Module 1

Ethics: Basic Concepts and Issues

Lesson 1. Meaning and Scope of Ethics
Lesson 2. Normative Nature of Moral Statements
Lesson 3. Characteristics of Moral Standards
Lesson 4: The Issue of Ethical Relativism

Lesson 1: Meaning and Scope of Ethics

Morality and Ethics

Morality
•Morality refers to the set of standards an individual person or society uses to judge whether an
act is good or bad, whether someone is virtuous or not, or whether we ought to do this or that.

Ethics
•The word “Ethics” is sometimes used to refer to one’s set of moral beliefs and practices. Strictly
speaking, however, it refers to the discipline that examines the moral standards of an individual
or society. Being a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of morality, it is sometimes also
called moral philosophy.

3 General Areas of Ethics

1.Metaethics
•It looks into the nature, meaning, scope, and foundations of moral values, beliefs, and
judgments. Examples of metaethical questions are: Is morality objective or relative? Is morality
based on reason, emotions, intuition, or facts? What are moral persons? What does it mean to
be morally accountable?

2. Normative Ethics
•It is concerned with the formulation of moral standards, rules, or principles to determine right
from wrong conduct or ways of life worth pursuing.
•Normative ethical theories are generally built on 3 considerations about acts: (a) that they lead
to consequences; (b) that they follow or violate rules; and (c) that they are done by persons with
character traits. Accordingly, these theories are generally classified into consequentialism,
deontology, and virtue ethics.

3. Applied Ethics
•It examines the particular moral issues occurring in both the personal and social spheres. It
determines the moral permissibility of actions and practices in specific areas of human concern
like business, medicine, nature, law, sports, and others.
•Areas in applied ethics include business ethics, bioethics, environmental ethics, computer
ethics, and social media ethics.

__________

Descriptive Ethics

•Metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are areas of Ethics taken as a philosophical
study of morality. A non-philosophical study of morality which seeks to objectively record and
present how people in a certain community make moral judgments or develop their capacity for
such is called descriptive ethics. Descriptive ethics can be done in the disciplines of sociology,
anthropology, and psychology.

Lesson 2: Normative Nature of Moral Statements

Moral Statements as Normative Statements

•Moral statements are normative or prescriptive, not descriptive or factual. They are concerned
with how things should be rather than what things are.

Normative Statements in General

•While we appeal to the results of research, experiment, or observation in validating factual
statements, we appeal to certain standards in validating normative statements.
•Normative statements may involve matters concerning morality, aesthetics, grammar, legality,
and etiquette (among others), which are distinguished according to the standards used for
making these statements.

Examples:

Lesson 3: Characteristics of Moral Standards

Moral Standards and Other Normative Standards

•Moral standards are often confused with other normative standards also concerned with “good”
or “proper” behavior, such as:
1.Standards of Etiquette: based on culture or conventional practices
2.Legal Standards: based on governmental laws
3.Religious Standards: based on religious laws
•What may be acceptable for these other normative standards may not be acceptable for moral
standards due to the characteristics of moral standards.

Four Characteristics of Moral Standards

1.Moral standards deal with matters that can seriously harm or benefit human beings (and other
moral persons).
2.Moral standards have universal validity.
•If it is morally wrong for Person A to do act X, then it is wrong to do X for anyone under
circumstances relevantly similar to Person A’s.
3.Moral standards have a particularly overriding importance.
•Moral standards are used to evaluate even the correctness of other normative standards such
as legal and cultural ones.
4.Moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies, nor are they
determined by appealing to consensus or tradition.

Lesson 4: The Issue of Ethical Relativism

Defining Ethical Relativism

•Ethical Relativism: the view which states that all moral principles are valid relative to a
particular society or individual.

•Ethical Relativism should be distinguished from:

•Ethical Skepticism: the view which states that there are no valid moral principles at all (or at
least we cannot know whether there are any)
•Ethical Objectivism: the view which states that there are universally valid moral principles
binding all people.

Two Forms of Ethical Relativism

1. Individual Ethical Relativism /Ethical Subjectivism

•The rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the the individual’s own commitments and
interests.
•There is no interpersonal basis by which to judge whether an act is morally good or bad, right
or wrong.

2.Cultural Ethical Relativism /Ethical Conventionalism

•The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society’s norms.
•Morality is social in nature. While there are no universal moral principles, there are valid moral
principles justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance.
•Considered more acceptable or reasonable than individual ethical relativism.

Arguments For and Against Ethical Relativism

Some Arguments in Support of Ethical Relativism

1.Ethical relativism must be true since moral beliefs and rules vary from culture to culture (and
within the same culture, they vary over time). (Diversity Argument)

2.Our perception of things is inescapably culture-bound: there is no independent, non-cultural

viewpoint. Consequently, moral beliefs can only be true or valid relative to certain groups.
(Dependency Argument)

3.Relativism must be the right way to view the nature of morality since acknowledging the
differences among various societies in terms of their moral beliefs and practices leads to
respect, social harmony, and peaceful co-existence among the different cultural, religious, and
social groups. (Toleration Argument)

Some Arguments Against Ethical Relativism

1.Moral diversity or disagreement does not establish moral relativism.

•When two people disagree about something, it may be that one of them is correct while the
other is wrong.

2.Ethical relativism leads to absurd consequences.

•First, moral criticism would be impossible or meaningless. It would be senseless to criticize an
action by another individual or group however abhorrent or inhumane.
•Second, morality would simply be a matter of following social norms, which would undermine
our rational nature.
•Third, moral progress would be impossible. For how can we change social practices for the
better if we cannot criticize them?

3.Despite the fact that some moral beliefs and practices vary among cultures, there are still
universal moral standards that exist, such as those that respect life and promote the pursuit of
truth, justice, and peace.
•Cultural practices may differ but the fundamental moral principles underlying them do not.

•Module 2
Moral Personhood
and Accountability

Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights

Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients

Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood

Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability

Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability

Lesson 1: Moral Persons and Rights

Defining Moral Persons

•Moral persons are beings or entities having moral status or standing. They are the appropriate
objects of moral concern.

•The actions which we subject to a moral evaluation are those that concern moral
persons—either as the doers or recipients of these actions.

•Moral standards only apply to actions performed by moral persons.

•At the minimum, to be a moral person is to be a bearer of moral rights. All moral persons have
moral rights but some have moral duties as well.

Defining Moral Rights

•What are rights in general and how are they classified?
•How are moral rights different from other kinds of rights?

Rights and Duties

•Rights are entitlements; they are interests one is allowed to pursue or actions one is allowed to
do. Duties, in contrast, are what we are obliged to do.

•Rights correlate with duties: one’s rights impose duties on other people; and one’s duties are
intended to respect the rights of other people.

•Not exercising rights will not merit sanctions (penalties or punishments), while not performing
duties will merit such.

Classifying Rights
•Rights are classified according to (1) the duties they impose (the duties having such rights
impose on other people), and (2) the manner of their acquisition.

1.Positive and Negative Rights

•According to the duties they impose, rights are either positive or negative.
a.Negative rights impose the duty of non-interference in a person’s exercise of his/her rights.
E.g., right to free speech.
b.Positive rights impose the duties of non-interference and provision in a person’s exercise of
rights. E.g., right to life, right to information.
•Some rights are negative or positive in consideration of some factors.

2.Contractual, Legal, and Moral Rights

•According to their manner of acquisition, rights are either contractual, legal, or moral.
a)Contractual rights are acquired upon entering an agreement or contract. Contractual rights
may be formal or informal.
b)Legal rights are acquired through citizenship.
c)Moral rights are acquired upon becoming a moral person or upon possession of the morally
relevant qualities (such as sentience and rationality—discussed under Criteria for Moral
Personhood).
•“Human Rights”: the moral rights of humans
•“Animal Rights”: the moral rights of animals
•“Machine Rights”: the moral rights of intelligent machines (?)

Lesson 2: Moral Agents and Patients

•Moral persons are either the sources or receivers of moral concern or (morally evaluable)
actions. Accordingly, moral persons are either moral agents or moral patients.
•Moral Agents: moral persons acting as the sources of morally evaluable actions; they
necessarily possess both moral rights and duties; they can be morally accountable for their
actions (i.e., they can deserve moral blame or praise for their actions).
•Moral Patients: moral persons acting as the receivers or recipients of morally evaluable
actions; they necessarily posses moral rights only; they cannot be morally accountable for their
actions.

•All moral agents are moral patients; but not all moral patients are moral agents. Accordingly, we
can distinguish between agentive and and non-agentive moral persons.
•Agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can be both moral patients and agents. E.g.,
normal human adults
•Non-agentive Moral Persons: moral persons who can only be moral patients. E.g., animals,
mentally challenged humans, infants

Lesson 3: Criteria for Moral Personhood

(Theories of Personhood)

General Classification of Theories of (Moral) Personhood

1.Uni-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is just one defining feature of moral
personhood
2.Multi-criterial Theories: theories claiming that there is more than one defining feature of
moral personhood
3.Meta-criterial Theories: theories about nature of the defining features of moral personhood

Uni-criterial Theories of Personhood

1.Genetic Theory: moral persons are those possessing human DNA.
2.Life Theory: moral persons are those who are alive.
3.Rational Theory: moral persons are those with reason and will (or those capable of
intelligence and free choice).
4.Sentient Theory: moral persons are those capable of experiencing pain (or suffering) and
pleasure.
5.Relational Theory: moral persons are those in caring relationships

Multi-criterial Theories of Personhood

•May involve any combination of the defining moral features.
•The combination may be interpreted in two ways:
1.Strict (or Conjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses all features in the
combination.
2.Liberal (or Disjunctive) Interpretation: a moral person possesses at least one of the
features in the combination

•The most reasonable multi-criterial theory is the rationality-sentience-relationality combination

interpreted liberally, as it is able to account for the moral agent-patient distinction, and the kinds
of moral personhood assumed in ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue
ethics.

Meta-criterial Theories of Personhood

1.Social Theory: moral personhood is a social construct. The criteria for moral personhood are
decided by society.
2.Gradient Theory: moral personhood comes in degrees. The criteria for moral personhood
can be possessed in greater or lesser degree. Consequently, some entities have greater moral
personhood than the others. (E.g., the more rational or sentient, the greater moral personhood)

•Both theories are criticized for justifying inhumane treatment of one group of persons by
another group. The social theory may justify, for instance, the practice of slavery. The gradient
theory may justify, for instance, the practice of ethnic cleansing—where the perpetrators think of
themselves as belonging to a superior race or as having moral ascendancy over those they
exterminate.

Lesson 4: Features of Moral Accountability

Accountability in General
•The natural product of a person’s intelligence and freedom: a person’s Intelligence enables
him/her to know what is right and wrong; while a person’s freedom enables him/her to choose
whether to do what is right or what is wrong.
•The deservingness of blame or punishment for doing what is wrong or not doing what is right,
and praise or reward for doing what is right or not doing what is wrong.

Moral Accountability: a person’s deservingness of moral blame or praise for his/her

actions.

Accountability and Responsibility

•Though related, these two concepts should not be confused. There are three senses of
responsibility, one of which equates it with accountability.
1.Responsibility as Accountability
•A responsible person is one who deserves blame or praise for his/her actions.
2.Responsibility as Agency
•A responsible person is one who does or causes the action. An agent is not necessarily
accountable for his/her actions.
3.Responsibility as Duty
•A responsible person is one who does his/her duties or obligations. One is accountable for
failing to perform one’s duties.

Moral and Legal Accountability

•They differ in terms of their standards: legal accountability is based on the laws of the
government; while moral accountability is based on moral principles.
•They differ in terms of their sanctions: the sanctions for legal accountability are external (e.g.,
imprisonment, physical punishment, fine, revocation of license); the sanctions for moral
accountability are internal (e.g., shame, guilt, remorse, low self-esteem);

Lesson 5: Conditions for Moral Accountability

•Attribution Conditions: conditions that determine whether a person is morally accountable for
his/her actions. They may be incriminating, when they commit a person to moral accountability,
or excusing, when they excuse or absolve a person from moral accountability.

•Degree Conditions: conditions that determine the extent or gravity of a person’s moral
accountability. They may be mitigating, if they tend to lessen the degree of moral accountability,
or aggravating, if they tend to increase the same.

Incriminating Conditions:
1.Agency: the person causes the action.
2.Knowledge: the person knows whether the action is good or bad.
3.Intentionality: the person is free to perform the action and intends to do it.
•For a person to be morally accountable for an action, all conditions should be present:
he/she causes the action, knows the morality of the action, and is free to perform the action.

Excusing Conditions
1.Non-agency: the person does not cause the action.
2.Ignorance: the person does not know the morality of the action (Note: the person should be
blamelessly ignorant—see next slide).
3.Non-intentionality: the person is not free to perform the action or does not intend to perform
the action.
●
•For a person to be excused from moral accountability for an action, at least one condition
should be present: either he does not cause the action, is ignorant of the morality of the
action, or is not free to perform the action.
•
Excusable and Non-excusable Ignorance
•Real / Blameless Ignorance: the excusable ignorance; the ignorant person cannot be said to
have known better.
•Irresponsible / Blameful / Blameworthy Ignorance: the non-excusable ignorance: the ignorant
person can be said to have known better.
•
Some Factors to Consider
•The ignorant person’s mental and physical conditions.
•The ignorant person’s access to the relevant information.
•Whether the ignorant person has the duty to know what he does not know.
•

Degree Conditions

1.Knowledge: the greater the knowledge, the greater the accountability; the lesser the
knowledge, the lesser the accountability

2.Pressure or Difficulty in Life: the greater the pressure, the lesser the accountability; the
lesser the pressure, the greater the accountability

3.Intensity of the Injury: the greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the accountability;
the lesser the intensity of the injury, the lesser the accountability

4.Degree of Involvement: the greater the involvement, the greater the accountability; the
lesser the involvement the lesser the accountability

•
Module 3

Consequentialism

Lesson 1: Consequentialism in Perspective

Lesson 2: General Divisions of Consequentialism

Lesson 3: Complex Types of Consequentialism

Lesson 4: Utilitarianism and Its Basic Forms

Lesson 1: Consequentialism in Perspective

Consequentialism and other Ethical Theories

•Normative ethical theories are generally based on three morally relevant features of
actions—that actions (a) lead to certain consequences, (b) follow or violate certain rules, and
(c) are performed by agents with character traits.
•

1. Consequentialism
•The consequences of actions are the fundamental morally relevant consideration in making
moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it results in good or desirable consequences, while it is morally bad
if it results in bad or undesirable consequences.

2. Deontology
•The rules that actions follow are the fundamental morally relevant consideration in making
moral judgments.
• An action is morally good if it is done in conformity with a good rule, while it is bad if done in
conformity with a bad rule.
•

3. Virtue ethics
• The character of agents is the fundamental morally relevant consideration in making moral
judgments.
•An action is morally good if it is done by a virtuous person (a person with good character traits)
while it is morally bad when done by a vicious person (a person with bad character traits).

Inherent and Instrumental Good

•“Good consequences” in consequentialism refer to consequences promoting an inherent good.
•Inherent Good: good in itself; desired for its own sake.
•Instrumental Good: good in relation to another good; desired in so far as it serves as a means
to attain another good.
•
•Example of an intrinsic good: Happiness (Aristotle)
• Happiness is an intrinsic good for we desire it for its own sake. We desire other things to attain
happiness; but we desire happiness just to experience it. Other things we desire to achieve
happiness, such as good health, wealth, and healthy relationships, among others, are
instrumental goods.

Lesson 2: General Divisions of Consequentialism

Two Considerations about Consequences:

1.Is pleasure (or happiness) the only inherent good (and pain the only inherent bad)?:
•YES à Hedonism (or Hedonistic Consequentialism)
•NO à Non-hedonism (or Non-hedonistic Consequentialism)
2.Are the consequences to (or directly affecting) the agent the primary consideration?
•YES à Agent-relative (or Egoistic) Consequentialism
•NO à Agent-neutral (or Non-egoistic/Impartial) Consequentialism

•
First General Division:
Hedonism vs. Non-hedonism
•Hedonism: pleasure is the only inherent good.
1.Pleasure is inherently good.
2.Pleasure is the only inherent good.
•Non-hedonism rejects hedonism in two ways:
1.Exclusive Non-hedonism: pleasure is not inherently good. Something else is (which may be
power, preference-satisfaction, and others).
2.Inclusive non-hedonism: pleasure is inherently good but there are others (such as power,
preference-satisfaction, truth, beauty, and knowledge).

Second General Division:

Agent-relative vs. Agent-neutral Consequentialism

(Egoistic vs. Impartial Consequentialism)

•Agent-relative consequentialism: the consequences to the agent are primary; they outweigh the
consequences to other people.

•Agent-neutral consequentialism: the consequences that promote the greatest overall benefits
of all affected persons, regardless of their recipients, are primary; personal good or happiness
may sometimes be necessary to sacrifice to promote the same.
●

Lesson 3: Complex Forms of Consequentialism

• The two general divisions of consequentialism overlap and qualify each other. Accordingly,
they combine to form four complex types of consequentialism, which may be termed as:
1.Agent-relative Hedonism
2.Agent-relative Non-hedonism
3.Agent-neutral Hedonism
4.Agent-neutral non-hedonism

1.Agent-relative hedonism: an action is morally good if it promotes the agent’s own pleasure
or happiness.
•But which among the agent’s pleasures are primary? (a) Active Hedonism: the agent’s
immediate though momentary pleasures are primary (Aristippus); (b) Passive Hedonism: the
agent’s long-lasting though non-immediate pleasures are primary (Epicurus).

2.Agent-relative non-hedonism: an action is morally good if it promotes the agent’s own

intrinsic good, which does not necessarily correspond to pleasure.
•For some this intrinsic good refers to power (Nietzsche), desire-satisfaction (Hare and Singer),
and others.

3.Agent-neutral Hedonism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall happiness (or
pleasure) of all affected persons .

4.Agent-neutral Non-hedonism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall welfare

of all affected persons. (”Welfare” generally refer to beneficial consequences which may or may
not include pleasure/happiness)

—————————

•Agent-neutral/impartial consequentialism is best represented by the ethical theory called

utilitarianism, which also happens to be the most influential form of consequentialism. The
various forms of utilitarianism, accordingly, serve as representatives of the different forms of
agent-neutral consequentialism.

●
Lesson 4: Utilitarianism and Its Basic Forms
Utilitarianism: an action is morally good if it maximizes the overall welfare of all affected
persons / promotes ”the greatest good of the greatest number of people.”

3 Basic Features of Utilitarianism (Hare)

1.Consequentialist. Utilitarianism regards the consequences of actions as the primary

consideration in the moral evaluation of actions.

2.Welfarist. Utilitarianism seeks to promote the welfare (well being, happiness, benefits,
advantages, etc.) of persons.

3.Aggregationist. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the overall welfare of all persons involved in
an action.
•The overall welfare is the net sum total of benefits of all options: sum total of benefits minus the
sum total of costs.

Forms of Utilitarianism
Two Considerations:
1.Should the overall welfare to be maximized only involve pleasure (or happiness)?
•Yes à Hedonistic Utilitarianism
•No à Non-hedonistic Utilitarianism
2.Should the utilitarian principle (maximizing overall welfare or promoting the greatest good of
the greatest number of people) be applied directly to actions or to the rules governing these
actions?
•To the Actions à Act Utilitarianism
•To the Rules à Rule Utilitarianism

A. Hedonistic Utilitarianism
•The overall welfare to be maximized through our actions pertains only to pleasure or
happiness.
•Question: Is there is a qualitative difference between physical and mental pleasures? Are they
the same in terms of value?
1.Quantitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism: there is no qualitative difference between physical and
mental pleasures; there are only quantitative differences among pleasures (Jeremy Bentham).
2.Qualitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism: the value or quality of mental pleasures, because they
involve the exercise of the higher faculty of reason, is greater than that of physical pleasures
(John Stuart Mill).

The Hedonistic Calculus

•The systematic method developed by Bentham for calculating the quantity of pleasures (mental
and physical). Factors to consider in the calculation:

1.Intensity --(How engaging is the experience of pleasure): The more intense the experience of
pleasure, the greater the value of the pleasure.

2.Duration --(How long the pleasure lasts): The longer the experience of pleasure, the greater
the value of the pleasure.

3.Certainty --(The probability that the pleasure will occur): The greater the probability that the
desired pleasure will be experienced, the greater the value of the pleasure.

4.Propinquity (remoteness) –(How far off in the future will the pleasure be experienced) The
shorter the temporal distance between an act and the pleasure that it will produce, the greater
the value of the pleasure.

4.Fecundity --(The chance a sensation will be followed by sensations of the same kind:
pleasures, if it be pleasure; pains, if it be pain): The higher the probability that an experience of
pleasure will be followed by further experiences of pleasure, the greater the value of the
pleasure.
5.Purity --(The chance a sensation will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind:
pains, if it be pleasure; pleasures, if it be pain): The higher the probability that the experience of
pleasure will not be followed by an experience of pain, the greater the value of the pleasure.

6.Extent --(The number of persons affected by the sensation): The higher the number of
persons to experience the pleasure, the greater the value of the pleasure.

B. Non-Hedonistic Utilitarianism
•The over-all welfare to be maximized through our actions is either not pleasure (or happiness)
or not limited to such.
1. Ideal (or Pluralistic) Utilitarianism
•For G. E. Moore, there are, in addition to pleasure, other things that are worth pursuing for
their own sake and thus are good regardless of whether they result in pleasure or not. They
include knowledge, beauty, and good relationships, among others.
2. Preference Utilitarianism
•For Richard Hare and Peter Singer, desire/preference-satisfaction is more fundamental than
the experience of pleasure, as we sometimes prefer to satisfy our desires/preferences even if it
would lead to the experience of pain. Desire/preference satisfaction is thus the inherent good,
not pleasure.

•
C. Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Question: Which is primary, the consequences of an act or the consequences of

following or violating the rule governing the act?

1. Act Utilitarianism
•The consequences of an act is primary. An action is morally good if it maximizes overall welfare
of all persons involved, regardless of the rule it violates.

2. Rule Utilitarianism
•The consequences of following or violating the rule governing the act is primary. An action is
morally good if it conforms to an optimific rule, regardless of the consequences of the act.
•A rule is optimific if general conformity to it will maximize overall welfare of all persons involved.

----------------
•Act utilitarianism is the standard form of utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism was developed to deal
with some challenging cases such as the morality of breaking contracts. Rule utilitarianism is
regarded by some as a compromise between utilitarianism and deontology.
•The hedonistic- non-hedonistic division overlaps with the act-rule division which gives rise to
complex forms of utilitarianism.

•Module 4
Deontology I

Divine Command and Natural Law

Lesson 1: Divine Command Theory

Lesson 1.1: Basic Views
Lesson 1.2: Some Challenges

Lesson 2: Natural Law Theory

Lesson 2.1: Basic Views
Lesson 2.2: Some Challenges

Lesson 1: Divine Command Theory

Lesson 1.1: Basic Views

God’s Will as the Basis of Moral Law

•Does God command what is good because it is good or it is good because God commands it?
(Plato’s Euthyphro: “Do the gods love what is holy because it is holy or it is holy because the
gods love it?”)

•Divine Command Theory (DCT): Whatever is good is good only because God wills it to be
good. DCT has two versions:
1.Strong Version: God’s will is the sole basis of morality.
2.Weak Version: Morality can be based on God’s will or some independent standard (usually
reason), but if a conflict arises between God’s will and some other standard, God’s will overrides
the other standard.

DCT-Strong Version

•The sole basis of morality is God’s will. As such, as Dostoevsky remarked, ”If there is no God,
everything is permissible.” Moral decisions should thus be made on the basis of what God
commands, not on what reason tells us.

•DCT-Strong Version consists of three theses (Pojma 1999):

1.Morality (i.e., rightness or wrongness) originates with God.
2.Moral rightness simply means “willed by God,” and moral wrongfulness means “being against
the will of God.”
3.Since morality is essentially based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons for
action, no further reasons for action are necessary.

DCT-Weak Version

•Omits or qualifies one of two of the three theses (listed above).

•Best represented by Soren Kierkegaard’s theory of the teleological suspension of the ethical.
•Morality has an independent foundation in reason (and so even if there is no God, morality will
still stand by itself--contra Dostoevsky’s previous remark). But if one believes in God and His
commands conflict with the dictates of reason, God’s commands should override the dictates of
reason.
•Illustrated in the Biblical story where Abraham was asked by God to make his son, Isaac, as a
sacrificial offering.
•Elaborated in Kierkegaard’s three stages of life: (1) aesthetic stage (life of pleasure); (2) ethical
stage (life of reason); and (3) religious stage (life of faith).

Lesson 1.2: Some Challenges

Criticisms of the DCT

1.How can we know for sure what God wills?

•Sacred texts of different religions are usually stated in very general terms; and human
conscience, religious leaders, and self-proclaimed messengers of God sometimes give different,
if not conflicting, accounts of what God wills.

2.If God can will anything and it would be good, the theory may lead to moral arbitrariness.
•But if God can only will what is good or those in conformity with His divine qualities (such as
goodness and justice), then these qualities would have value independent of God. Furthermore,
this would mean that there is a higher standard of good which God must conform to, which
contradicts DCT.

3.The theory undermines our autonomy as rational beings.

•What is our reason for if we are bound to just conform to whatever God commands us to do?
•There are times in which what religion teaches as God’s will may or should be put into question
(e.g., some religions prohibit their members from undergoing blood transfusion even when that
is the only way to cure their sickness or save their lives.)

Importance of the Concept of God in Morality

1.God’s existence ensures that ultimate justice exists.

•God guarantees that the just will be duly rewarded, and the unjust will be duly punished.
Morality would not make sense if there is no justice.
2.God’s existence provides hope that the good will eventually prevail over the evil.

3.Religion provides a strong motivation for why we should be moral.

•The existence of a perfectly just God and an immortal soul, along with the fear of eternal
damnation and the yearning for an eternal life of happiness, provide a strong motivation to be
moral.

4.Religion provides practices and structures that support its values.

•There is usually a church of some kind and a community of faithful who provide mutual support
to one another.

Lesson 2: Natural Law Theory

Lesson 2.1: Basic Claims

Basis of Right Action

•Morality is part of the natural order of things. Actions are right by nature apart from the opinions
or practices of humans.

•Reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity and society. If
something is “unnatural,” it is also immoral.

Natural Law and God

•Older versions of the theory share similarities with DCT in that they point to God as the source
of the natural law. Modern and recent versions, however, claim that natural law is inherent in the
universe and in humanity, and hence does not need a supernatural force.

Major Proponents

1. The Stoics (1st Century BC)

•They were one of the first thinkers who conceived of the idea of natural law as the basis of
morality. They believe that God is immanent in or even identical with nature (pantheism).
Nature, for the Stoics, refers to the natural order as a whole—”cosmic nature.” To live a good
life, humans have to align themselves to a kind of “cosmic” nature.
•Fundamental cosmic principles govern and unify everything in the world. Natural order is thus
rational.
•To reason and act rationally is to be in harmony with nature. Thus, rationality is a key to pursing
a moral life. Subsequently, violence and vice are consequences of irrationality and not being in
harmony with nature’s universal laws.
•

2. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)

•He synthesized the Stoics’ sense of cosmic natural law with Aristotle’s view that human beings
have a specific nature, purpose, and function. (If the function of a knife is to cut sharply, a
pencil’s function is to make marks on a paper, and a “good” knife or pencil then is one that
performs its function well.)
•Humanity’s function is to exhibit rationality in all its forms. Fundamental precept of the natural
law: good is to be done and evil avoided.
•What is the good or evil? All those things to which man has a natural inclination are naturally
apprehended by reason as good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as
evil, and objects of avoidance.
•Good is acting in accordance with our natural inclinations, fundamental of which include our
desires for life and procreation, knowledge, and sociability.

Lesson 2.2: Some Challenges

•

Moral Absolutism and the Qualifying Principles

•Natural Law Theory (NLT) subscribes to the view of moral absolutism which claims that certain
kinds of actions are always wrong or always obligatory regardless of the consequences.

•When basic values conflict (or when forced to choose between two actions which both violate
some value), NLT appeals to the following principles:
•Principle of Forfeiture: a person who threatens the life of an innocent person forfeits his/her
own right to life.
•Principle of Double Effect: It is always wrong to do a bad act intentionally in order to bring
about good consequences, but that it is sometimes permissible to do a good act despite
knowing that it will bring about bad consequences.

Principle of Double Effect Elaborated

•When an act has a good and bad effect, the act is good if:
1.The act, considered in itself and apart from its consequences, is good. (The Nature-of-the-Act
Condition)
2.The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect. (The
Means-End Condition)
3.The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an
unintended side effect. If the bad effect is a means to the achieve the good effect, the act is bad.
The bad effect may be foreseen but must not be intended. (The Right-Intention Condition)
4.The good effect must be at least equivalent to the importance of the bad effect. (The
Proportionality Condition)

How the principle of double effect works

•Case 1: A pregnant woman was diagnosed with a cancerous uterus, and subsequently has to
undergo hysterectomy to save her life, but such procedure will lead to the termination of
pregnancy.
•Case 2: Nita’s father has planted a bomb that will detonate in half an hour. Nita is the only
person who knows he hid it, and she has promised him that she will not reveal the location to
anyone, being a devoted daughter. However, if the authorities fail to locate the bomb, and
dismantle it within the next half hour, it will blow up a building and kill thousands of people.
Suppose we can torture Nita in order to get this information form her. Given this situation, is it
morally permissible to torture Nita?

Some Criticisms

•Regarding the principle of double effect, how do we distinguish unforeseen from unintended
consequences?

•Hume’s challenge: how can we derive an ”ought” from an “is”? How can what is natural be
obligatory?

•The assumption of NLT that moral laws are written in natural laws is challenged by the
Darwinian evolutionary theory which claims that nature has no inherent design.