Prelim: General Education: ETHICS

Course Outcome:
At the end of the course, the students are expected to:
1. differentiate between moral and non-moral problems.
2. describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human existence.
3. explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral experiences and solve moral dilemmas.
4. describe elements of moral development and moral experience.
5. use Christian-Catholic ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences.
6. develop sensitivity to the common good.
7. internalize the principles of Christian-Catholic ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the person, society, and
in interaction with the environment and other shared resources.
- The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, which originally means custom or character. Broadly
construed, ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In particular, this
branch of philosophy is concerned with questions of how human persons ought to act, and the search for a definition of a
right conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the “good” through the aid of reason is the
traditional goal of ethicists (Albert, Denise & Peterfreund 1984, p. 1-2).

- It must be noted, however, that there is no single, absolute definition of ethics. This is because ethics as a
discipline is constantly evolving as a result of a change in socio-cultural and political context. For example, in the Greek
tradition, ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the “good life”. Thus, the ethical inquiry during this time was
directed toward discovering the nature of happiness. In fact, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics does not only present a
theory of happiness but also provides ways in which happiness is attained. Now, centuries later, a quite different
orientation was introduced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this ethical tradition, the ideals of righteousness before God
and the love of God and neighbor, not the happy or pleasant life, constitute the substance of ethics. Indeed, if we make an
effort to reconcile these views, we are faced with the difficult task of defining the relationship between “doing what is
right” and “being happy”. Again, it is for this reason that we cannot have an absolute definition of ethics. The least that we
can do, in my opinion, is to describe the nature and dynamics of ethics based on a specific time and context.

- It is also important to note that ethics is not the same with morality, although many philosophers believe that the
two terms can be used interchangeably. This is because the former denotes the theory of right action and the greater good,
while the latter indicates practice, that is, the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In other words, ethics undertakes
the systematic study (that is, questioning and critical examination) of the underlying principles of morality. Hence, it is
interested primarily in the illustration of a more general problem and the examination of underlying assumptions and the
critical evaluation of moral principles.

- Morality, on the other hand, is more prescriptive in nature. It tells us what we ought to do and exhorts us to
follow the right way. According to Terrance McConnell (1994), “morality is characterized as an ‘end-governed rational
enterprise’ whose object is to equip people with a body of norms (rules and values) that make for peaceful and
collectively satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together and interacting in a way that is productive for the
realization of the general benefit”. For example, a religious leader may ask her followers to be good at all times. In this
way, a moralist may want to keep alive the values she considers to be worthwhile and to improve the moral quality of the
community where she belongs. Hence, morality, at the very least, aims to guide one’s action by reason and gives equal
weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Indeed, this gives us a picture of what it really means
to be a morally upright person.

- Based on the brief discussion above, we may conclude that ethics is the science of morals, while morality is the
practice of ethics
Types of Ethics
- During the mid-20th century, according to Sumner (1967), a “certain theory in the methodology of ethics has
gradually become more and more widely accepted, at least by British and American moral philosophers”. According to
this position, there are two ways of doing ethical inquiry, namely, normative ethics and metaethics.

- On the one hand, normative ethics is prescriptive in nature as it seeks to set norms or standards that regulate
right and wrong or good and bad conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties
that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Hence, normative ethics normally attempts to
develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave. For example, Immanuel Kant’s claim that an act is
morally right if it is done for the sake of duty is an example of a normative ethics.

- Metaethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According to Sumner (1967), “metaethics is allegedly
constituted, at least in part, by questions of the meanings of the various ethical terms and functions of ethical utterances.”
Hence, if a normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive, metaethics is analytical and descriptive. Put simply,
metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to understand the nature and dynamics of ethical principles. It asks
questions about the nature and origin of moral facts, as well as the way in which we learn and acquire moral beliefs. Thus,
for example, if normative ethics urges us to do good at all times, metaethics asks the question “What is good?”. For sure,
if a moral philosopher attempts to address the questions “What is good?”, “What is justice?”, “Why should I be moral?”,
then that moral philosopher is doing metaethics. Hence, when Plato proposed an answer to the question “Why should I be
moral”, Plato was doing metaethics―indeed, Plato raised a metaethical question.

- In the course of the development of ethics, applied ethics became its third major type. As its name suggests,
applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of deciding which ethical or moral
actions are appropriate in a given situation. For this reason, casuists (that is, the adherents of applied ethics) are concerned
with individual moral problems, such as abortion or euthanasia, and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues that surround
these particular moral problems. Casuists may also act on some occasions in an advisory capacity, such as guiding
individuals in their choice of actions. For example, they may attempt to resolve the conflicting duties of a mother
suffering from ectopic pregnancy who has no other option than to abort the fetus.

- Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields. For example, we may talk about business ethics, which
deals with ethical behavior in the corporate world; biomedical and environmental ethics, which deal with issues relating
to health, welfare, and the responsibility we have towards people and our environment; and social ethics, which deals
with the principles and guidelines that regulate corporate welfare within societies.

- Finally, the difference between the three major types of ethics can be illustrated in the following situation:
- A police officer shoots a terrorist who is about to blow up a crowded shopping mall.
- The act of the police officer is morally wrong according to metaethics because it is always wrong to kill. As is
well known, killing in itself is intrinsically wrong. However, if the police officer does not shoot the terrorist, many
innocent people will die or get injured. Though the police officer’s act may be wrong, the adherents of normative
ethics may say that it is the right thing to do in this particular situation because not doing so will result in the death of so
many people. Hence, the action might be morally correct. Finally, the casuists may say that the police officer is just doing
his best to fulfill his duty, that is, to protect as many innocent lives as possible.

- You can download the explanation in a MSWord form: /files/7355399/Ethics_Intro_Handout.docx

Rule as a Critical Role in Achieving Harmony
Rules are guidelines of people, the law, or the way to control our movements. In order for someone to gain
control of a situation or other people, we set rules for them to follow. Social beings such as us humans are highly
intelligent and can do whatever we want to do, yet by our freedom also comes the cost of having to do too much we lose
control.
Why are Rules Important?
In spite of the saying ‘Rules are made to be broken’, societies do not function without rules. It is true that we often admire
people who are mavericks. Perhaps we envy them their willingness to break away from the norm. But rules serve a very
useful, indeed essential purpose – they act as guidelines so that we all know what to expect from others, and how to
conduct our lives.
Rules set boundaries, something that is essential for children to learn. They have to understand what acceptable behavior
is. But if we demand this of children, we also have to expect that adults continue to follow the rules as much as possible;
otherwise we have anarchy. And society cannot function like this. Besides, even the most liberal person would say that
some things are unacceptable; without rules, we have an ‘anything goes’ situation where people are going to be hurt and
abused.
That said, those rules can change. If they did not, we would still have slavery and women would not have the vote. To a
modern eye, it seems inconceivable that it was ever considered acceptable to own another human being and treat them
with cruelty. It is thanks to those people who spoke against this abhorrent practice and who were willing to campaign to
change the status quo that the law changed. Rules are based on a general consensus, and what the majority find acceptable
can change over time. As a society, we have to evolve and improve. So where it was once considered that women did not
have equal rights and that people of color were not equal, now we rightly believe that everyone should have the same
rights regardless of their gender or color.
We also have to consider who makes the rules. Are they fair and realistic? Laws are essentially rules, and they are made
by people in positions of power who may act in their own interests more than in the interests of the people they represent.
When it comes to the law, people have to be careful that they do not put their liberty at risk. Yet they also have the right to
speak out when they consider the laws to be unjust, and lobby for changes. However, laws have to be respected; otherwise
there is little point in them existing.
If we wish to change the rules, it is generally better to try to do so in a lawful manner. Other people will not respond if we
choose a violent or aggressive path. Indeed, they may become even more deeply entrenched in their opinions. However, if
we explain why we feel changes need to be made and work to persuade people that our opinions are just, and then we
stand a greater chance of success.
Rules help to organize society. They will vary from one society to another. One country may conduct matters quite
differently from another. But the rules of each one help them to function. Those rules may be enshrined in law, or they
may be unspoken. They help to protect people. If people choose to break those rules, they should also accept that there
may be consequences. But we must always question whether rules are just, and if they need to be changed. What was
appropriate for a society 100 years ago may no longer be relevant. If we do not review our rules from time to time, we
become stagnant. So, although it is important to have rules, they should be subject to change – providing that the
vulnerable are protected and nobody else is harmed.
Moral Standards versus Non-moral Ones
Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?
- It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply
influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t.
Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the
most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the
woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western
societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty
glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may
have pitied the Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.
- Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter of moral
indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in
another?
- Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which may result in a
clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as
religious violence and ethnic cleansing.
How can we address this cultural conundrum?
- This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is, of what is a
moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may
be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching
implications. For one, once we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the
principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed,
once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the
pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary
imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a
matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not
killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to
find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.
- Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?
Moral Standards and their Characteristics
- Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right
or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally
promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral
standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.
- According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other words, norms
plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors.
For example, we may say “We are always under the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that
killing innocent people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements
about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams
is bad”.
- According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 1) moral standards deal
with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and
murder; 2) moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed,
moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a
law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral standards are overriding,
that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially of self-interest; 4) moral standards are
based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just; and 5) moral standards are associated with
special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).
Non-moral Standards
- Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-
moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad,
standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge
art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.
- As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these
types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human
well-being.
- Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says “Do not harm
innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is
full”.
Norms of Morality
- Such a broad concept, however, needs further precision for we see immediately that there are various meanings
of the expression “what is proper,” or “what is good and right.” Hence, we talk sometimes of the “right man for the job,"
or “the proper political action to take,” or “good manners at table,” or “a good and just man.” What this means is that,
within the broad ethos or mores of a community, there are several different standards to be found.
- Upon closer analysis, we can distinguish at least four types of norms or standards within the ethos or mores of a
community.
- First, there is what may be called the technical norm. This refers mainly to man’s needs which come from his
bodily space-time limitations. This norm has to do with survival, health and well-being. It is concerned with problems of
effecting change, of transforming the natural world, the problems coping with natural forces, both within and without the
human organism. Thus, the technical norm is concerned with techniques of relating means to ends and the techniques of
healing and health, of work, production, and organization Therefore, because of its survival and well-being, every
community prescribes certain proper ways of working and doing things. For example, there are the “right” things to eat,
“accepted” way of performing an appendectomy, the “right” way of preparing the field for planting rice, the “correct” way
of constructing the roof of a house, the “established” way of divide the work so that certain things are done by men, others
by women. Because of this technical norm certain community members are considered “good.” meaning good workers,
industrious, efficient and productive. Others are considered lazy, good-for-nothing, inefficient.
Second, there is what might be called the societal norm. This has to do with the need for group cohesion and for
strengthening the bonds that keep the community together. In relation to this norm, for example, certain manners or attire,
certain ways of speaking or of conducting oneself, certain rituals and Ceremonies, are considered “proper and fitting,”
“appropriate " or recommended,” because they maintain and strengthen the bonds that keep the community together.
Other ways of behavior are proscribed or frowned upon because they are unmindful of or destructive of social relations.
Third is the aesthetic norm. This refers to typical perceptual forms, regarding color, shape, space, movement, sound,
feeling and emotion, touch and texture, taste, scent and odor, both in the natural and in the man-made environment, which
are considered by the community as “ennobling,” “cathartic" “heightening man’s existence,” or “beautiful,” because they
represent a certain free play and celebration of the human spirit.
Fourth is the ethical or moral norm in the narrower or stricter sense In the life of the community, the ethical or moral
norm combines with religion to form what is sometimes referred to as the "ethico-religious” norm. (We will see later how
we can differentiate more precisely the ethical or moral from the other aspects of life). The moral norm refers to some
ideal Vision Of Man, an ideal stage or Perfection of man, which serves as the Ultimate goal and norm. In relation to moral
norm man and His actions are judge t0 be right or wrong, good or bad. Because of this ideal vision of man, a community
has what is sometimes called the non-negotiables.” those things which the community cherishes and considers of ultimate
worth, which give ultimate sense and direction to human existence. Therefore, all the other norms—technical, societal,
aesthetic—are to be subordinated to this moral norm.