Ethics: Unveiling Normative Ethical Theories Beyond

the Moral Problems

Marinas, Julia Mitz, Payusan, Cairah, and Vergara, Mabet

Introduction

This paper contains an in-depth analysis in identifying the different normative

ethical theories for each of the addressed moral issues towards individuals and
society. This paper identifies the different normative ethical theories, such as
deontological, utilitarian, virtue, and even Filipino ethics. The goal of this paper is to
identify what normative ethical theories imply for every moral issue, and it will
accomplish the mentioned goal by evaluating each ethical theory and then creating a
conclusion that categorizes every one of them.

The Moral Problems: Implication of Normative Ethical Theories

In this section, the moral problems are based on how the authors significantly
relate to each of the problems and to society. Each problem is discussed under a
particular normative ethical theory. First, Deontological Ethics is characterized by
complete obedience to the law and statutes, and the consequences are believed to
be handled separately from the self-determination of persons. Next is Utilitarian
Ethics, which defines as the goods by which all individuals should be influenced to
pursue their happiness as more important than the means. Third is the Virtue Ethics,
which stresses the moral value of a person's character. Lastly is the Filipino Ethic,
which states that the behavior and virtues of a person will affect their quality of life.
Together with the normative ethical theories are the proposed solutions to every
moral problem that are being discussed.

I. Deontological Ethics

A. Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalization is a fallacy where the conclusion reached is not

supported logically by adequate or objective evidence (Nordquist, 2019). In
this perspective of hasty generalization, it is morally unethical according to the
Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness under Deontological Ethics. Justice and
fairness aim to organize society’s basic structure: the political and social
institutions like gender, family, the workplace, and more. A hasty
generalization can be judged based on the second principle, which states that
social and economic inequalities are attached to offices and positions open to
all under the conditions of fair equality of opportunity. However, hasty

1
 generalization is opposed to this idea because generalizing can be applied to
everyone. An example of that is the position in some offices where it is said
that women cannot be the boss because they are weak and fragile. With this
case, they are indicating about all females, and this concludes as depriving
them of equal liberty, which is the aim of the theory. There are no reasonable
grounds to generalize the situation where females cannot be the boss
because they are weak and fragile.

On the other hand, the theory argues that certain kinds of inequalities
are morally permissible if they benefit the least privileged in a society. But in
the view of hasty generalization, it is clearly defined that it cannot benefit
others in the society because generalizing is something that accuses others
without sufficient evidence, therefore it is not just. Hasty generalizations in
social relationships are morally unethical because they cause injustice to
other people. Saying or accusing someone is an act of not being fair to the
extent that it may cause others to feel offended. The theory merely tells us
that being just and fair will give all the citizens in the society fair and just
opportunities.

Hasty generalizations cannot be eradicated immediately in society, but

this act can be avoided. Those who are knowledgeable about this problem
may educate others who are not. Making claims was not wrong, but the
mistake is that people are generalizing the different ideas and thinking that it
is not a problem at all. We can achieve justice in society if everyone believes
it to be just and fair.

B. Laziness

Burton (2014) states that if a person is capable of performing an action

that they should perform but is unwilling to do so due to the effort required,
they are being lazy. Instead, he performs the task haphazardly, engages in
another, less laborious or boring activity, or does nothing. To do an action is
part of a person’s good will and duties, and the persons who are being lazy
are not truly lazy; in other words, the concept of laziness presupposes the
existence of free will. The idea of laziness as a will can be connected to the
Kantian ethics of Imanuel Kant under the deontological ethics. The action that
is supposedly taken is called "duties." Regardless of what we want to do,
there are things that we recognize as being required for us to perform. This
means that, no matter how lazy the person was, there were things that
needed to be accomplished. Maybe those people do not have the ability to
think through and address their situation, which is why they are being lazy. To
some extent, there are people who are becoming lazy because they see their
situation as being so hopeless that they cannot even begin to think through it.
Thus, some people are just lazy, while others have the ability to work through
things that they might otherwise be too lazy to consider doing.

To address the issue and overcome laziness, one must first

understand its nature and particular causes. Let the person understand his or
her duties as Kant said: to act from good will is to act for the sake of duty.

2
 Even though a person does not act according to duty, at least the person will
act for the sake of duty because it is the only way that an action can have
moral worth, and being lazy is not an act of being moral, but instead it is an
act of ignorance. The most successful individuals are those who can
effectively use their environment in order to make the best use of their time,
resources, and capabilities. Furthermore, such individuals are also those who
are successful in making the necessary changes within themselves that lead
to success.

II. Filipino Ethics

A. Parents make their Children an Investment for Retirement

It is assumed by Behrman, Pollak, and Taubman (1995) that parents

invest in their children, especially in their human capital, out of a desire to
safeguard their future (in an altruistic manner), maintain or advance their
family's social status, or offer support (returns) as they get older. This issue
can be discussed using one of the normative ethical theories, which is Filipino
ethics. Under the Filipino ethics was the Filipino virtue of "Utang na Loob," or
"debt of will." This explains the concept in which one reminds others of their
good deeds, specifically in times of need. One of these examples is the
parent-child relationship, where some parents expect their children to give
them something in return for their help raising them, especially food and
clothes. Utang na loob is given in the Filipino culture by parents who show
concern for their children's well-being and help them earn a place in society.

But, sad to say, there are parents who have different views on the term
"investments." Some parents view it as a way of raising their children's future
labor market expectations and future returns. According to Warner (2006), this
is an example of "hyper-parenting." Instead of the child having the ability to
make their own judgments about the investment that they will make, parents
pressure them into making certain choices for them. The Filipino virtue of
"utang na loob" is missing because, even though children can afford to pay
back their parents, their parents are still controlling them through the use of
"debt peonage," which is when a parent coerces their child into paying for
something in which they have no interest or control.

This issue is widely ignored in today's society, so we cannot say that it

will be resolved. Although it can be avoided by addressing this issue with
everyone and educating them that this is one of the rising problems in society
today, people keep using debt peonage to control their children instead of
understanding that the child can make their own decisions. Through the use
of the different platforms, this issue will surely be brought to light, and maybe
a lot of children out there who are suffering from this kind of parenting will
speak out. Additionally, we don't think the ideal situation has fully developed in
this world yet, although we are getting closer to it. While this problem can be
avoided in today's society, people should learn to prevent it from happening
on their end.

3
III. Utilitarian Ethics

A. Abused Freedom of Speech

According to Johnson (2021), when someone's speech is clearly

intended to hurt and tear down others, whether through how they express
their opinions or share about their experiences or through the methods they
use to do so, it is an abuse of free speech, and the offender needs to be held
accountable. In normative ethical theories, this moral problem can be
addressed by utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics is all about the actions that
were taken by any individual, whether they were right or wrong, and
determining their utility according to the principle of utilitarianism as defined by
Jeremy Bentham. Freedom of speech is a good way to express one’s ideas,
but using it to hurt others is an offense and will cause harm to others. In
utilitarian ethics, neither right nor wrong actions have equal consequences.
Because of a moral inconsistency, utilitarianism holds the important idea that
although any action can be considered right or wrong in the moment, at the
same time, all actions affect everyone.

In the idea of John Stewart Mill about utilitarianism, it is stated that

actions are right if they promote happiness, and they are wrong if they
promote the reverse of happiness, which is pain. Freedom of speech is a right
action, for this will bring happiness, but when it is used to make others suffer,
this action is ethically wrong. This freedom of speech gives us the chance to
share our thoughts, but it does not give us the right to harass, pester, or upset
others. According to his idea, utility was connected with justice; if the justice
encroached upon others, there would be individuals who could not achieve
the said happiness. According to the principle of this normative ethics, those
who abuse their freedom of speech will receive justifiable punishments.

From it, the individuals who abuse their freedom of speech must
receive the right consequences. It is a moral offense, so it deserves enough
consequence, like giving fines to persons who report abuses of this sort.
Although there are already laws in place if the freedom of speech is violated,
they should be more strictly enforced for everyone. All information must be
monitored to prevent those actions that can be considered abuses of freedom
of speech, such as hate speech, cyberbullying, defamation, and more. If
people are safe from this kind of wrong action and do not do such bad things,
individuals and the whole society might gain the said happiness.

IV. Virtue Ethics

A. Relationship with Peers

Peer relationships are interpersonal bonds that form and grow out of

4
social interactions between people who have similar stages of psychological
development, or peers (La Greca & Harrison, 2005). However, there are times
when you may not only disapprove of others' actions but also of them
themselves. According to Barltlett and DeSteno (2006), personality traits may
have a moderating effect because not everyone has a higher level of trust or a
greater proclivity to collaborate. Such emotions are greatly influenced by one's
upbringing and character development.

This moral problem is interrelated with the character since it involves

the different personalities coming from it. Thus, we can say that the
psychological characteristic is used to fit the objective concept of virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics, which emphasizes developing character rather than humanistic
pluralism and universalist values, addresses this phenomenon by pointing to
the development of a particular personality that is well adapted to achieving
the target virtues in life. Also, because "virtue ethics" is about the cultivation of
personal character, it is not a virtue ethical theory that attempts to arrive at
some kind of justice or happiness. We will argue that such an undertaking has
limited efficacy and fails to account for the full diversity of human life, while
also exaggerating some common features like personalities that do not fit
one's standard and every individual's flaws.

Through virtue ethics, the interrelated nature of human psychology

allows it to address the issue of the negative view of relationships with other
people. We propose a solution to the generating problem that can be the
result of a good relationship between people who do not allow their thoughts
to be shadowed by the negative aspect. To avoid chaos, people should
practice equal treatment for everyone. Teach people to live this way so they
can solve relationship problems, and those who do not take advantage of the
ability to communicate with people could benefit from their fair assistance.
Relationship is one of the most important skills that people should learn in life,
and if everyone learns to respect everyone else's relationship with the world,
chaos can be avoided.

5
References

Bartlett, M. Y., and DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior:

helping when it costs you. Psychol. Sci. 17, 319–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2006.01705.x.

Behrman, J. R., Pollak, R. A., & Taubman, P. (1995). From parent to child:
Intrahousehold allocations and intergenerational relations in the United
States: University of Chicago Press.

Bentham, Jeremy. "An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation:

The collected works of Jeremy Bentham." (1996).

Burton, N. (2014, October 25). The Psychology of Laziness. Psychology Today. Retrieved
December 6, 2022, from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201410/the-psychology-
laziness

Contemporary Virtue Ethics: https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/

Johnson, S. (2021, October 20). When The Freedom Of Speech Becomes An Excuse For
Abuse! Lighthouse International Community. Retrieved December 6, 2022, from
https://www.lighthousecommunity.global/post/when-the-freedom-of-speech-
becomes-an-excuse-for-abuse

Kantian ethic: https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-

deontology/

La Greca, A. M., and Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations,

friendships, and romantic relationships: do they predict social anxiety and
depression? J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 34, 49–61. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5

Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism. Chapter 2." Blackboard Notes (2012): 12-33.

Nordquist, R. (2019, September 6). Definition and Examples of Hasty Generalizations.

ThoughtCo. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://www.thoughtco.com/hasty-
generalization-fallacy-1690919

Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. Harvard University Press.

Reyes, Jeremiah. "Loob and kapwa: An introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics." Asian
Philosophy 25, no. 2 (2015): 148-171.

Warner, J. (2006). Perfect madness: Motherhood in the age of anxiety.

Penguin.

6
7