights and intellectual virtues to a higher degree. It helps,
furthermore, to learn about the progress of Ethics from the ancient epoch and its greatest
teachers, because their inputs were the foundations of the post-modern behavior, and all that
is just and right.

Reference:

Joseph de Finance, SJ, An Ethical Inquiry

Plato - Excerpts from Euthyphro, Laches, Republic, Symposium - Edith Hamilton &
Huntington Cairns eds..pdf. Google Docs. (2022). Retrieved 22 March 2022, from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11_cIuQVGWHZyKFLof1TfQbULE0JchQlR/view.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bks I-II, trans. Martin Oswald (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill
Educational Publishing, 1983).
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 2

Thesis Statement 2: Plato serves Socrates as the ideal concretized-the paradigm of what it
means to be a virtuous person so that we feel shame when we don’t measure up to him.

Possible Questions:

1. What does this feeling of shame imply for someone in this context of morality?

2. What role did Alcibiades play in the Symposium?

3. Is this feeling of shame inherent in all humans?

Outline of the Thesis:

 Plato’s Symposium

 Dialogue between Alcibiades and Socrates

 Alcibiades’ feeling of “shame”

 Plato’s insight on the noesis - the seeing beyond the images, and within the
embodying of the virtues.

Discussion/Answer:

The virtuous person, according to Plato, is the person who embodies the virtues in all
that they do, and all that they are. How we know if this person is embodying the virtues
accordingly we can see through the paradigm in relation to the virtues, a judgement whose
basis is rooted on the “apparentness” of participation (in this context, the relationship
between sensory objects and corresponding ideals) between the character and his actions.
This can be seen in the Symposium, specifically in the dialogue between Alcibiades and
Socrates, where the former begins to feel shame for not living up to the this paradigm-
standard that Socrates had established in his presence. Alcibiades saw this lucidly, and this
phenomenon was termed noesis. Noesis, according to Plato, is the highest form of knowing.
It is essentially seeing these otherworldly forms or eidos within an object meant to reflect that
perfection, hosted in another plane of existence. This is in contrast to the term Dianoia, which
is an understanding of an object through the imagery painted in the material plane, and not a
total comprehension of the thing-in-itself. Going back to Alcibiades, it was through this
moment of noesis that he witnessed Socrates in awe, and it was this that made him the
paradigm of virtue embodied.

Insight:

Though I still struggle to understand this otherworldly plane Plato had asserted to
exist, I can see the appeal in virtue embodied, and why he’d be so fervent to see Socrates
carry out these virtues as a living role model. O’Connell’s interpretation of the world of
Ideals, much to my amazement, however, was lucid: a world in which authenticity ruled,
where everyone could aspire to become models of virtue themselves through this practice
measured by paradigm. Let it not be said that authenticity does not play a part in the role of
Ethics, not when it is so fervently apprehended in the texts of Plato.

Reference:

Robert J. O’Connell, SJ, Plato on the Human Paradox, New York: Fordham University
Press, 1987, pp. 153-207

Plato - Excerpts from Euthyphro, Laches, Republic, Symposium - Edith Hamilton &
Huntington Cairns eds..pdf. Google Docs. (2022). Retrieved 22 March 2022, from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11_cIuQVGWHZyKFLof1TfQbULE0JchQlR/view.
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 3

Thesis Statement 3: Aristotle's ethical theory talks about that one desire in human nature—
the fulfillment of which completes us to the highest degree—eudaimonia. Ever the practical
philosopher, Aristotle points to virtues, in particular, practical wisdom, as that which enables
us to reach Eudaimonia and more than that are themselves constitutive of eudaimonia. A
morally virtuous action consists of a measured activity- choosing the mean relative to us.

Possible Questions:

1. What is eudaimonia?

2. How does one reach eudaimonia?

3. Is excellence directly acquired or is it practiced?

Outline of the Thesis:

 Aristotle

 The ultimate goal of humanity, the be-all-and-end-all of man’s activity

 The meaning and importance of virtue

 The habituation of virtue in action

 The means of action

 The eventual rise to Eudaimonia when virtue is embodied

Discussion/Answer:

Aristotle begins this eventual rise to the “ultimate happiness” by noting the end of all
man’s activity. If man continued to dictate, act, and move towards goals for other goals, there
would be an infinite, meaningless regression. Enter the Good, the aim of action, of which is
desirable to all people. This would be important to Aristotle in his climb to the highest Good.
He states, then, that for such uselessness to be avoided, there should and would be an end of
all ends, and this would be eudaimonia. It would be described as happiness, related to the
disposition of living and acting well. How man could begin his ascent to eudaimonia would
be through the virtues, traits that must be practiced in accordance with and for the Good. It
would not end there, however, as these virtues would require habituation: a process of self-
discipline, contemplation, and practice of the virtues. These practices would be reflected,
furthermore, in Aristotle’s rule of means. This meant that, depending on the situation one
would find themselves in, the practice of virtue (both moral and intellectual) would compel
the contender to choose the mean virtue in-between two extremes, one radical, the other
overly lax. In this rigorous process of intellectual and personal discipline and abidance to the
virtues for the sake of Good and its highest end, eudaimonia could be achieved.
Insight:

From all I’ve understood in Aristotelian Ethics, I cannot help but note its emphasis on
self-discipline. It is no secret that the ancient peoples of the West, especially those of the
Greeks, placed this characteristic atop the higher pedestals that society consisted of, but the
rigorous training of the individual to reach the heights of the ultimate goal in existence is one
that I believe should be practiced. It is not enough, after all, for one to talk of ideals and act
oppositely of what he preaches. The truest embodiment of virtue, and perhaps the best way to
achieve this Aristotelian end, lies in the individual’s ability to act, know, and practice the
moral and intellectual Goods. “Practice makes perfect”, or rather “the path to perfection” is a
working statement even to this day.

Reference:

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bks I-II, trans. Martin Oswald (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill
Educational Publishing, 1983).
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 4

Thesis Statement 4: Aquinas doing a synthesis of both Plato and Aristotle, claims that the
obligation of morality is written into the very nature of the human being ontologically first,
and then shines out to reason that discerns the nature of the human beings. We have in our
nature what it takes to be good: the eternal law, right reason—which, looking into our natural
inclinations reads there the good that it now promulgates into the natural law. For Aquinas,
the moral life is a one important journey from and back to the source of being.

Possible Questions:

1. From whom does the Eternal Law come from?

2. How many laws did Aquinas enumerate?

3. Is the Natural Law inherently flawed because of its intricate connection to humanity?

Outline of the Thesis:

 Thomas Aquinas

 His formulation of the Laws

 The Natural Law

 The Eternal Law

Discussion/Answer:

The three Laws, Divine, Natural, and Human, are entirely consisted within the one
Eternal Law of God. The laws ordained by God are the guides and ordinations by which His
subjects must follow through with, and this is seen in the Natural Law. Natural Law is
accessible to us humans because we are endowed with the higher faculty of reason. Natural
Law consists of all that is innate to man, in addition to how it mixes with our reasoning on a
higher level. Despite this connection with Natural Law, however, it is flawed because of
man’s inherently imperfect disposition. This law alone cannot bring man any higher to
understanding God through their own reasoning.

Divine Law remedies this insomuch as it can direct man towards God through
reasoning. In this, an Aristotelian juxtaposition can be seen, specifically in this ascension to
the highest end-all-be-all of existence. It acts as a bridge beyond the limitations of Natural
Law, and allows us to see a glimpse of the Highest end, God.
Insight:

Aquinas’ influence from Plato and Aristotle is made clear in this teleological,
otherworldly principle of knowledge and Law that man is compelled to conform with through
reason. It keeps its pragmatic approach while following with the higher theological thinking
centered on God, and this says much about the intellectualism of the Church. They are not
people who worship for worship’s sake, they are intellectuals who understand the necessity of
reason in connecting ever closer with the Divine, and a theological powerhouse like Aquinas
can very well reason out why.

Reference:

St Thomas Aquinas - On Law, Eternal Law and Natural Law.pdf. Google Docs. (2022).
Retrieved 22 March 2022, from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yh2ltW8hJVvyL_0WIm5kf4c2Am3DEF9j/view.
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 5

Thesis Statement 5: According to Kant, there is nothing in this world that could be
considered as morally good except a “good will”. This will is considered to be good when it
acts such that it conforms itself to what duty demands. The categorical imperative is this: Act
only on that maxim in which you can and at the same time will that it should become a
universal law. It may also be formulated in the forms of the law of human beings as ends in
themselves and the law of autonomy. For Kant, the moral question, ultimately, is “What may
I hope for?” Granting that I do what I ought to do as a moral being in this empirical world as
I know it, what is there to hope for?

Possible Questions:

1. What is the center of Kant’s Pure Ethics?

2. What is goodwill?

3. What is the end in keeping with the Categorical Imperatives?

Outline of the Thesis:

 Immanuel Kant

 The goodwill and duty

 The need for Pure Ethics

 The Categorical Imperatives and what we may hope for

Discussion/Answer:

The Kantian notion of Ethics is one that’s deontological in nature, holding fast to the
belief of doing good things for its own sake, in the hope that our efforts brings humanity
closer to unity in the moral sense of the word. It begins with the conception of the goodwill,
the only thing Kant believes to be the purest object of moral goodness within the world. It is
innate in man and is the center of Kant’s Pure Ethics. With man’s finite grasp of the world,
we can only know of the material experience that we live through in this world. Now that the
limitations of knowledge have been elucidated, Kant moves to how one should act. Going
back to the goodwill, Kant asserts that the will is good because of its inclination to carry out
duty. Duty, in this case, is absolute: it is not done for ulterior reasons, and the actions fall in
line with the motives. In other words, they are actions done for its own sake. Furthermore, the
motives of these duties are dictated by the maxims (principles for following an action) that an
individual believes in. This upholding of duty falls under Kant’s famous Categorical
Imperative, a ruling split into three sections that must be upheld for the sake of duty and
morality. These aforementioned parts are Universality, Humanity, and Autonomy. When the
Categorical Imperative is upheld to the best of attempts, we may finally hope for a Kingdom
of Ends, a society wherein an essential humanity is found: the caring for others, the
implementation of justice for all, and the end as happiness found within an Absolute.

Insight:

Freedom plays a big part in Kantian Ethics, and I believe this to be so because outside
of man’s inherent right to be autonomous, Kant truly believed that man had this goodness that
enabled others to follow goodness as well. The deontological approach of Kant is alluring in
that it emphasizes man’s potential to be free, just, and happy individuals who perform good
things for the benefit of all. It cannot be applied in all situations, sure enough, but as a
heuristic device, I think it can flourish in areas where it can be applied, because acting in line
with the motives of good is never a bad option. It, perhaps, is the only option in certain
instances.

Reference:

Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans H.J., Paton, New York Harper and Row,
Publishers, Inc., 1964
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 6

Thesis Statement 6: Utilitarianism may be expressed in the formula: Right actions are those
that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness that will be caused, no one’s
happiness is to be counted as more important that anyone else’s.

Possible Questions:

1. Is Utilitarianism practical in application?

2. What does happiness mean in the Utilitarian sense?

3. Is the good for the most people the only good that works?

Outline of the Thesis:

 The Utility - the greatest for the most

 The distinction between quality and quantity

 The end goal of Utilitarianism - happiness

Discussion/Answer:

Utilitarianism is the system that focuses on the good or happiness for the most amount
of people. Happiness, in this case, means the upholding of pleasure and the absence of pain.
The betterment of society as whole is emphasized. This happiness is measured by the concept
of the felicific calculus, which breaks down the components that make up happiness to be
measured within actions, as actions are judged by their ability to bring the greatest good for
the most amount of people, in addition to these in the calculus: Intensity, Duration, Certainty,
Propinquity, Purity, and Fecundity.

John Stuart Mill posits that, contrary to the usual Utilitarian dogma, it is actually in
the quality of action that achieves happiness for the people. Furthermore, he stated that
happiness is not created equal: pleasure and the absence of pain varies from every individual
in different situations. Actions are right if they advocate and foster happiness. It is not a good
action in the Utilitarian sense if the results lead to the opposite of happiness. Moreover, these
pleasures can be also rooted on the greater faculties of reason and virtue. Jeremy Bentham’s
Utilitarianism subscribes to quantity of acts in relation to the happiness it can bring to the
most of amounts of people and utilizes the aforementioned felicific calculus to judge the
actions.
Insight:

The system of Utilitarianism is an attractive idea that has its place in political
philosophy, where it surely holds a seat among the other famous ideologies, but I struggle to
see whether this system could be practical in its application. This is not to say that there is no
chance of it, there are people who support and critique it like any other ideology and it cannot
be taken as a purely black-and-white situation, but it lacks intricacy to an extent that it cannot
account for all inequities of society. It still holds to reason, however, and this might be the
key to a successful Utilitarian society: one that is founded on right reason.

Reference:

John Stuart Mill, "Utilitarianism" from Reason at Work, Steven M Cahn et al, eds. (Harcourt
Brace College Publishers, 1996), 59-72.
Norman E. Bowie & Robert L. SImon, "Some Problems with Utilitarianism '' in Steven M.
Cahn et al., eds. Reason at Work, 3rd ed. (Hartcourt Brace College Publishers, 1996), 73-
76. 
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 7

Thesis Statement 7: John Rawls suggests a thought experiment: he asks us to imagine

ourselves into his now famous “original position.” People in this position are situated behind
what he calls a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls further argues that the principles which these
people would choose to regulate their relations with one another are definitive of justice. A
first principle holds that each person should have a right to the most extensive basic liberties
(the right to vote, freedom of thought, and so on) compatible with a like liberty for others.
The second principle, however, is more original. The “difference principle” states that social
and economic inequalities are acceptable only insofar as they benefit the least advantaged.

Possible Questions:

1. Is a veil of ignorance enough in decision-making?

2. What merit is there in starting from an “original position”?

3. Is there truly a “just inequality” when we talk of justice in society?

Outline of the Thesis:

 John Rawls

 Justice as Fairness

 The fair distribution of goods and responsibilities

 Just Inequality, the Veil of Ignorance, and the Original Position

Discussion/Answer:

John Rawls introduced the concept of Justice as Fairness as a means of distribution of

goods and responsibilities through a social contract, one formed on mutual benefit and
freedom (and its taking away in some aspects). There are three types of Justice according to
Rawls, the Distributive, Retributive, and Compensatory justices. Respectively, these are the
just distribution of goods and responsibilities, the just punishment of criminals who’ve
crossed the law, and the just compensation of people who’ve lost things in society insomuch
as it keeps up with the principle of fairness, meaning they get no more than they are
deserving to be compensated for.
Insight:

The idea of justice as fairness is one that aims to solidify the principle of just
distribution, consequence, and compensation in society. This would be a big and welcome
change in a country such as ours, where the corrupt are practically free to pull the strings
from the shadows and take what they believe is theirs by right of power, on top of the grubby
politicians who put themselves above others because of their position in hierarchy. The
emphasis on equity over equality is dominant, and it would do a lot of good for a corruption-
ridden society to thrive in a sort of “veil of ignorance” as well, where the only truly open eyes
are those that the moral sense of justice bestow.

Reference:

John Rawls, "A Theory of Justice," Excerpts from A Theory of Justice, revised edition,
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknup Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 6-7; 10-
15; 52-53; 67-68; 73-77; 86-93.
 Thesis Statements Discussion No. 8

Thesis Statement 8: The activity of thinking, the two-in-one, the habit of examining the
reflecting upon whatever happen come to pass, might this activity not condition human
beings against evildoing? Thinking, Arendt claims, is the only thing that allows us to avoid
evil-doing because in the end, “I don’t want to live with a thief…a murderer…a cheat.”

Possible Questions:

Outline of the Thesis:

Discussion/Answer:

Insight:

Reference:

Thesis Statements Discussion No. 9

Thesis Statement 9: Ultimately, the question of morality is “why should I be moral?”
Perhaps the question can only be answered by each of us- in as much as the source and
ground of ethics is our capacity for self-determination.

Possible Questions:

1. What is the purpose in being moral?

2. Why should I care about being moral?

3. Is there an end that can be reached in being moral that matters?

Outline of the Thesis:

 Culmination of the topics

 Man’s capacity for self-determination

 The importance in endeavoring in Ethics

Discussion/Answer:

Self-determination as the freedom to act is an imperative concept in the idea of Ethics

as a whole. All the ideologies presented by philosophers throughout the epochs has always
included freedom in some way. In Ramon C. Reyes’s “Relation Between Ethics and
Religious Belief”, self-determination was regarded as a demand of self-actualization, to act
out the duty of freedom. It’s this way because freedom is a duty, one that we carry out to
actualize ourselves and enable the empowerment of other people’s autonomy, It is an
incarnate freedom, after all, this freedom that encompasses all that which comprises of a
human, from the physical to mental, and even to social aspects. It is, furthermore, a
responsibility to uphold for the self and others in the name of justice and fairness.

Insight:

From all that I have learned in Philosophy, the one idea that I’ve taken to heart and
noticed the most is that freedom, in almost all cases, is a responsibility, a duty to act in
accordance with maxims that serve to uphold the greatest good possible for myself, others,
the community, and the universe. Be it teological or deontological, there is a an end that we
all work towards in the hopes that our actions, our goods, will eventually lead us to a better
version of everything. We saw it in Kant’s Kingdom of Ends, in Plato’s world of Ideals, and
even in Rawls’ Social Contracts. Freedom, therefore, is an imperative to Ethics as a whole,
and one that should be taken with the utmost seriousness.

Reference:
Reyes, Ramon C, "Relation Between Ethics and Religious Belief," The Moral Dimension:
Office of Research and Publication, pp 107-112.