CHAPTER III

MORALITY
Morals refer to human behavior where morality is the practical activity and, ethics
describes the theoretical, systematic, and rational reflection upon that human behavior
(Churchill, 1982).

Moral experience begins with moral consciousness or moral sense. In fact moral
consciousness and moral experience are used as synonyms by many. But it is good to
distinguish between the two. Experience is a generic term in the sense that whatever affects a
person can be called an ‘experience’. It can be an emotion like love or hatred. It can be active or
passive like love for a friend or love of a friend. One can speak of one’s progress in studies as
‘knowledge experience.’ Any experience leaves behind an impression or memory. Such
impressions or memories cumulatively add up to one’s experience. The totality of such
experiences contributes to the formation of a human personality

General Objectives:

1. Explain morality and the importance of rules

2. Differentiate moral and non-moral standards
3. Discuss the different levels of dilemma
4. Explain the role of freedom in making moral decisions

Lesson I. Nature of Morality and the Importance of Rules

How can one know whether an act is good or bad? What is the yardstick or standard to
determine the morality of an act? What is the standard of morality?

Any standard must be plain and objective for everyone to understand. It must be the same
for everyone.

There is a standard meter, a standard yardstick, a standard kilogram. Any other measuring
stick or balance must conform with the standard in order to determine its rightness or
wrongness. In school examinations, there is always a correct answer sheet against which
answers can be compared.
 WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Describe the main features of morality

2. Examine the different moral theories
3. Explain the importance of rules

I. Main Features of Morality

Part of any theory, whether about morality or something else, is to describe the subject
matter by listing certain features or characteristics of the subject that makes it distinct and
special. This will, in a way, give a clearer picture as to what the whole subject is really all about.
The following list by Ellin (1995), though not exhaustive, provides a thorough grounding of the
subject:

1. Morality is binding on those to whom it applies. This means that if some principle is
part of morality, then the people to whom the morality applies should obey that principle.
This feature follows logically from the simple fact that morality consists of rules, for being
binding is part of what it means for something to be a rule. This applies to rulesof
etiquette and manners as well as moral rules.

2. Morality does not depend on what people think. This means that numbers does not
decide right and wrong even if that is the majority.

3. There are often correct answers to moral questions. Inspite of so many

controversies regarding certain moral issues like abortion, euthanasia and the like, most
people have no trouble distinguishing good and moral actions or decisions from bad
ones.

4. Despite this, morality is sometimes unclear or ambiguous. The rules of morality,

unfortunately, are not always as clear or obvious as well as we all would like them to be.
This may explain why a number of individuals argue on certain moral issues without ever
reaching some sort of agreement or consensus. This maybe explains also why some of
us make moral decisions even if we are not really sure whether they are right or wrong.
 5. Morality is an end in itself. Why be moral? What is moral in being moral? What is the
ultimate justification or morality? If you really think about it, the only real purpose of
morality lies in itself. We ought to be moral or good just because to be moral is what we
ought to be. Morality is an end to itself, not just means to an end. If you have other
reasons why you want to be moral other than being moral, then, you have not
understood the point of morality. While being moral serves some other purposes, some
of them are very practical ones, like getting something from people, say, their
admiration, these other ends are not justification for being moral. Morality is self-
justifying.

6. Morality is obligatory. One cannot just decide what morality he or she would like to
have. You cannot just choose your own moral rules. One, for instance, cannot just say
he wants to steal because he needs it, and turn into moral rule. Whether we like it or not
morality obliges us to do certain things whether we like them or not. This means that to
have moral rule one is obliged to follow them. It is not optional. In short, morality, in an
important sense is not voluntary.

7. Morality is decided by reason rather than emotions. This means that moral questions
need to be settled through arguments to justify one’s moral views rather that appeal to
feelings and sentiments. You cannot just say that you hate homosexuals therefore it is
wrong. There have to be reasons, good reasons why you hold such kind of moral belief.
Personal likes or dislike, moods or temperament are not good arguments to justify one’s
ethical view. One who does not offer and provide good reasons and arguments for his or
her moral beliefs us not worth listening to.

II. Moral Theory

A theory is a structured set of statement used to explain (predict) a set of facts or concepts.
A moral theory explains why certain action is wrong or why we ought to act in a certain way. In
short, it is a theory on how we determine right and wrong conduct. Also, the moral theories
provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a reasoned way, and so evaluate
specific moral issues.

Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp divide between moral theory
and applied ethics (e.g. medical or business ethics). For instance, in order to critically evaluate
the moral issues of affirmative action, we must no attempt to evaluate what actions or policies
are right or wrong independent of what we take to determine right or wrong conduct. We do not
do ethics without at least some moral theory. When evaluating the merit of some decision
regarding a case, we will always find ourselves thinking about how right and wrong is
determined in general and apply that to the case at hand.

Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive?

In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday
'doings' and 'thinking,' form a judgment about what is right and wrong, or are we prescribing how
people ought to make these judgments?

Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people do
are left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality, want
to know what the proper way of determining right and wrong is. There have been many different
proposals. Here is a brief summary.

Theories of Morality

(1) Moral Subjectivism

Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or
'feel') is right or wrong.
In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any
important kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and
'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is
'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to
anyone's behavior (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel
is right). This shows the key mistake in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks
that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is
possible to disagree about moral issues.

(2) Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time.

Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot

criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the denial
of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about what is
right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral
advancement (which also seems not to be true).

(3) Ethical Egoism

Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.

Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- which we, by nature, act
selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some
'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act so as to
maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for the
sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others.
However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist will
claim that the altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive
pleasure out of helping others) or because they think there will be some personal advantage in
doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they think we are all by
nature selfish).This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who
helps others at the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think that the
ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of
practical reasoning through which we are guided to limit our self-interest, not further it. Also, that
genuine altruism is indeed possible, and somewhat commonly exhibited.

(4) Divine Command Theory

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such
that, without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behavior. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and
guide people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection
between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God
(or the gods). This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory. The outcome is that
an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it, wrong if God commands we refrain
from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be done.
 Divine Command Theory is widely believed to have several serious defects. First, it
assumes that God or gods exist. Second, even if we assume that God does exist, it
presupposes that we can know what God commandsbut even if we accept theism, it looks like
even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised the relevant objection 2500 years ago. He
asked:Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right?

If the second, then right and wrong are independent of the gods' commands -- Divine
Command Theory is false. If the first, then right and wrong are just a matter of the subjective will
of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, contradictory commands).

Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary -- that is, some action is wrong, say, for
a reason. Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because of this
reason, not simply because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong, then, is
not God's commanding it, but the reason. Divine Command Theory is false again.

(5) Virtue Ethics

Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making the good person.

The most widely discussed is Aristotle's account. For Aristotle, the central concern is
"Ethica" = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character -- i.e.,
the moral virtues.

Aristotle and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e.,
modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human beings truly
'happy'. True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being / fulfillment / self-
actualization). Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective reasons for living in
accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and temperance). For Aristotle,
this comes from a particular account of human nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is the 'happiest'
(most fulfilling) life.

Three steps to the argument:

1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.

 2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance with reason.

3) Acting in accordance with reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional virtues.

Aristotle thought that humans had a specific function.This function is to lead a life of true
flourishing as a human, which required abiding by the dictates of rationality and so acting in
accordance with the traditional virtues.

(6) Feminist Ethics

Right and wrong is to be found in women’s' responses to the relationship of caring.

Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male
bias. Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral theories (they
take individualism to be a 'masculine' idea). Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we need to
consider the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So morality, according to
some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love and sympathy,
leading to relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases towards those with whom we
have close social relationships.

(7) Utilitarianism

Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of
Unitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory

Basic ideas:

All action leads to some end. But there is a summumbonum -- the highest good/end.
This is pleasure or happiness. Also, that there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility',
alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the ideal
of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP implies that we
ought to act so as to maximize human welfare (though Bentham thought we should include all
sentient animals in his utilitarian calculations). We do this in a particular instance by choosing
the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.

Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not distinguish between kinds of
pleasures. However, Bentham's student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more sophisticated
version of Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower. The higher pleasures (those
obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits), carried greater weight than the lower pleasures
(those obtained through sensation).The upshot is that in determining what action to perform,
both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness count.

Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only with their own happiness.
Utilitarian’s are concerned with everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic. In general, morally right
actions are those that produce the best overall consequences / total amount of pleasure or
absence of pain.

Modern versions of Utilitarianism have dropped the idea of maximizing pleasure in favor
of maximizing the satisfaction of all relevant peoples' preferences and interests. Also, some
distinguish between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Act Utilitarianism is pretty much as
described above, where we make the utilitarian calculation based on the evaluation of the
consequences of a single isolated act. It is thought by some that this leads to a number of
significant problems -- for instance, that one person may be harmed if that leads to the greatest
good for everyone. To overcome these problems, some advocate Rule Utilitarianism -- the view
that we should adopt only those rules (for governing society) that produce the greatest good for
all.

Other key points:

 For utilitarian, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.

 No person's preferences or interests (including your own, your relatives, friends,
neighbors’, etc.) carry a greater weight than any other person's.
 Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian calculation before acting. So, in most
situations, following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best consequences.
 Democratic and economic principles reflect Utilitarianism.

Some things to ask about Utilitarianism:

 How can we determine accurately what the consequences of an action will be?
 Do people have rights that cannot be overridden by the goal of the best consequences
for all?
(8) Kantian Theory

Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal duties.

Kantianism is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.

Basic ideas:

That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in terms of
Law / Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that acting
morally was quite simple. That is:

- You ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).

- Reason guides you to this conclusion.

Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without qualification. So,
actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good Will.

What establishes Good Will?

- Only can be a law of "universal conformity" -- "I should never act except in such a way that I
can also will that my maxim should become a universal law".

This is called the Categorical Imperative = Principle of Universalizability (something like

The Golden Rule).The basic idea is that we should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e., maxims)
only those that can be universally accepted. Consider someone wondering if they could break a
promise if keeping it became inconvenient. We might formulate the following maxim governing
promises:
I can break promises when keeping them becomes inconvenient.
Can this be universalized? Kant says no because making promises then becomes, in
essence, contradictory. The thinking is that a promise is, by definition, something you keep. The
above maxim would lead to a contradiction of will, i.e., "I'll make a promise (something I keep),
but I'll break it if I choose". The more general way to understand the Principle of
Universalizability is to think that we must always ask the following questions: What if everyone
did the action you are proposing? Or, what if I were in the other person's position? This leads to
the basic idea behind the Golden Rule.

Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
 Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as an end in
themselves.

We can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society. What is wrong with the
slave society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to the slave
owner's ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot is that no person's
interests (or rights) can be overridden by another's, or the majority.

Many think that this way of formulating the Categorical Imperative shows that Kantianism
is clearly anti-Utilitarian.

Some things to ask about Kantianism:

 Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing that counts morally?
 Must we always ignore good consequences?
 Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end? (Can we do otherwise?)

(9) Rights-based Theories

We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by
being human.

Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist. The

basic idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide what
the right requires.

Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is one in which the
corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order to
sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will harm
someone.Some claim -- e.g., Libertarians -- that only negative rights count morally. For
instance, the right to life does not require that we give what is needed to sustain life rather
merely that we refrain from taking any action that would take life. [Note: others argue that there
is really no significant distinction between positive and negative rights, arguing that a positive
right can be understood negatively, and vice versa. Also, that there is no morally significant
difference between, for example, letting someone die and killing them. Obviously, this is a hotly
disputed issue.]
Some things to ask about Rights-based theories:

 Where do rights come from? From nature (we have them simply by being human)? From
principles of Justice? Or, from Utilitarian procedures?
 How do we decide between competing rights?

(10) Contractarianism

The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would
agree upon in forming a social contract.

Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical
contract forming procedure. Here is John Rawls's example.
Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up with
universal principles of justice. The basic idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial developing a
social contract of universal principles -- but many find Rawls' novel method very appealing. The
idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of forming a society and
we want to know which principles of justice to ground the society. However, in this 'original
position' we do this without knowing which position we will occupy in the future society -- we
don't know if we will be rich or poor, male or female, old or young, etc. We then advocate those
principles that will be in our self-interest (though we don't know what 'self' that will be). This
forces us to be impartial, and if we are rational, to propose universal principles. The idea of the
thought experiment is not to think that we actually begin again, and construct a society from
scratch. Rather, we can use the thought experiment as a test of actual principles of justice. If a
principle is one that would not be adopted by people in the original position, behind the 'veil of
ignorance' (about who they will be), then it is unjust and should be rejected.

Rawls claims that people in this original position will choose conservatively when developing
principles governing the distribution of benefits and burdens. This conservatism, Rawls claims,
will lead to the choosing two basic principles: (1) that each member of the society should have
as much liberty as possible without infringing on the liberty of others; and (2) the 'maximin' rule
for decisions about economic justice -- namely, that they will choose those rules that
would maximize the minimum they would receive. In other words, make the society in which the
least well off are in the best possible position.Deviations from equality of distribution of benefits
and burdens are justified only if it advantages the least well off. Rawls thought that some
inequalities would be adopted because rewarding on the grounds of merit and hard work, for
example, would lead to a society in which there was a greater production of social benefits, so
the least well of would be better off than in a society of pure equality.
 In our daily life we encounter moral questions at every step. In our everyday experience,
we face different situations, some of which we straightaway designate as moral or as immoral
and in some other cases we may face difficulty to put the instance in any of these two specific
categories. For example – my grandfather used to give food to birds every morning and before
he died he advised me to continue this practice. But owing to my other preoccupations I failed to
follow his advice. Can we designate this failure to follow his advice as immoral?

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain the characteristics of moral standards

2. Discern moral standards from non-moral standards

Lesson Outline

I. Characteristics of Moral Standards:

Moral standards are bases for moral behavior and bases for determining whether a
certain act is moral or immoral and for someone to be responsible or not. These are the guides
of human behavior and decision making. These standards are not only applied to individual
persons but also to a group or corporation. Something is unethical if it does not conform to a
particular standard of morality. They may not be written but observed and they are assumed
norms of moral conduct (Articulo, 2005).

Understanding this context, it is very clear that individuals must be guided to act in good
manner in dealing with fellow humans, society and his environment. These standards should
encourage individuals to take actions and courage.

There are certain elements differentiating moral standards to non-moral standards:

a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit
human beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following or
violating some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect
one’s life or wellbeing.
b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral standard

states that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do
that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.

Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take precedence
over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones. A person may
be aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life to painting, but
morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to save
one’s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so. When a particular law becomes seriously
immoral, it may be people’s moral duty to exercise civil disobedience.

There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the
injustice of an evil law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such as
the antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).

c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.

Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or

persons such as nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered
in the process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor
nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing about these standards,
nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the reasons that are
considered to support and justify them.

d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.

Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more
accurate, however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly
similar situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally
right for anybody relevantly similar to P.

This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you would them
do unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of Justice, “It cannot be right
for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, merely on the ground
that they are two different individuals, and without there being any difference between the
natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a reasonable ground for difference
of treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of the principle of consistency, that is, one ought
to be consistent about one’s value judgments.

e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.

Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain
person or group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which
each person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.

Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in morality

requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned
parties.

f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.

Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards. These

moral standards are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no
unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for use, to advice,
and to influence to action. Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign
praise and blame, and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt

If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is
not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards. On the
contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g. refusing to wear
tattered jeans).(Copyright 2013 by Jensen DG).

II. Moral Standards versus Other Rules in Life

A person’s moral values constitute society’s rules, and moral rules are very significant
and subjective to each person’s moral values. Individually, we feel differently from the
perspective of stealing for example. Some of us may feel bad about getting one’s belongings,
some may not. We do not know how exactly one feels about stealing. On the other hand, we do
not know how people will react seriously about stealing or if they were stolen. Our expectation
and social exercise will reflect on our belief with within our social standards, i.e., the collective
values of other people’s morality. We sometimes generalized people’s morality by their actions
against our expectations. We will react severely about stealing if our principle against stealing is
strong. If a certain social standard does not condemn stealing our behavior is based on such.
Such experiences reshape our belief about social standard and thus may affect our behavior in
which stealing is toward us in the future experiences.

Etiquette, Policy, Law, and Commandment

Etiquette is a set of rules on how an individual should responsibly behave in the society
(Taylor and Williams, 2017). The table manners such as the proper use of utensils and the
proper manner of eating are examples of etiquette. Meanwhile, a policy is a clear, simple
statement on how an organization plans to handle its services, actions or business. Policies are
guiding rules to help with decision making (The University of Sydney, ©2002-2017). When
schools require their students to wear the proper school uniform and school ID before they will
be allowed inside the campus(or the NO Uniform No ID, No Entry rule posted in the school’s
entrance) is an example of a policy. On the other hand, a law is a rule created and enforced by
the government and its agencies to maintain order, resolve disputes, and protect a person’s
liberty and rights(Robertson,2008; Brickley and Gottesman, © 2017). Can you give an example
of a law in the Philippines? Finally, a commandment is a rule that is to be strictly observed
because it was said to be set by a divine entity, such as those in the Ten Commandments
(Stahl, 2009).

What is the advantage of owning moral standards over merely abiding by moral
standards?

For most people, the fundamental moral question is, “What should I do?” or “How should
I act?” Ethics are presumed as moralities on how a person should act. For example, “every
person is obligated to do the greatest good for the most number of people.” There is also the
philosophy that “everyone is obligated to act in ways that upholds the human dignity for all
people.” Moral principles like these guide the practice of various professions (professional
ethics).

But is all there is to ethics? Is ethics just about following rules of do’s and don’ts? This
obsession with rules somehow reflects the more important aspect of being a human person and
that becoming what you should be. In other words, the more important question for ethics is not
“What should I do?” but “What kind of person should I be?”
 Lesson III. Moral Dilemma

The essence of studying ethics is morality. Ethics is the science of good/bad, just/unjust,
moral/immoral behavior (Rossouw&VanVuuren, 2006; Weiss, 2009; Desjardins, 2009). So when
we talk of ethics we are also talking about morality. Moral dilemmas are associated with ethical
dilemmas. So the conflict in morality can be in these areas, personal, organizational and
structural.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Define dilemma and distinguish moral dilemma

2. Explain the three levels of moral dilemma
Lesson Outline

I. What is Dilemma? Its Definition and Concept

Dilemma is in which two well-known cases is conflicting. In each case, an individual

regards as to having moral reasons to do each of the two actions, but doing both actions is not
possible. The most crucial characteristic of moral dilemma is that, a person has to do two or
more actions; the moral dilemma is that the person can possibly do the two actions however; he
cannot possibly do two or more actions, because everyone has to make a choice.

What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case the agent regard
himself as having moral reasons to do each of the two actions, but doing both actions is not
possible. Ethicists have called situations like this as moral dilemma. The crucial features of a
moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of the two (or more) actions; the
agent can do each of the action; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions; the agent
seems doom to moral failure; no matter what he does he will do something wrong (or fail to do
something that he ought to do).
 A moral dilemma is a situation in which an agent is faced with two moral choices that
conflict withone another. Moral dilemmas fall into three general categories. In the first category,
an agent is faced with a case where he ought to do two things, but he can only do one, where
the doing of one action excludes the possibility of doing the other action. In the second
category, an agent isfaced with a decision that involves one thing he ought to do and another he
ought not to do, where the doing of one forbids the other. The third category involves a case
where an agent is faced with two things he ought not to do, but is forced to do one of the bad
actions. In the third case, the level of wrongness of the act determines whether the dilemma is
to be a tragic dilemma,or a dilemma where the agent is permanently marred by the decision. In
either case, a moral dilemma is meant to be irresolvable or resolvable only with a remainder.
A resolvable moral dilemma is a moral dilemma where an agent is forced to
choosebetween two conflicting actions, but one action overrides the other and is better or less
wrong than the other action. Or there is a conflict in a moral decision procedure and one moral
requirement overrides another. A particular example, of a resolvable moral dilemma, is a
situation in which while heading to a friend's college graduation ceremony you stop to help a
person in trouble, even though it results in you breaking a promise to your friend who was
expecting you to be at that ceremony. The virtue of charity requires that you help the stranger in
need, but at the same time the virtue of honesty requires that you keep your promise to your
friend. In either case, the agent acts wrongly. Either the stranger in need will not be helped, or
your friend will be hurt emotionally by you breaking your promise. Either situation carries
negative consequences. This particular situation is resolvable though, depending on
thecircumstances involved. There is a big difference between helping a stranger in need that
was ina car wreck and needs medical care, or a stranger in need that has a flat tire. In the first
case, the moral requirement of charity overrides honesty. In the second case though, keeping
your promise to your friend might be the better decision.

II. Three Levels of Moral Dilemma

1. Personal Moral Dilemma is when your decision in a particular situation has a conflict
with your own and another individual. Your actions will become harmful to group of
individuals.
2. Organizational Dilemma is when a member or members of the organization is in
situation where there is moral conflicts and the decision will potentially harm either some
members of the group or the entire organization itself.
3. Structural Moral Dilemma is when a person or group of persons who holds high-level
positions in the society faces a morally conflicting situation wherein the entire social
system is affected.
 The personal aspect of the morality is about developing virtue so that thinking morally,
performing moral acts, and choosing to do what is good becomes a habit. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016) explained that virtue is your thought or behavior guided by,
and displays, high moral standards. Virtues are habits developed through learning and practice.

An efficiently run ship is like a virtuous person: both have internalized the practices that
make them weather storms. However, a ship is under the control of captain while virtuous
person free to cultivate his or her values. Freedom, then, is the foundation of moral acts. For a
person to be virtuous, he or she must also be free.

Meanwhile, when talking about interpersonal aspects of morality, the discussion turns to
following rules. It is important to note that even in following of the rules freedom is essential.

Finally, there is a question of the ultimate end. “Why are you here?” “What is your
purpose?” The human person’s final end is always debatable topic because it often goes hand
in hand with specific religious views. However, the debate does not negate the fact that freedom
remains essential with one’s view of his or her ultimate purpose.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain the meaning of freedom in the positive and negative concept.

2. Discuss the philosophical insights on freedom
3. Show situations that demonstrate freedom of choice and the consequences of their
choices
4. Justify that freedom is important in making moral decision

Lesson Outline

I. The Meaning of Freedom

Freedom is a widely applied concept in different branches of Philosophy. For the sake of
focus, however, it would be important to clarify what we mean by freedom in this lesson. We
begin with the important distinctions between the negative and positive freedom according to
Isaiah Berlin. Negative freedom refers to the “absence of interference.” By interference, we
mean something that is intentionally imposed on a person. It may come in the form of ‘physical
coercion” such as kidnapping or imprisonment, or verbal coercion such as the issuing of threat
to another person. One is free in the negative sense, when she does not experience either
forms of coercion.

“I am negatively free to the degree to which no human being interferes with my activity”: to
the extent that I enjoy unimpeded and uncoerced choice “ (Pettit, 1997; 17). In short, negative
freedom is the absence of coercion or interference.

Negative Freedom is freedom from any block, coercion or interference.

Positive freedom is not about the absence of coercion or interference. It is “more than just
being let alone by others.” It is a kind of freedom that requires active effort on the person who is
said to be free. This effort is exhausted in the ‘control’ or mastery of themselves”. This is
freedom from coercion or interference for one to be able to do good. This kind of freedom
indicates something about the human person. That is, it seems to suggest “a man divided
against himself” (Pettit, 1997). Here we refer to the inner struggle of a person who is pulled in
opposing directions of his own conflicting desires, wants, and needs. A person who is deemed
to be free in the positive sense is one who, like a Greek hero, is able to steer the many headed-
monster that is within oneself, so that all may follow a single direction. A concrete examples is
when I want to attend the barrio fiesta and yet it is examinations time so I need to study for the
exams. I am free when I give up the fiesta for the sake of a more important remote goal. On the
other hand, I am not free when deep in my heart I know I should study for the exams and not be
absent and yet I go to the fiesta and enjoy and do not study for the exams.

A person who is free (possesses positive freedom) has control of mastery of himself and so
has the strength to do what is good. Policies, rules, and regulations are there to ensure the
good of every person. A person who is free is not allergic to rules and regulations. Rules and
regulations help her to grow in freedom since freedom is the power or the strength to master
herself to do good.

II. Philosophical insights of Freedom

The Human Person as a Free Being

What does “human person” mean? In Philosophy, a human being is more than its
biological components. The human being is a person endowed with characteristics that are
material, spiritual, rational, and free. A Human Person is a being (the Aristotelian idea of being
connotes actuality; existence; an actual condition or circumstance) with inborn properties that he
or she uses to direct his or her own development toward self-fulfillment. One of the inborn
properties of the human person is freedom.

Philosophical Insights on Freedom

We have mentioned freedom numerous times. What is your understanding of freedom?
Philosophers talked about this concept extensively. Here are some philosophical insights on
freedom.

(a) Freedom is a Gift

According to Gabriel Marcel, freedom is the ability to act significantly. Free acts are
significant because they help to make us who we are as human beings. Freedom is not
merely the ability to make arbitrary choices because we are not free if everything that we
can choose to do the significant in the first place. Freedom is the ability to make
significant choices and according to Marcel, it is a gift given to us by God. (Hernandez,
2009)
(b) Freedom is Complimentary to Reasoning

One of Aristotle’s ethical doctrines asserted that freedom and reason are
complementary. In Aristotle’s view, the human person as a moral agent must exercise
practical rationality in order to determine how to pursue his or her ultimate end (telos).
Self-direction, rather than bare spontaneity, is the crucial characteristic of the free
person. Aristotle considered freedom and reason as necessary faculties for consciously
making sense of things (events, occurrences, phenomena, situations). (Walsh, 1997)

(c) Freedom is Absolute

Existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre’s concept of freedom is not that freedom to
do something or anything. In Sartre’s view, the human person is “absolutely free”.
Freedom sets the human person apart from the other creatures. You might say “But
what about animal freedom? Animals – unless caged – are also free. Animals just roam
around, eat when they need to, and sleep where they want. Animals are not tied down
with responsibilities like humans.” Yes, it is true that animals are – unless caged – free.
 In farm animals also have a notion of freedom. When they are caged, animals will try to
escape from their cages. This kind of freedom is called freedom from restrictions. It is
a primitive kind of freedom. It is freedom for mere survival.
Humans, on the other hand, have a higher kind of freedom. The freedom of the human
person is beyond freedom from restriction. In fact, a person in jail is still free. He is free
to think, to change, and to become a better person. A prisoner is free to redefine himself.
As human persons, we are free to make choices. We are free to decide. And we are free
to use this freedom to attain goals higher than satisfying basic needs.

(d) Freedom Demands Responsibility

Jean-Paul Sartre said “You are Free” because he believed a person always has a
choice. Thus, according to Sartre, you must choose. His idea was that freedom is the
capacity to choose, that even not choosing is a choice (Gallinero, 2014). It is important
to note however, that he also added the concept of responsibility to freedom.
According to Sartre, even though individuals must make their own choices because they
are free, these choices (though freely made) also have consequences to it. These
consequences to freedom are something that the person must endure. Therefore, it can
be said that in Sartre’s concept, responsibility follows freedom (Gallinero, 2014)

Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu also discussed freedom and responsibility. Lao Tzu
advocated that a person can and should choose act, but his or her actions should be
that which would result in harmony. Lao Tzu’s idea was that in any society, the exercise
of one’s freedom is not absolute. The person is free to do anything; but it is not without
consequence of one’s action (Gallinero, 2014). Responsibility, as a moral quality serves
as a voluntary check and balance of one’s freedom. Without proper balance limitless
freedom is a dangerous as an extremely controlling social group. Great social injustices
have resulted from such radical mindsets.

Supplemental Reading
“A Clockwork Orange” synopsis:
Anthony Burgess
 Alex was someone utterly asked conscience. Along with his gang, he committed all
kinds of heinous crimes. What makes him truly evil was that Alex was actually fully aware that
his actions were morally wrong; yet he did it anyway. He enjoyed doing crime and hurting other
people. His acceptance that his actions were immoral meant Alex freely chose to do evil acts.

In one of their killing spree, Alex was captured. He was convicted for murder and
sentence to fourteen years in prison. While serving out his sentence, Alex was recommended
by the prison officials to participate in “Ludovico Technique”. The author described the
Ludovico Technique as an “experimental treatment designed to eliminate criminal impulses”.
The “treatment” was about conditioning Alex’s mind so that his desire to commit crime will
disappear. Prison doctors injected Alex with nausea-inducing drugs, strapped him in a chair,
and kept his eyes open with metal clips (so that he can’t even blink, and made to watch all kinds
of violent films. After several sessions, the conditioning was successful in Alex, that whenever
he was confronted with violence he suddenly became weak, nauseated, and totally unable to
inflict pain on others – even in self-defense.

Due to supposed success, Alex was released from prison early. Once he returned to
society, he was pitifully helpless against those who did him harm. Alex was brutalized by his
former victims and was beaten half to death by two of his former gang members (who became
police officers while Alex was imprisoned). In utter despair, Alex attempted suicide, by some
twist of fate, he lived. While he was recuperating in the hospital, Alex realized the “treatment”
had worn off and he was back to his “ultraviolent” self once again.

In the last chapter of the book, Alex (though still violent) was actually less and less
happy with his situation; unlike in his past where he enjoyed crime and violence. He then came
across Pete – the last member of his old gang. Pete had changed. He was living a happy,
productive, comfortable life with his wife. Alex realized he wanted to be like Pete. In the end,
Alex decided (on his own) to turn his life around and actually became responsible, peace-loving
person.
 Chapter Summary

 Morals refer to human behavior where morality is the practical activity and, ethics
describes the theoretical, systematic, and rational reflection upon that human behavior
(Churchill, 1982).

 Kinds of Morality are: individual morality andpositive morality.

 Positive morality has something to do with laws such as, public, private formal and
common laws
 The sanction for failure to obey positive morality is social sanction.
 Rules are a beneficial tool to guide and monitor the interactions between the members of
the society. They differ from place to place or country to country.

 Moral standards are bases for moral behavior and bases for determining whether a
certain act is moral or immoral and for someone to be responsible or not.
 Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
 Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
 Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
 Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
 Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
 Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.
 A person’s moral values constitute society’s rules, and moral rules are very significant
and subjective to each person’s moral values.
 Dilemma is in which two well-known cases is conflicting.
 Moral dilemma is that the person can possibly do the two actions however; he cannot
possibly do so because everyone has to make a choice.

 The three levels of moral dilemma are: personal, organizational and structural.
 Freedom is one of the inborn properties of human person.
 The Philosophical insights on freedom are: freedom is a gift; freedom is complimentary
to reasoning; freedom is absolute; and freedom demands responsibility.
 Negative freedom is freedom from coercion or interference from any block.
 Positive freedom, which is true freedom, is not just about the absence of coercion ir
interference.
 Freedom is something that is exercised through our choices.
 Freedom for existentialists is something concrete. It is not just abstract words.
 Existence precedes essence.
 Freedom means exercising our capacity to make decisions, choices, choose our life path
and direct the course of our life through our own steering.
 Human person who wants to be real and authentic is to take care of our capacity to take
choices.
 Vices, bias, prejudice, anger, hatred, poverty, ignorance and other negative things
weaken our capacity to choose and do what is good for us and others.