🕮 MODULE 2.

Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

2.1. What is Ethics

Ethics is derived from the Greek word “ethos,” which means a characteristic way
of acting which also refers to the principles or standards of human conduct. Ethics is
also called moral philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior; thus, ethics is sometimes
referred to as the study of morality. It is said to be a science insofar as it is a body of
systematized knowledge arranged with its accompanying explanation. In terms of
content, it is not to be classified as a course in science. Ethics as a practical science
means that it consists of principles and laws that are applied in daily living. In this sense,
ethics is not a course taken for the sake of contemplation; rather, it is a study taken for
application in a person’s everyday course of action. Ethics then is an applied
knowledge.

As a philosophical science, ethics is not a technical course or a laboratory study.

Devoid of human experience, it presents and deliberates its subject matter “in the light
of its deepest principles by means of human reason alone.” There are various ways of
defining and discussing Ethics: 1) Ethics is a subject matter with content. It is a discipline
with a body of knowledge; 2) Ethics is a process of decision-making because it is a
thinking skill leading to actions that we perform coupled with accountability; 3) Ethics
refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to
do in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. It refers
to standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing,
murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin
virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. Ethical standards include values relating to
rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy.
Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by
consistent and well-founded reasons; 4) Ethics refers to the study and development of
one's ethical standards. Since feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is
ethical, it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are
reasonable and well-founded. It is a continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs
and our moral conduct and striving to ensure that we live up to standards that are
reasonable and solidly-based; and, 5) Ethics involves the study and application of
“right” conduct. When people ask themselves, “What ought I to do?” they are
concerned of their actions that might be wrong or are having difficulty working through
the moral or values dimensions and from these, they are asking an ethical question.

What Ethics is Not

 Before we understand the moral from the non-moral standards, it is important to
look into some misinterpretations and misconceptions of what Ethics is all about. Such
misinterpretations and misconceptions can obliterate the real essence of Ethics as an
important branch of Philosophy. Raymond Baumhart, a sociologist, asked some people,
"What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following: "Ethics has to
do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong;" "Ethics has to do with my religious
beliefs." "Being ethical is doing what the law requires;" "Ethics consists of the standards of
behavior our society accepts;" and, "I don't know what the word means." These replies
might be typical of our own. The meaning of ethics is hard to pin down, and the views
that some people have about ethics are shaky and dangerous.

Ethics and Feelings

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many

people tend to equate ethics with their
feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a
matter of following one's feelings. A
person following his or her feelings may
recoil from doing what is right. In fact,
feelings frequently deviate from what is
ethical. Several students fall into the trap
of engaging in pre-marital sex because
they allow their feelings or emotions to dominate their rationality.

Ethics and Religion

Most religions, of course, advocate high

ethical standards. Yet if ethics were
confined to religion, then ethics would
apply only to religious people. But ethics
applies as much to the behavior of the
atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can
set high ethical standards and can
provide intense motivations for ethical
behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be
confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.
Ethics and Law

Being ethical is also not the same as following

the law. The law often incorporates ethical
standards to which most citizens subscribe. But
laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is
ethical. What is legal is not necessarily ethical;
but what is ethical is necessarily worth
legalizing. For instance; gambling, divorce,
abortion, and the like can be legalized in
some nations, but they do not necessarily
mean that they are ethical.

Ethics and what Society accepts:

Being ethical is not the same as doing

"whatever society accepts." In any society,
most people accept standards that are, in
fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in
society can deviate from what is ethical. An
entire society can become ethically corrupt.
Nazi Germany before, particularly during the
time of the holocaust, is a good example of
this. If being ethical were doing "whatever
society accepts," then to find out what is
ethical, one would have to find out what
society accepts. To decide what I should think
about abortion, for example, I would have to
take a survey of American society and then
conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an
ethical issue by doing a survey.

Finally, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate
ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others
do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find
an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
 Ethics is not the same with morality but is closely linked to it. While moral standard
or norm of action is fixed and already set, ethics dwells on the use of reason. It is
because we cannot limit philosophy from mere norms of conduct. However, ethics is
identical to moral science or moral philosophy based from the Latin term mos
(nominative) or moris (genitive) which also means custom, or “traditional line of
conduct.” It is from this root word that the word moral or morality is derived. The term
morality is synonymous with the word ethics in etymological meaning; however, ethics
deals more on the principles and laws on the morality of human acts by providing the
person knowledge that s/he may know, what to do and how to do it. In other words,
ethics provides the guides to the performance of an act.

2.2. Importance of ethics

For some people, the importance of ethics only comes as a result of

encountering unethical conduct. But if Ethics is inculcated into one’s system, it is being
carried into one’s bloodstream and to the day-to-day activity of the individual. Ethics is
an important requirement for human existence. It is our means of deciding a proper
course of action. Without it, our actions would be aimless and not properly rooted.
When a rational ethical standard is taken, we are able to correctly organize our goals
and actions to accomplish our most important values. Any blunder in our ethical values
will reduce our ability to be successful in our endeavors.

Ethics is important because of the following reasons: 1) It serves as a guide

towards our goals, rather than just allowing our lives to be controlled by self-serving
motives, accidental occurrences, customs, feelings, or our impulses; 2) It helps us
deepen our reflection on the ultimate questions of life and help us think better about
the concerns of morality; 3) It offers us a wider perspective on how to live our life to the
fullest, taking into consideration that we do not have the luxury of eternal time in this
world; 4) It reminds us of our duties, responsibilities, and accountabilities to ourselves, to
our fellowmen, to our society, to our nation, and to the world in general; 5) It
encourages us to examine our life and honestly evaluate how we are responding to the
challenges and demands of this contemporary time; 6) It increases our capacity to
perceive and be sensitive to relevant moral issues that deserve consideration in making
our choices that will have significant impact on ourselves and on others; 7) It polishes,
strengthens and brings out to the fore our value priorities in life which will make us better
and happy individuals; and, 8) It helps us realize and become what we ought to be in
this challenging, yet beautiful, world.
2.3. Recognizing Terms in Ethics

There are ethical terms to be distinguished in relation to human acts:  It is

important to consider Moral, Amoral, and Immoral actions.

Moral actions or events are those which require the goodness of the object
chosen, the intention or the end in view, and of the circumstances together.
Moral actions are deemed to be good as one performs the moral rules or codes
of the society.

Immoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest where moral
categories do apply and are considered to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to
the code of ethics. For examples: consciously telling a lie; graft and corruption;
cheating during examinations, gluttony, taking a sip of water fully aware that
there is hemlock in it (suicide), and many more.

Amoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest exhibiting

indifference. At times, these are manifested in the absence of knowledge,
freedom and voluntariness on the part of the acting agent. For examples: a
young child who speaks bad words, an Aeta who just came from the mountain
obstructs a city traffic, a person innocently taking a sip of water but the water
contains a hemlock, or a man accidentally entering the ladies comfort room.

2.4. Moral versus Non-Moral Dilemmas

A moral dilemma is a situation in ethics where the human person is to choose

between two possible alternatives and the options become limited. In decision-making,
even when you do not want to choose to act in a situation, that is still considered a
choice. It is impossible then that there is no possible option. Thus, whatever is the
decision a person makes, it is expected for that person to stand and be responsible with
the decision s/he takes whatever the consequences could be. To decide is to be
responsible.

Moral dilemma happens when we cannot make a distinction between what is a

good act from an evil act. When we encounter question of ethics like, is it moral to
attend my class even if I am sick? Is it necessary to avoid killing someone when my life is
in danger? Is waking up early necessary when am always late in going to school? Is it
important to maintain my diet even if my doctor advised me not to? To avoid moral
dilemma, it is important to distinguish the good act from a bad act.
 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object chosen, of the intention,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself like for instance in the case of praying and fasting in order to be seen by
men. The chosen object can by itself vitiate or destroy an act in its entirety. There are
some concrete acts, such as bribery, robbery, fornication, and the like, which are
always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails an evil act.

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only

the intention that inspires them or the circumstances which supply their context. There
are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions,
are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy, murder, adultery,
and the like. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. According to St.
Thomas Aquinas, an evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention. A
good intention does not make the action or behavior that is intrinsically disordered,
good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus, the condemnation of an
innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the country.

2.5. Distinction of Action:

Human acts are the fundamental foundation of morality. These acts which are
under the control of the will and therefore done knowingly and willingly; not acts which
happen by accident, as falling, or by nature, as growing, but acts performed by
choice, that is, after deliberation and decision. They are imputable to their human
author to the extent that he has knowledge of his own activity and its import, and to the
extent that he has freedom of election. The moral or ethical character of the human
act lies in this, that it is freely placed with knowledge of its objective conformity or
nonconformity with the law of rational nature.

As elaborated by ethicists, human acts are characterized by the following: 1)

Acts which are free and voluntary; 2) Acts done with knowledge and consent; 3) Acts
which are proper to man as man; because of all animals, he alone has knowledge and
freedom of the will; 4) Acts which are under man’s control, and for which he is
responsible for its consequences; and, 5) Acts which man is the master and has the
power of doing or not doing as he pleases. On the other hand, human acts should be
differentiated from ordinary ‘acts of man’. Acts of man are bodily actions performed
without deliberation and in the absence of the will. For instances, the blinking of our
eyelids, our breathing patterns, sneezing, and the like are considered as acts of man. In
many ways, we are accountable to our actions but somehow our responsibility is
lessened unlike human acts that absolutely require moral obligation and responsibility.
 Human Act requires moral responsibility that is derived from a person. If
responsibility is a coined term of “response” and “ability” then the ability to response is
important in ethics because “no one can give what s/he does not have.” It is expected
for young people studying ethics to respond to the problems of society today based on
their capacities. As such, we can apply the old saying, “if there’s a will, there’s a way.”
For example, the right to vote in local and national election, participate in any
assembly, joining school organizations, becoming choir members of the Church, joining
professional associations, and other organizing activities, are simple ways that young
people can do to become responsible individuals. If a person achieves an ethical
attitude, it presupposes that s/he takes moral responsibility to society. A personal
conviction of what is “right and wrong” becomes a social duty and such duty must be
put into action. This makes ethics an axiology, or what philosophy calls praxis, the
emphasis on the practical application of ethical ideas.

There are two significant considerations of ethics; the Ethics of Being and the
Ethics of Doing. In the Ethics of Being, the emphasis is on the “character development”
which involves the integrations of virtues, values and personhood; it is looking into the
foundation of actions who is the “good person” while the Ethics of Doing focuses not
only the goodness of the person but on the ability of the person to put into action
his/her ethical conviction (Fr. Ramon Coronel & Fr. Paul Van Parijs, CICM, Bioethics,
1996). It is not enough simply to be contented in believing to be a good person while
forgetting to do good actions; on the other hand, it also not good just to think that you
are doing good while you forget that you are first and foremost a good person. There is
the need to harmonize the two considerations of ethics; hence, you do a good act
because you believe and think that you are a good person capable of doing good.
Both considerations are inseparably related to be better person – intellectually mature,
psychologically stable, socially involved, spiritually nourished and economically well-off;
and, to do good acts.

Our ethical responsibility is reflected in the following scheme:

 The fundamental bases of morality start with the use of reason, exercise of
human freedom, willful, voluntariness, and deliberate act. Ethical principles and theories
are guidelines for human actions for which we can only talk about moral responsibility. It
is because we cannot be totally responsible to our actions that we are not aware of.
We can only be responsible to our actions that we are aware of, freely acting on them,
and voluntarily responding to the circumstance we are engaged in. With our moral
conviction arises our moral responsibility.

2.6. Three-fold Elements of Human Acts

There are three essential elements to consider any action to be a human act.
Without one of these elements, the action cannot be considered as a human act.
These are knowledge, freedom of the will, and voluntariness.

Knowledge is awareness or being conscious of one’s actions including its possible

consequences. The act of knowing is always consciousness of something which is
inevitably linked to the subject, who is the knower. For example, an insane person and a
three-year old child are not liable for their actions since they are not capable of acting
with proper knowledge. Their actions can never be considered as immoral. College
students and professionals are expected to be possessors of knowledge; thus, they
cannot claim excuses for their immoral actions. They are liable for the consequences of
their actions. According to Aristotle, knowledge is the first element of ethical practice.
This knowledge provides a framework for deliberating about the most appropriate
technique(s) by which the good can be attained. But, it should be noted that; although,
knowledge is a requirement for considering an act to be a human act, being
knowledgeable or being aware of what is ethical or moral is not a guarantee that the
person is already considered as an ethical or moral person. It is not enough for an
individual to know what is good. What really count are his good acts.

Freedom of the Will. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is the power which
human beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their
reasons. This always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a
certain action. Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the
part of the individual would be meaningless. Insane people who have no control of
their minds and children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do
or not to do, are not responsible for their actions. Matured people, college students and
professionals are expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they are
responsible or liable for their actions.
 Voluntariness. This is an act of consenting or accepting a certain action whether
it is done whole-heartedly, half-heartedly, or non-heartedly. According to Aristotle, the
moral evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of responsibility to a human
agent; thus, responsible action must be undertaken voluntarily (Nicomachean Ethics III).
Agapay presented four modes of voluntariness. These are perfect, imperfect,
conditional, and simple voluntariness.

Perfect Voluntariness is actualized by a person who is fully aware and who fully
intends an act. The person, under perfect voluntariness, is fully convinced of his action
including its consequences. A politician who, in his right mind, engages in graft and
corruption is considered to be acting with perfect voluntariness. Imperfect Voluntariness
is seen in a person who acts without the full awareness of his action or without fully
intending the act. A drunken person who, acting irrationally, jumps from a ten-storey
building is said to be exhibiting an imperfect voluntariness. Conditional Voluntariness is
manifested by a person who is forced by his circumstances beyond his control to
perform an action which he would not do under normal condition. A freshman college
student who is forced by his parents to enroll in a course which is against his will is
showing a conditional voluntariness. Simple Voluntariness is exhibited by a person doing
an act willfully regardless of whether he likes to do it or not. It can either be positive or
negative. It is a positive simple voluntariness when the act requires the performance of
an act. For examples: Studying one’s lesson; participating in class discussions; engaging
in sports, and so on. It is a negative simple voluntariness when the act does not require
the performance of an act. For examples: Remaining silent or choosing to be alone;
deciding not to go to a drinking spree; avoiding to take illegal drugs; and so on.

2.7. Determinants of Morality

Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to
speak, the master of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in
consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either
good or evil. The morality of human acts depends on the object chosen; the end in
view or the intention; and the circumstances of the action. These are the factors to
consider in making ethical judgement in determining the morality of human acts.

Object Chosen: This is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. The
chosen object resides out the acting subject. The object chosen morally specifies the
act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity
with the true good. Examples of Good Chosen Objects: nutritious foods; hard-earned
money or wealth; educational books and films; and the like. Examples of Bad Chosen
Objects: Forbidden drugs; Pornographic materials; Leakages for examinations; and
others.
 The Intention: This is a movement of the will toward the end. It is concerned with
the goal of the activity. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the
purpose pursued in the action. It aims at the good anticipated from the action
undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions but can guide several
actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its
ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can
at the same time be inspired by the love of the Divine Being as the ultimate end of all
our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such
as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it. The intention
resides in the acting subject as contrast to the object chosen. Because it lies at the
voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element
essential to the moral evaluation of an action.

The Circumstances: These, including the consequences, are secondary elements

of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil
of human acts. For instances: the number of people killed; the amount of money being
stolen; the number of trees cut by loggers; the regularity of the graft and corruption
done by politicians; the number of times a lie is spoken; or, the number of times a
student cheated. They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility. For
examples: acting out of ignorance or fear of death; acts done because of habit;
choosing between two or more evils in a certain situation; being forced to do
something against one’s will; and so on. It should be noted that circumstances of
themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make
neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

In Summary: A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of
the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such
as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a
disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of
human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances
(environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context.
There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and
intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and
perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of
the morality of human acts. The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing
accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil. "An evil action cannot be
justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). A
morally good act therefore requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its
circumstances together. There are concrete acts which are always wrong to choose,
because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil
so that good may result from it.