GE 114- ETHICS

Module 4
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
Module Overview

In general, ethical frameworks is a course that delves into the origin and
nature of human life, the reality of human existence, or the principles that makes
the person truly human. Thus, it leads the students to look at the wholeness of their
being as the course guides them to see themselves and their fellow beings as
persons, subjects and centers of values.

In this module, as philosophy is the love or intense desire for wisdom, the
subject is geared towards fulfilling the desire to know and encounter the students
as human beings in the works and thoughts of noted philosophers, and in the
learner’s experiences of this phenomenon called ‘beings’.

At the end of the course, the learners are expected to formulate their views
about human nature and related topics, one that is well informed, thoroughly
reflected upon, and one they hope to live in their daily life. It is indeed hoped that
Ethics by its representation of possibilities and various concepts about this human
phenomenon that it will lead the learners (with teacher) to growth and maturity not
only in their awareness but most importantly in their faith and lives.

Module Outcomes

By the end of this module, we hope to achieve the following objectives:

 Explain the role of mental frames in moral experiences;

 Classify the dominant mental frames;

 Articulate and critique the basic tenets of dominant ethical frameworks;

 Apply ethical frames in making moral decision;

 Identify the important moral challenges, and;

 Utilize the ethical frameworks in a critical commentary/reflection of a social

issue

102 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Lesson 1
Moral Concepts and Theories: Why They Are
Important
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lesson you should be able to:

o Identify basic theories as frameworks in Ethics;

o Explain the role of theories or frameworks in moral experience;
o Classify and discuss the ethical theories, and;
o Construct points of divergence and convergence as to why they are
moral theories important.

Time Frame: 1 Week

Introduction

In observing moral issues in

ethics, a distinction is usually
made to know its differences
and importance (e.g. between
morals and ethics). When this
distinction is made, the term
morals is taken to refer to
generally accepted standards
of right and wrong in a society
and the term ethics is taken to
refer to more abstract
principles which might appear
in a code of professional
ethics or in a textbook in
ethical theory. However, the
terms moral philosophy or
moral theory would refer to a
set of abstract moral principles as appropriately as the term ethics, so it may be
more practical to use the words interchangeably. Both of the terms refer to
standards of right conduct and the judgments of particular actions as right or wrong
by those standards.

As we go about our lives, we face many decisions. Some of the decisions seem to
concern people with whom we are intimate such as decisions about behavior within
the family and ourselves. Other decisions concern our responsibilities in our jobs.
Some concern our relationship to the state or the law. People who have
governmental roles sometimes make decisions about controversial social issues,
such as the morality of capital punishment or the justice of the tax system. All of us
who live in democratic societies need to make decisions about such issues if we

103 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

intend to vote responsibly. Moral philosophy addresses the many abstract ethical
and philosophical issues that arise when we attempt to make such decisions in a
reflective and responsible way.

Now, in making judgments about right conduct; most of us recognize the value of
moral consistency. The requirements of consistency take several different forms,
example in the case of the Data Privacy Act.

(Case 1) If a consulting teacher breaks confidentiality with their student because it

is in their interest to do so but condemns another teacher for doing the same thing,
we are inclined to say that they are inconsistent. They are not applying the same
standards and expect everyone else to follow.

(Case 2) We also expect people to be consistent with their own moral standards.
If they keep strict confidentiality one time and breaks it another time, even when
there is no important difference between the two cases, we again say that they are
inconsistent.

(Case 3) Finally, our moral beliefs must be consistent with one another. Our moral
beliefs about confidentiality must be consistent with our beliefs about bribery,
whistle blowing, and the environment. Ultimately, we must know how our moral
beliefs in professional ethics relate to our beliefs about abortion, the moral
justification of racial and sexual quotas in hiring, euthanasia, and any other moral
issue.

One way to think consistently in this way is to have a moral theory, i.e. a set of
moral principles, which systematically link moral beliefs to one another by means
of a set of coherent moral principles. A theory in any area offers the opportunity to
define terms in uniform ways and to relate a set of ideas to one another in a
consistent manner. Moral theory does the same thing with moral ideas.

A moral theory can be conveniently divided into three parts. First, there is a moral
standard, a criterion or test of what is right or wrong. Second, moral principles serve
to categorize different types of actions as right or wrong. Third, moral judgments
are statements about the rightness or wrongness of particular actions. Moral
judgments apply moral standards or moral principles to specific situations. They
are thus the ultimate goal of moral reasoning.

Activity (Let’s Get Started)

 Write a one-paragraph essay: On the front page of a paper, the students

answer this question: “are you in favour of the DDS (Davao Death Squad)
phenomenon in Davao City? (After they are finished, the teacher goes
around affixing the signature on the front page to ensure that students do
not change their answer.)
 At the back page, the students answer this question: “do you agree that
each person holds an absolute inviolable intrinsic dignity? (after the teacher
then checks for consistency of answers.)

104 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Analysis (Let’s Think About it!)

Now think about the following questions:
 How do you welcome a rich neighbour to your house and regard a beggar
knocking on your gate?
 In their basic positions as persons, what is the difference between a king
and a slave, a healthy baby and a dying old man, or a president of a
country and a notorious criminal?
 Is it okay to legalize death penalty to heinous criminals, abortion and
euthanasia? Why or why not?
 What are the main classifications of ethical theories? Why are they
important?

Abstraction (Let’s Explore!)

Earlier, the need to test our
moral views for overall moral
consistency was given as one
of the driving forces behind the
search for a moral theory.
From this standpoint, it would
be desirable to have a single
moral theory in which all of our
views could be encapsulated.
However, moral philosophers
have generally concluded that
it is not possible to incorporate
all of the moral views that are
generally accepted in our
culture into a single coherent
moral theory. Rather, there
seem to be two systems of
moral concepts that are the
most influential, although
there are considerable areas
of overlap. There are generally
three (3) general subject
areas: 1) meta-ethics, 2)
normative ethics, and 3)
applied ethics. Under these respective areas are various moral theories or
frameworks. Let us consider each of these.

1. Meta-ethics

The study of meta-ethics refers to the attempt to understand the underlying

assumptions behind moral theories; therefore, it is the branch of ethics that seeks
to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and

105 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

judgments. It covers a broad range of questions surrounding how we know what

moral truth is (and even if moral truth exists), and how we learn about moral facts.
Meta-ethical questions are abstract by their very nature. It might seem that they do
not necessarily bear much relation to the task of developing practical, decision-
making tools.

If we begin to consider whether one should be a just person, for example, then we
are very quickly faced with questions about the nature of justice and about what
being a 'just' person means. Is justice a human invention? Can we accept that
ideas of justice can be different in different societies? Or is the notion of justice an
eternal, unchanging concept that should be upheld by everyone, everywhere, and
throughout all time? This is not merely an abstract, academic question. The
question of whether or not one culture's notion of justice can and should be
imposed upon another has historically been - and continues to be - a cause of
profound conflict between people. For among its central questions are the
questions whether any moral claims are true, and whether it is rational to commit
oneself to acting morally. One cannot answer such questions without taking a
position on the correctness or cogency of people's moral convictions.

Let’s take the optimistic view on the issue of whether moral convictions can be
correct or cogent by discussing the concept of ‘moral realism’. Copp (2001)
characterizes moral realism as the position that (1) there are moral facts, (2)
people's moral judgments are made true or false by the moral facts, and (3) the
mere fact that we have the moral beliefs we have is not what makes the moral facts
be as they are. This is a highly abstract view that may be difficult to grasp. It means,
any claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral
judgments are independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that
morality is about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person of group’s
subjective judgment.

2. Normative Ethics

In turning from meta-ethics

to normative ethics, we
turn from issues about
ethics to issues in ethics.
We turn to questions such
as; what kinds of actions
are right or wrong? What
kind of person should one
be? There are many
theories about these
issues. In thinking about
the differences among
them, it is helpful to
consider the answers they
give to two closely related questions. What is the basic matter of moral concern?

106 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

In addition, what are the fundamental or basic moral truths? The disputes posed
by these questions are central to normative ethics.
First, what is the basic or fundamental matter of moral concern? Is it the kind of life
we should live? Is it the kind of person we should be? Is it the actions we perform?
Is it the kind of character we have? Is it our motivations or intentions? Is it goodness
or value—either the goodness in a person's own life, or the overall goodness of the
state of the world and the condition of people in the world? Second, what are the
fundamental or basic moral truths? Are they propositions about the kind of life we
should live? Are they about the kinds of actions we are required to perform, or
about the kind of character we ought to have, or about our motivations or
intentions? Or are they propositions about goodness or value?

Typically, a theory that proposes or argues that certain moral truths are basic to
ethics then attempts to support other moral propositions by deriving them in one
way or another from the basic truths. However, theories can differ in how they
attempt to do this, and they can differ in their views about the exact status of the
truths they take to be basic. Of course, a theory could instead reject the idea that
there are moral truths that are basic in any interesting sense. In addition, a theory
could take it that all or several of the matters of concern are equally fundamental,
thereby denying that there is a basic matter of moral concern. There are generally
three philosophical approaches, or what may be considered the science, to ethical
reasoning: 1) utilitarianism, 2) deontology, and 3) virtue ethics.

a. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has great intuitive appeal to many people because human well-being
seems to be such a natural goal of human endeavour. In order to be plausible,
however, utilitarians must define well-being. Yet people define well-being, or what
some might call the "good life," in different ways. For some it is physical pleasure,
for others financial and professional success, and so forth. How do we resolve
these conflicts?

As the first ethical system in normative ethics, it is often equated with the concept
founded by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and encapsulated
in the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” The idea is that
ethical decisions are based on the consequences of the action, which is why it is
also sometimes called consequentialism.

A utilitarian analysis of a moral problem consists of three steps. First step, the
utilitarian must determine the audience of the action or policy in question; those
people who will be affected for good or ill; Second step, the positive and negative
effects of the alternative actions or policies must be determined; finally, the
utilitarian must decide which course of action produces the greatest overall utility.

While this idea initially may seem appealing, particularly with a field, that has a core
duty to the public; it does not provide a solid ethical framework for decision-making.
There are three main concerns that seem to arise when professionals working on
public relations and rely on utilitarian ethics to make decisions.

107 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

First, rather than looking at the choice or action itself, decision-makers are forced
to guess the potential outcomes of their choice in order to determine what is ethical.
Other ethicists believes this is a faulty line of reasoning when they suggested that:
the public relations should be based on a worldview that incorporates ethics into
the process of public relations rather than on a view, that debates the ethics of its
outcomes. In other words, ethics should be about the decision-making process,
not just the outcome, which cannot be guaranteed.

Second, utilitarian ethics also presents questions of conflict with regard to which
segment of society should be considered most important in weighing the good or
outcome (Nozick, 1974). In other words, if a solution drastically harms a minority
group, would it be ethical if the majority benefited from that decision? This seems
to contradict the goal of public relations to build mutually beneficial relationships,
regardless of the number of people in a particular stakeholder group.

The third objection is that it is not always possible to predict the outcome of an
action. Let us point out that consequences are too unpredictable to be an accurate
measure of the ethics of a situation. In other words, consequences of actions can
be highly volatile or impossible, even, to predict (Donagan, 1977; Scanlon, 1998).
Using outcomes as a measurement of ethics will not provide an accurate way for
professionals to measure whether decisions are ethical. Professionals must be
able to evaluate decisions and choices with concrete ethical guidelines instead of
hoping that certain outcomes will result in them having made an ethical choice.

Many scholars in public relations identify these issues, as well as others, as

evidence that utilitarianism, sometimes called consequentialism due the concept
relying on the consequence of a decision, is not as strong of a fit for public relations
professional ethics.

b. Deontology
The second prominent concept, deontological ethics, is associated with the father
of modern deontology, Immanuel Kant. He was known for the ‘Categorical
Imperative’ that looks for transcendent principles that apply to all humans. The idea
is that human beings should be treated with dignity and respect because they have
rights (Kant, 2002; Ross, 1930). Put another way, it could be argued that in
deontological ethics people have a duty to respect other people’s rights and treat
them accordingly. The core concept behind this is that there are objective
obligations, or duties, that are required of all people. When faced with an ethical
situation, then, the process is simply one of identifying one’s duty and making the
appropriate decision.

Kant (2002) stresses in his second principle of morality that everyone should ‘treat
humanity in the other or in that of your person never as a means but always as an
end in itself.’ One’s goodwill must be directed towards the well-being of the other
person as an end, and not used the person to serve any other end. No one wants
to be treated as a thing, to be utilized for some other purposes. Objectification that
is treating a person as if they were an object of some utility is one way or the other
dehumanizing. The difference of a human person from non-human entities gets
clarified in the way we treat each other; we hold each as with absolute intrinsic

108 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

worth by avoiding objectification and considering every human person as the end
of our human intentions.

The principle among many implication means that we ought to respect each
person. Respect, which is not a remainder of a human flourishing or value sourcing
from other persons, is not even deserved or earned. It is the price of human life;
as long as one remains alive as human, person ought to be respected by according
them with value true and the same for all human persons regardless of race, age,
sex, social status, academic achievements or political qualifications. This is respect
for human autonomy that each person should live by their free will, within an
environment that allows them the enjoyment of humanness or being human.

Example, a utilitarian rule in seeking for the benefits of the greater number of
people may opt to sacrifice somebody for the many or ignore the minority for the
welfare of the majority, but a Kantian sense of morality stands to uphold everyone’s
basic worth be a master or a slave (Kant, 2002), the richest or the poorest, a
producer or a beggar, a princess or a prostitute. With Kant’s moral imperative (or
his categorical imperative), the drug addict or the pusher is as equally valuable as
the leader without regard to one’s violation of norms or social position.

The challenges to this perspective, however, include 1) conflicts that arise when
there is not an agreement about the principles involved in the decision; 2) the
implications of making a “right” choice that has bad consequences; and 3) what
decisions should be made when duties conflict. These challenges are definitely
ones that should be considered when relying on this as an ethical system.

c. Virtue ethics
Finally, a third and growing area of philosophical reasoning with ethics is known as
virtue ethics, one that has gained more attention in all areas like public relations in
recent years. This philosophy stems from Aristotle and is based on the virtues of
the person making a decision. The consideration in virtue ethics is essentially,
‘what makes a good person?’ Virtue ethics require the decision-maker to
understand what virtues are good and then decisions are made in light of those
particular virtues. For example, if the virtue of honesty is of utmost importance to a
good human person, then all decisions should be made ethically to ensure honesty
is preserved.

In Aristotle’s time (384 - 322 B.C), most philosophers were focused on one of two
types of ethics. One is called deontological ethics, which judges ethics by how well
a person follows the laws and rules of society. Deontologists would say, ''it doesn't
matter what happens, following the rule is always the right thing to do.'' The second,
teleological ethics (consequentialism), judges ethics based on the outcomes of a
person's actions. Teleological ethicists would say, ''If what you do leads to
something good, you did the right thing.'' There are flaws in both types of thinking,
so Aristotle introduced a third option.

Aristotle's perspective on ethics was based on the virtue of being human; in other
words, his conception of the ethical values and of human flourishing (happiness),
continue to exert influence in ethics. Virtue ethics as a moral system, places
emphasis on developing good habits of character, (e.g. kindness and generosity)

109 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

and avoiding bad character traits or vices (e.g. greed or hatred). Virtue-based
theories give importance to moral education, which molds individuals to habitually
act in a virtuous manner. Focusing on the character of the agent, virtue ethics
describes the right action as those chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous
person.

Also, Aristotle’s brilliance runs through the minds of medieval thinkers particularly
St. Thomas Aquinas and is widely seen to have great promise, and in recent years,
a number of new approaches to virtue have appeared in the philosophical literature
(Copp and Sobel, 2004). For Aristotle, human being is human being because of
his reason. Person’s rationality defines them as different from other forms of
person. It is distinguishing mark or character and should be the basis of
understanding how a person ought to live the life or ought to be happy.

Aristotle holds the following views:

 What is real is the real object or being that consists both the form and matter.
A person holds the unity of form and matter as making real beings possible.
 Man is a rational animal. A person’s purpose for life then must be in accord
with their rational nature. A reasonable life according to one’s natural
purpose is the measure of living life well. This is called Teleology, a
philosophy based on purpose.
 Happiness is a life of moderation. Whatever is extreme is bad. A person has
to live the golden mean – the mid-point.
 Knowledge comes from the perception of the senses, and;
 Change is necessary for growth and development of beings.

Theories in the classical tradition claim that moral virtue is necessary if one is to
flourish. Aristotle insists that this does not mean that these theories ground virtue
in self-interest, for in the classical view, flourishing is explained as consisting in
part in being virtuous. A virtuous person must be fair, kind, generous, and so on,
and his virtues lead him to be wholehearted in doing things for others. It therefore
involves acting both with an appropriate affect—with sympathy, for example—and
with an appropriate understanding of the reasons for so acting.

In view of the latter point, one might think that virtue ethics cannot avoid problems
in the theory of right action. Aristotle explains, however, that in the classical
tradition, ethical understanding is viewed as involving the acquisition of something
like a skill rather than learning a criterion of right action. A virtuous person has the
skill to determine the right way to act. The rest of us may need to use principles
and rules.

While this theory is growing in popularity, several objections can be made. First, in
terms of the public relations, the focus on virtues of the professional themselves
seems to miss the importance and role of obligations to clients and publics. The
industry is not simply about what public relations people themselves, but ultimately
the impact do to society. Additionally, it also can face the same obstacle as
deontological ethics when having conflicting virtues. If there is a virtue of loyalty to
a client and honesty to the public, what happens when they conflict? To which one
should a professional defer?

110 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Therefore, when people talk about these areas, they usually discussing areas of
normative ethics or the process of considering and determining ethical behaviour,
one may consider this:

Utilitarian Ethics Deontological Virtue Ethics

Ethics

Definition The greatest good for The idea that people Considering what
the greatest number should be treated with virtues make a good
of people dignity and respect person

Application Making decision Identifying one’s duty Making a decision in

based on what will and acting accordingly light of those favored
benefit the majority virtues

Pros - Strongest model for -

applied ethics

Cons  Decision-makers  There may be  Misses the

are forced to disagreement important
guess the about the obligations to
outcome of their principles involved other people
choice in the decision  The possibility of
 Harming a  The possibility of a conflict in
minority and making a ‘right’ virtues
benefitting a choice with bad
majority doesn’t consequence
build mutually  The possibility of a
beneficial conflict in duties
relationship
 It is not always
possible to predict
the outcome of a
decision

These three theories of ethics (utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, virtue ethics)
form the foundation of normative ethics conversations. It is important, however,
that students also understand how to apply these concepts to the actual practice
of the profession. Ethical discussion that focuses on how a professional makes
decisions, known as applied ethics, are heavily influenced by the role or purpose
of the profession within society.

3. Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to

real life situation. It is marked out from ethics in general by its special focus on
issues of practical concern (Rachels, 1997). It is concerned with ethical issues in
various fields of human life, including medical ethics, business ethics and
environmental ethics. Within these broad areas, it engages with policy issues
resulting from scientific and technological change and with the evaluation of social
and legal decision-making in public areas such as health care, policing, media and

111 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

information, and the world of business and finance. It is also concerned with
professional codes and responsibilities in such areas.

The word ‘applied’ is a technical term describing a variety of new philosophical

enterprises. Applied means “to put into practice”. Applied Ethics focuses more
closely on ethical discussion, and likes to resolve controversial moral issues
(Singer, 2011). Take note that applied ethics cannot be separated from philosophy
because as an important field of ethics, it is part of philosophy. It does not only
studies ideas and theories from the general point of view of goodness and right
actions but also finds out the way to solve these problems.

As mentioned earlier, the task of applied ethics is to develop appropriate tools for
shaping the desired moral attitudes and to apply ethical principles to practice. For
example, in business ethics, tools such as ethical codes, trainings, ethical
sensitivity trainings, etc. are used. Environmental ethicists can use similar tools as
in business ethics, e.g. consulting, courses, trainings for, among others, the
managerial staff, employees involved in spatial planning, employees of municipal
enterprises, local government officials, etc. In applied ethics, as in specific ethics,
we currently have a large "specialization".

In addition, it is an application of normative principles to any fields as mentioned

earlier. As there are basically three basic theories associated with it i.e.
utilitarianism, deontological ethics and virtue ethics.

Some important principles on applied ethical discussion as stated by Rachels

(1997) and Singer (2011):
 Personal benefit – Personal benefit is an action which produces benefit to
the individual.
 Social Benefit -Social benefit is an action, which produces benefit to the
society as a whole.
 Principle of benevolence – This principle insists on helping those in need
 Principle of paternalism – This principle assists others in pursuing their best
interest or the interests of their choice.
 Principle of harm – Not to harm others.
 Principle of honesty – Not to deceive others.
 Principle of lawfulness –One is not supposed to violate the law.
 Principle of autonomy – This principle acknowledges a person’s right to due
process and fair distribution of benefit. Compensation is to be given for any
harm done to the person.
 Rights – It acknowledges a person’s right to life, right to information,
 right to privacy, free expression and safety.

112 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Application

Learner Worksheet 13
Student Name: ______________________________ Score: ____________

Course/ Year/ Section: _______________________________

Choose only one

1. Discourse Paper: Through a three-paragraph essay, make an analysis about
(“How can I help the society regard every person with respect and absolute
worth or dignity?”) in relation to the various moral theories discussed in this
module.
2. Film-viewing: “Howtorn Hears a Who”
Through a three-paragraph essay, answer the following questions:
a. How is the movie related to “The Human Value?”
b. The narrator at the end states: “Persons are persons.” What are the
meaning or implications of this line?

NOTE: The students bring to class real pictures of individuals in deep suffering
obviously left only with breath or basic life. They paste the images on a PowerPoint
slide/bond paper and in the class; they share a statement on “human value”
referring to the pictures.

Submitting Your Work. If you do not have Internet Connectivity, neatly detach this page
from your module and submit via University Drop Box or by courier/ mail together with your
other Learner Activity Worksheets once you reach the prescribed Learning Checkpoint. If
you have Internet connectivity, you may answer directly on the online version of this
worksheet through the University Virtual Environment.

113 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Closure
Well done! You have just finished Lesson 1 of this module.

If you have questions or need to make clarifications take note of them in the
space provided below to ask your Course Professor through direct messaging or
through the University Virtual Environment (UVE).

Notes from this Lesson

Now that you have completed Lesson 1, let us move on to the next lesson
in this module. You may now move on to the next lesson.

114 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Lesson 2 Virtue Ethics

Nicomachean Ethics and Natural Law
Learning Outcomes

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

 Recognize the meaning of eudaimonia or happiness, natural law

and its relation to ethics;
 Articulate the role of virtue in crafting an ethical life;
 Determine the role of habit in the formation of virtuous character;
 Articulate the difference between philosophical knowledge and
practical wisdom;
 Explain how natural law is an imprint of the Divine Will on the free
person, and;
 Discuss conscience and how this is defined by natural law.

Time Frame: 1 Week

Introduction

When we observe people around us, one of

the first things that strikes us is how different
people are from one another. Some people
are very talkative while others are very quiet.
Some are active whereas others are
passive. Some worry a lot, others almost
never seem anxious. Unbelievably, people
are often most remember by their most
significant traits. Each time we use one of
these words, words like “talkative,” “quiet,”
“active,” or “anxious,” to describe those
around us, we are talking about a person’s
character (traits or personality) — the
characteristic ways that people differ from
one another.

These traits are the product of a consistent

display of a particular behaviour. Some are
known to be courageous, some as quick-
witted, while others are remember for their
diligence and work ethic. To a certain extent, most people define a person by what
and how they live a life. On one hand, character traits such as respectfulness,
temperance and thoughtfulness are often seen in a positive light. On the other
hand, shamelessness, laziness and cowardice are generally frowned upon by
most. One who consistently exhibits certain behaviour in various situations gains
a peculiar identity that somehow determines how others perceive other beings as
a person.

115 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

For example, a person who associate the nickname Supremo Isko (Francis “The
Chief/Leader”) is someone who is considered to have the most authority/skill or
consistently displayed a supreme power, strength and grit in character.

We build our characters through how we make choices in different situations we

face in our lives. In meeting and speaking to different people, facing various
problems, and handling different day-to-day tasks, we develop a certain way of
being a unique style of being a person. Through the constant interaction of thought
and action as prompted by various situation that call for one’s decision, a person
comes to know their certain type of character or personality.

Now, in one’s journey towards self-realization and self-flourishing, there is an

implied necessity to understand what people is actually aiming for their life. In
aiming for a goal, the person must also first understand what they are capable of
having and doing. Self-actualization is not attained through theory but by practice:
character is a product of practice.

Activity
Form groups of five members each. Research and discuss among yourselves the
following topics guided by the virtue ethics. Explain how they can help you decide
one of the following:
Group 1: whether abortion is morally acceptable and in what circumstances
Group 2: whether contractual labor is morally acceptable and why or why not
Group 3: whether one can change interest for a loan and why or why not
Group 4: whether one ca revolt against a tyrannical government administration
Assign a reporter to share with the class reflections. Present the main
discussions and justifications, and discuss the agreement and disagreements
among the members of your group.

Analysis
 What does it mean for one to achieve their goal?
 What is the goal of our existence as human beings and what does character
have to do with it?
 Which do you think a person/being should be more of, to be rational or
caring?

116 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Abstraction
Aristotle’s concept of being human is
embedded on the notion of virtue. A moral
person according to Aristotle is the man of
virtue. The latter taught us that a person is
always in pursuit to their end or finality. Thus,
finality or end, one’s purpose for living, is the
‘good life.’ Aristotle says on his notes about
‘politics’ that “in general, people seek not the
way of their ancestors, but the good.” Defining
man as a rational animal - distinguishes
people from other non-human beings. Thus, it
is Aristotle’s distinctive mark upon to base
one’s own life as good, happy and meaningful.
In the fields of the sciences, man’s rationality
dominates as the tool or instrument in the
progresses in researches, interventions, and
economic improvements of a society. Without
rationality, there may be no order and
harmony in one’s personal and social life.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) wrote his Nicomachean Ethics with the questions raised
earlier (analysis part). The philosopher’s answer is negative, for there is something
fundamental behind fame, riches, success, and sensuality. This fundamental
principle is happiness. Because of Aristotle’s conviction, the latter sets forth to
investigate the nature of happiness, its requisites and conditions for its acquisition.

Since Nicomachean ethics is also an ethics of self-actualization, the philosopher

cannot help but admit that happiness is dependent on one’s self-actualization. Put
differently, morality for Aristotle – which is centered in one’s happiness doctrine –
is exactly not innate but something that has to be developed by a person. Thus,
moral ideals are developed. But if happiness depends on one’s self-actualization
how can this actualization b done? Aristotle’s statement requires us to understand
human happiness that is measured within the bounds of reason. Rationality on
what makes man happy, for Aristotle, is that which strikes the moderation of life –
that is to live the golden mean.

Eudaimonia [yu-day-mon-ya]: A Healthier Word than Happiness

The philosopher Aristotle assumes that any activity, practical or theoretical, aims
towards some end or good; a broad concept to describe the highest good humans
could strive toward – or a life ‘well-lived’.

Though scholars translated eudaimonia as ‘happiness’ for many years, there are
clear differences (Deci & Ryan, 2006; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Heintzelman,
2018). For Aristotle, eudaimonia was achieved through living virtuously – or what
you might describe as being good. This does not guarantee ‘happiness’ in the
modern sense of the word. In fact, it might mean doing something that makes us
unhappy, like telling an upsetting truth to a friend. Sometimes it is translated from

117 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

the original ancient Greek as ‘welfare’, sometimes ‘flourishing’, and sometimes as

‘well-being’ (Kraut, 2018).

By extension, the eudaimon life is one dedicated to developing the excellences of

being human. For Aristotle, this meant practicing virtues like courage, wisdom,
good humour, moderation, kindness, and more. The philosopher is not simply
interested in finding out the different ends or purposes for human life, but to find
out what the principal end is. The principal good for the human person must not be
something one aims at for the sake of something else. It cannot be fame or honor
for they are just mere instruments for feeding one’s ego, a servant of pride. Neither
can it be wealth, for wealth is merely a means for possessing things such as
houses or cars. For Artistotle, eudaimonia is the self-sufficient, final, and attainable
goal of human life. It is self-sufficient because it is desired for itself and not for the
sake of something else, and it is attainable because, it is not a mere theoretical
construct but something that one actually does practically.

When we try to articulate the purpose of our lives, we commonly have recourse.
We tell others and ourselves that the ultimate rationale for our jobs, our
relationships and the conduct of our day to day lives is the pursuit of a eudemon
life. It sounds like an innocent enough idea, but excessive reliance on the term
means that we are frequently unfairly tempted to exit or at least heavily question a
great many testing but worthwhile situations.

The Notion of Virtue

Virtue is moral excellence (arête). In practice, it is to allow something to act in
harmony with its purpose. As an example, let us take a virtuous virtual artist. In
their trade, virtue would be excellences in artistic eye, steady hand, patience,
creativity, and so on.

The eudaimon [yu-day-mon] artist is one who possesses and practices the virtues
of his trade. As mentioned earlier, the eudaimon life is dedicated to developing the
excellences of being human. It explains that our moral concept is through the
analysis of the constitution of the human being with a substance composed of body
and soul. The soul is the center of control, whereas the body serves as the
instrument. The soul dictates upon the human body on what to do, on how to act.

For Aristotle, morality consists of morally virtuous acts. The key to explaining the
meaning of moral virtue comes from the doctrine of the mean called mesotes.
Mesostes implies that the human beings must seek the middle ground when they
act. This doctrine of mean is learned through practice. It is the human being’s task
to see to it that their actions is neither excessive nor deficient, but equipped to
finding some form of harmonization. It is something that one masters, and this
forms what is called character.

118 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Now, the wisdom in determining ends and

the means of attaining practical
understanding is called phronesis and
practice. Our virtues, according to Aristotle,
are not mental faculties. Rather, these are
character traits. Living a virtuous life means
that one develops of self-perfection through
constant practice (phronesis). Thus, a
human being who is courageous has
imprinted in their character the virtue of
courage. This means that in the face of
risks, they know and acts in a particular
way exhibiting such a trait. One’s virtue, in
this regard, helps individual attain a certain
form of self-perfection. This self-perfection
is the full realization of the potentials of the human soul. Virtue thus defines who
the person is. The realization of one’s potential really implies self-perfection, which
is the ultimate end of the individual.

Related to self-realization, acting in line with virtues is acting in accordance with

reason. The function of being human being, accordingly, consists of activities
which manifest to best states of their rational aspect. Thus, moral and intellectual
excellences (arête) is attained by the habitual practice called as hexis (habit).
Aristotle employs the concept ‘hexis’ to refer to moral virtue as an active state or
condition in which something must actively hold itself. The philosopher confirms
this identity by reviewing the kinds of things that are in the soul, and eliminating the
feelings and impulses to which we are passive and the capacities we have by
nature, but human being first discovers what sort of thing a virtue is by observing
that the goodness is never in the action but only in the doer. This is a huge claim
that encompasses the need to stay attentive. No action is good or just because of
any quality in itself. Virtue manifests itself in action, Aristotle says, only when one
acts while holding oneself in a certain way.

As discussed earlier, Aristotle is interested in finding out the different ends or

purposes for human life, believing that the essence or essential nature of human
beings, lay not at their cause (or beginning) but at their end which is called telos.
Nicomachean Ethics can be summarized in this manner:
“All humans seek happiness (well-being), but in different ways. True
happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of human life. The essence
of human beings (that which separate and distinguishes them as a
species is reason. Reason employed in achieving happiness leads to
moral virtues (e.g., courage, temperance, justice and prudence) and
intellectual virtues (e.g., science, art, practical wisdom, theoretical
wisdom)” (Aristotle, n.d.)

This Aristotelian view jives with the philosophy of purpose (Teleology). In the issue
of morality, the basis of knowing a good act is analyzed within the context of the
natural purpose of a being. To know such natural purpose is to determine the
distinction of a being from the rest. In case of a person, what makes us unique
among all created beings is that we are rational; therefore, to excel in or live in
accord to our rationality (to live in contemplation) is to live a good life. A moral life

119 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

is a rational ordering of one’s lifestyle and avoiding unreasonable decisions like

choosing or living the extremes. It means further that person’s passion must be
toned by their reasons; the head must always prevail over the heart.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Concept on Natural Law

St. Thomas Aquinas (Thomas of Aquino, 1225 – 1274), a medieval Roman
Catholic scholar, reconciled the political philosophy of Aristotle with Christian faith.
In doing so, Aquinas wrote that nature is organized for good purposes, and
contended that a just ruler or government must work for the "common good" of all.
The philosophy of Aquinas has exerted enormous influence on Christian theology
and also on Western philosophy in general. The philosopher most important and
enduring works are the “Summa Theologica,” in which expounds the systematic
theology of the ‘quinquae viae’ (the five proofs of the existence of God), and the
“Summa Contra Gentiles.”

Unlike Aristotle, Aquinas went on to say that God created nature and rules the
world by "divine reason." The latter elevated the genius of Aristotle’s philosophy in
the level of human endeavors; Aquinas transcended beyond the morality of human
life into the realm of the divine.

Aquinas described four kinds of law. Eternal law was God’s perfect plan, not fully
knowable to humans. It determined the way things such as animals and planets
behaved and how people should behave. Divine law, primarily from the Bible,
guided individuals beyond the world to "eternal happiness" in what St. Augustine
had called the "City of God."

Aristotle trusted human reason alone in the struggle to unravel the complex and
difficult puzzles of sciences and philosophy; Aquinas approached life with the
contemporary embracing faith and reason to explain the human and divine
realities. Aristotle contends that man can attain complete happiness with the aid of
reason in the full development of human possibilities; Aquinas conceives of man’s
perfect happiness beyond human limitation and morality to happen in his union and
participation with the overflowing joy and nature of God.

The goal of human life in Aquinas’ thought is union and eternal fellowship with God.
Specifically, this goal is achieved through the beatific vision, an event in which
person experiences perfect, unending happiness by seeing the very essence of
God. This vision, which occurs after death, is a gift from God given to those who
have experienced salvation and redemption through Christ while living on earth.

This ultimate goal carries implication for one’s present life on earth. Aquinas’ stated
that an individual’s will must be ordered toward right things such as charity, peace
and holiness. The philosopher sees this as the way to happiness. Aquinas orders
this treatment of the moral life around the idea of happiness. The relationship
between will and goal is antecedent in nature because rectitude of the will consists
in being duly ordered to the last end (that is, the beatific vision).

120 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Application (Let’s Do It!)

Learner Worksheet 14
Student Name: ______________________________ Score: ____________

Course/ Year/ Section: _______________________________

Do research and find the movie entitled “The Pursuit of Happyness” in which
Aristotle’s virtue ethics is exemplified. Form yourselves into small groups. Evaluate
the movie using the principal virtues and vices of Nicomachean ethics.
Now, identify and reflect on your personal experiences where you may have
engaged in some of the vices.
1. What factors led to your having such dispositions in these experiences?
2. How do you resolve the conflict? Or should the conflict remain as is?
3. Which philosopher is more possible or realistic, and more reasonable in
assuring happiness, that of Aristotle or of Aquinas?

121 | P a g e
 GE 114- ETHICS

Closure
Well done! You have just finished Lesson 2 of this module.

If you have questions or need to make clarifications take note of them in the
space provided below to ask your Course Professor through direct messaging or
through the University Virtual Environment (UVE).

Notes from this Lesson

Now that you have completed Lesson 2, let us move on to the next lesson
in this module.

122 | P a g e