Ethical Frameworks and Principles in Moral Disposition

Four mental frameworks - Virtue Ethics, the Natural Law, the Utilitarian Theory and Kant’s
Theory.

Virtue Ethics
What makes virtue ethics different from the other ethical frameworks is that it
is anchored on the character of the individual. By this, it should be understood that the
application or the practice of the model is not based on the knowledge of the framework per
se but on the character of the individual. Someone does or reacts in a particular manner
because it is his or her character reacting in that manner. The person who has the habit of
practicing kindness is most likely to display the virtue when it is called for. It is unlikely
that he or she will react violently even if his or her situation may necessitate it. Being
kind has become part of the character of the person. Kindness or virtues for that matter are
then products of a long process of forming a habit of practicing what is ethical or what is
upright and continuously correcting oneself in the process. By saying this, the natural
implication is that virtues are not acquired overnight or instantaneously. No book will be as
effective in teaching virtues as helping a child practice them constantly. The framework
reminds us about the importance of educating or forming character as early as possible and
more specifically among children so that by the time they reach the age of reason, they must
have imbibed in them the virtue necessary to live ethically, doing what promotes the good
and acceptable to the rational mind.

Arete (Virtue) as Moral Excellence

Values can be good or bad. The good values are virtues and the bad ones are
vices. Since virtue has the ability to bring positive changes and enhance the quality of life, it
is power in itself. It is power as disposition or state. This power is a means to attain excellence
or human excellence, “the ability to function according to reason and to perform an
activity well or excellently” (Bulaong Jr. et al, 2018). It can be achieved by developing
the good values.

Hence, the role of human reason is vital in the discernment in which manner power has to be
used.

Individuals do not become virtuous overnight. The power to attain excellence

is nourished by the moral character of a person as a result of practicing the virtue. If virtue or
the manner of doing things excellently is achievable only by training oneself or by
constant practice, virtue must be something which individuals must strive for. They must
constantly make the habit of practicing them in their day-to-day existence, constantly doing
what is good and correcting oneself if one falls short in its practice. In the same vein of
idea, virtue cannot be the result of a single act. The act of honesty is considered virtue if it
is done not once, not twice but when it has become part of one’s character.

Virtue as the Golden Mean (Nicomachean Ethics)

It is not clear whether it is Aristotelian or written by Aristotle himself but it is

clearly dedicated to his son Nichomea. The concept of virtue is explained by the golden mean
(mesotes or measurement). It is a means by which the human person is acting in measured
way being rational. The question therefore to be asked is “where can I find excellence?”.
The answer is found in the mean or moderation. Example, the lack of love is hatred or
indifference. And excessive love is obsession as illustrated below:

Lack The Mean Excess

Hate/indifference Love Obsession

The mean is in the middle. It signifies how strong you are to withstand tension
between the lack of and excess of love. It is the test to the moral character of an individual.
Aristotle is concerned about achieving the appropriate action which is neither deficient
nor excessive. Virtue is found in the middle or intermediary between extremes. It is the
application of the right amount of passion or feelings and the exercise of one’s ability to do
a particular act. It follows that in themselves, feelings and passions are neither good nor bad.
It is in the manner of applying them that the wrongness or rightness of the act is
manifested. It is alright for instance to be angry when it is reasonable but it is not right to be
angry beyond what is required by the situation that triggered it.

Another question that must be settled here is the question of how to judge the
mesotes or the middle. Does it depend on the individual?

According to Aristotle, the mean or mesotes does not depend on the person because
it is different from one person to another. Otherwise, the person will be accused of relativism
or subjectivism. Rather, the mesotes depends on the situation. It requires a serious
consideration and examination or the situation. It is the situation that will determine where
mesotes is found or what is the mesotes for a particular situation. Again, reason will be
important in order to appropriately assess any given situation, thereby appropriately judging
as well where mesotes is to be found.

Another idea that needs special consideration about virtue ethics is that it is the
counterpart of Duty Ethics. Where duty ethics is the power to live virtuously in accordance
with what is right in terms of obligation and duties. Morality in virtue ethics is procedural and
process. Duty ethics is based on what is right and what is wrong which is based on laws and
duties. If you do it, you are doing the right thing.

Virtue ethics is different. What you set is human excellence. Virtue implies that you
do something more than doing what is right. Virtue is doing not only following rules and
therefore, it is not enough to be right (following rules) but looking for excellence. As cited
by Professor Bitanga, religion is asymmetrical; it is always giving more to the other. In the
same manner, the way in which you treat someone in a relationship characterized by respect
and recognition of the importance of the other, you always think in terms of the maximum
that you can offer the other person and not simply in accordance to what is dutiful.

Also, moderation is not the same as the mean. Moderation in the sense of the
middle does not apply to all situations. For example, in the use of shabu, moderation or the
middle is not applicable. We cannot say that moderately using the drug is the best way. It is
simply not applicable since using it in any manner is unacceptable. Virtue as the power to
stay within the mean calls for reason. Aristotle’s discussion ultimately leads us to the
definition of moral virtue which is the “state of character concerned with choice, lying in a
mean and determined by a rational principle.”

Conclusion
Moral virtue is first, the condition arrived at by a person who has a character
identified out of the habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is the result of
continuous preference for the good.
 Second, in moral virtue, the action done is chosen because it is the middle. The
middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which feelings or
passion should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle or mesotes does not totally
depend on what the person perceives as the middle because it would imply that he adheres
to relativism. But the middle depends on the situation and the circumstance of the
individual. It is the situation that identifies the proper way of dispensing feelings and
passions.

Third, the proper identification of the middle is through the practical wisdom
or rational faculty. The virtuous person has learned from experience and has therefore
learned to know the proper way of carrying out feelings, passions and actions. It means
further that habit is not simply the result of repetitive and mechanical action but is also
the product of the constant application of reason on one’s actions.

It must be said further that not all feelings and passions have a middle point. When
a mean is sought, it is the context that can identify the good act in a situation. As a
conclusion, for Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to expression of virtue is no longer
ethical, one has gone beyond the middle. This has some practical consequences to
Filipino having the
inclination of using superlative expression such as “sobra,” “super,” etc. in their description
of certain acts that they usually consider as virtuous. Aristotle’s perspective on virtue can
clarify better the Filipino understanding what virtue means.

Below is a list of virtues. The list will be helpful for you students, to assess how
much you have given to them. It will encourage them to give it a try or strengthen them for
better commitment and stronger stance.

- Honesty - Humility
- Punctuality - Patience
- Benevolence - Temperance
- Courage - Prudence
- Discipline - Righteousness
- Courage - Wisdom
- Chastity - Integrity
- Resilience - Fortitude
- Faith - Love
- Charity - Obedience
- Commitment - Religiosity
- Knowledge - Prayerfulness
- Piety - Mindfulness
- Patriotism - Impartiality
Arete or virtue being the mean of all moral actions really requires character. It is
a difficult job to maintain oneself in the middle as there are always situations that can
tempt individuals to depart from the middle. People may easily slide to either of the extremes
of lack or excess. Virtue ethics is a framework or model in ethics to remind us about the
importance of forming the character of the individual that can help one to remain in the
middle or attain excellence. Also, virtue ethics will make people aware that character is
not something that individuals learn theoretically but is the result of a long process of
trying to do what is the rightful manner and in that process continually correcting oneself
when one falls short in the practice of certain virtues.

The Natural Law Ethics Theory (Divine Law)

 Timbreza (2007) claims, that “there exists a natural moral law which is manifested
by the natural light of human reason, demanding the preservation of the natural order
and forbidding its violation.” Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas, as cited by Timbreza
(2007) explains that the source of moral law is reason itself. Reason directs individuals
toward the good as the goal of our action. In the same context, Aquinas concludes that
the good is discoverable within the human nature and in its operation. Reason
recognizes the basic principle of “Do good, avoid evil.” The idea is synthesized in what he
calls “SYNDERESIS or the capacity of each individual to desire what is good.”

The natural law ethics suggests that it is inherent in the human individual the
capacity to recognize what is good and what is evil. Individuals are given this capacity
through the light of human reason and as St. Thomas Aquinas suggests,” it is the voice of
right reason which he also calls “the voice of conscience.”
The natural law is deeply rooted in Christian law theory and theology. This idea is also rooted
in the divine law. The origin of natural law at its very basis is God’s intention to put order
in the world through the moral law which was made known to man. This moral law is the
natural law.

Illustration:
Divine Law
I
I
Laws of Nature ----------------- Moral Law ------------- Natural Law

Example:
Law of gravity, etc. - Expressed in (Fair and square) human law - Expressed
as Church law (Ex. Canon law)

Points of Consideration:

1. The natural law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for
all human conduct.
2. An observable law relating to natural phenomena. The natural law is a theory
that says that there is a set of rules inherent in human behaviour and human
reasoning that govern human conduct.
3. The natural law is divine law revealed.

Guide for Understanding the Natural Law

How do we understand natural law? To understand it, we have to look into

two elements: the purpose and the essence.

First, to be able to understand the natural law, one must look at the purpose,
“Parasaan ito?” You are created for what? Example, something is wrong because it is not
used for its natural purpose and vice-versa. Like the male organ is for the female organ and
they are used for reproduction. In the same manner referring to marriage, it is meant to be
consummated and ratified (solemnized). There is no marriage when one is missing.
Honoring the purpose of things is fundamental. Immediately something is out of track
when the purpose of a thing is not respected. For instance, being a student, your main
purpose is coming to school to study. Having put aside this main purpose will jeopardize
results. A student may fail in the subjects if not given appropriate attention. Those students
who excel are those who had constantly given themselves to their main task which is
studying. Or, a driver who continuously does texting while driving may meet a vehicular
accident and may not reach the destination. Thus, the rightness of one’s action according to
natural law depends on whether its purpose is respected for which it is being performed. An
action is wrong when it does not express the purpose for which it is meant for.

How do you determine your purpose? The law seems to be a part of you. Reason
tells you that you are doing the right thing or its opposite. In an example, it says that it is
natural that you don’t have sex with a dog. Nobody told you about that.

To understand the natural law, one ought to know the essence of a “thing.” What is
this about? (Ano ba ito?) I am a person (my essence), then, you should not kill me. Knowing
what the thing is or its nature, guides one to deal with it appropriately and not
otherwise. The problem starts when one has a distorted idea about the essence or nature of
things. When that happens, inappropriate dealings follow. But if I know the right value of a
thing, I would deal with it appropriately. Again, the question is how does one know the
essence of things? Reason will help one to recognize the value of a thing and Natural Law
tells us that it is in the nature of human beings to know it.

Criticisms on the Natural Law

1. Rachels (2003) claims that the idea that everything in nature has a purpose
is stunningly anthropocentric since everything, as it were, is arranged for the
sake of people whose well-being is the point of the whole arrangement. By
saying this, Rachels seems to imply, without saying it directly, that it is too
neat to believe. He said: “Humans are a remarkably vain species.”

2. Citing David Hume, Rachels argues that in the discussion of the laws of
nature, there is a confusion of “is” and “ought.” He tries to point out that
they are different notions and that there can be no conclusion that can be
derived or that follows from the other. That is, if for instance, man was
made beneficent, it does not follow that he ought to be.

3. Relative to the question of moral knowledge, Rachels suggests that because

human are following the laws of reason and since God, the author of the
natural order has made us rational beings, it means that the religious
believer has no special access to moral truth. The holy and the profane have
equal access to moral knowledge.
The natural law providesus an internal guide that we can follow so that decisions are
based on that which is desirable and good. The model views human nature as basically
good and desires what is beneficial and serves the interests of the common good. Most
people they express this desire to do good by following their conscience, the natural light of
human reason or the voice of reason. The daily human situation at home, in the work place,
when relating with others or alone is guided by that principle to do what is good or what is
moral. To follow the dictates of the conscience or the voice of reason is moral or ethical
which implies that when someone acts contrary to it a person acts inappropriately and may
act unethically.

People feel good when they have acted upon what their conscience tells them
and experience remorse and deep sense of guilt when they have acted against their
conscience. People can trust one another on the basis that what each one is up to is what is
beneficial and what can lead them to treat others with the same dignity and respect they
accord themselves

Kant’s Ethics or Ethical Theory

The Kantian ethics is a deontological model of morality based on the intention or

duty of the moral agent. “Deontos” in Greek means duty or obligation. The model
emphasizes that it is the intention of the responsible moral agent to always do his or her duty
to do what is good. For this reason, Kant’s ethics is also called deontologism.

Following the same line of thought, the motive which is the performance of one’s
duty to do what is good, becomes the essence of morality. It means that the rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined by the motive to do what is good regardless of the
consequences of the act. Motive or intention also refers to the motive of doing what one ought
to do which of course is the duty to do what is good (Timberzap. 44).

The Kantian model of morality is often put in juxtaposition with the utilitarian
perspective of morality in which the consequence regardless of the intention of the motive
determines the rightness or wrongness of the act. The Kantian model has its own
weaknesses and limitations which are discussed below.

Kant’s ethics is the theory of the good (ethics). Kant emphasizes the intention or
the will which is the intention to do the good, the duty of every rational person. Hence, acts
are good only when they are done out of duty more than the end or regardless of the
consequence of the act. The crucial element for Kant is the intention or motive which is the
duty of every individual. Hence, acting in the sense of duty is the one that makes an act
moral. When someone does something out one’s pleasure for doing it or it is based on
one’s inclination to do it, it does not reflect a moral act. It is the sense obligation or duty
that makes an act moral or ethical. Duty or the intention to do what is good is that which one
ought to do. Hence, duty is doing what one is obliged to do. Duty is also known as
obligation. The presumption is that everybody has goodwill in which again, the goodwill is
our duty. The golden rule; therefore, the Golden rule; “Do unto others what you want others
do unto you.”

The important question that should be asked now is how can one know one’s duty in
a given situation? To determine if one acts from the sense of duty, one must judge his or
her action in the light of the universalizability of the act. This means, act according to the
maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law or
code of behavior. The universalizability of an act is verified if it has the characteristic of the
categorical imperative, meaning the doing of the act is done without mental reservation at all.

The good involves the principle of universalizability. Kant argues that there are
four formulation of this principle.

1. Formula of the law of nature. Act as if you can at the sametime will that it
should become a universal law. The act implies that it is an acceptable act that
can be willed and be acted upon by every rational moral agent. It reflects the
idea of modelling. The intention to do good to another and the act of doing it is
first acted upon by the moral agent. It is not intended for others to do it. Further,
what you do is acceptable to others. It has the sense of strictness because the basis
is goodwill.

2. Formula of the end in itself. It means “act in such a way that you always
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always
as an end, never simply use the other as a means” (Prof. Bitanga). An intention
and the act itself is good when it has respected the dignity of the person to whom
the act is intended and not using the same person of selfish ends. It is the
humanitarian aspect of the Kantian theory.

3. The formula of autonomy. Act that your will can be regarded at the sametime as
if you are making a universal law. It is as if you want your action to be
legislated. You look at it as if an action can become a law. In doing an act of
 goodness, the goodness itself is self-evident. It does not require another
evidence or proof of goodness.

4. Formula of the Kingdom of Ends. It is expressed by maxim, “Act as if you

were setting yourself as a standard. Never treat a person as a means but always as
an end. Never exploit anyone for any purpose” (Prof. Bitanga, 2018). An act is
expressive of this principle when it is motivated by absolute recognition of the
sanctity and dignity of person for whom the act is done. An act done to gain the
recognition of others, no matter how good it appears to be does not belong to this
formula of the kingdom of ends.

Distinction between a Perfect Duty and an Imperfect Duty

Perfect Duty. It is the duty which we are obliged to do all the time. Example, no
killing, no harming others physically, no lies, etc.
The Imperfect Duty. Imperfect duties are those we should do as often as possible
but cannot be expected to do always. Example, be charitable, loving, etc. (Timbreza, 2007).

Some Kantian Ethical Principles

1. In the medical context for Kant, it is always wrong to lie. It says that
medical investigators should not lie to their patients.
2. People should be treated as ends and not as means.
3. That we have also a duty to treat ourselves as ends and to preserve our
dignity and worth as human beings.
4. That an action is right insofar as it satisfies the categorical imperative.
5. The distinction between perfect and imperfect duties suggests that some
rights should be recognized.

Criticisms of the Kantian Ethics

1. Kant’s principles have no clear way of resolving cases of conflicting
duties. Example, it is one’s duty to always tell the truth. What if telling the
truth to a patient about the real health status will shorten his or her life.
2. Categorical imperatives fail to establish duties in cases involving maxims
that cannot be willed to become a universal law for subjective reason.
3. The problem related to the notion that we have a duty to treat others as
rational beings or persons. In bioethics, it is the question of whether to
consider a seriously deformed fetus a rational being or not (Timbreza, 2007).
Kantian ethics emphasizes that the rightness or wrongness of the act is determined
by the motive or intention regardless of the consequences of the act. On some light,
it is understood that morally right actions are possible only when one does something
that one ought to do. And therefore, it is important to ask , “ when does one do what he or
she ought or obliged to do?” It happens when one acts according to one’s sense of duty or
obligation.

Clearly, the Kantian sense of morality demands that before doing anything one
should first seriously examine the motive or intention for doing the act. If the act lacks the
requirement of the sense of duty for doing it, the act does not reflect moral righteousness.
Therefore, one should always consider the sense of the categorical imperative value
of an act or its universalizability. If the act does not meet this requirement, the act does not
reflect moral value.

Utilitarianism
 Ethicians classify ethical theories as either teleological or deontological ethics.
In Greek “telos,”or “teleos” mean “end” or “purpose” (Timbreza, 2007). When moral
valuation is based on this, it emphasizes the end result, goal or consequence of an act as the
determining factor of its rightness or wrongness. The utilitarian ethics or utilitarianism is
considered the most important of the consequentialist theories. As a consequentialist
model, utilitarianism determines moral valuation according to the consequence of the act. An
act is considered right if it results to something that is positive and good to people involved
and bad or wrong if the consequence of the act has brought about sadness. In the discussion
below, what is “good” or “positive” refers to the happiness an act brings to people as a result
of the benefit brought about by the act.

Utilitarianism, in opposition to Kant’s ethics, is purely based on the consequence of

the act and never on its intention or motive. What is considered morally right is that which
can bring some good or happiness to its beneficiaries but never on the basis of the motive
or the why of the action. The rightness or wrongness in the utilitarian sense is further
clarified and discussed below.
Timbreza (2007) claims that utilitarianism is the most important consequentialist
theory. This moral theory was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill in the18th
century. Later, it was popularized by John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873. It argues that what
makes an act right is its consequence. If an act has resulted in good consequences, then it is
moral; if not, then it is immoral.
John Stuart Mill formulated the Principle of Utility. It claims to be the only
moral principle expressed as: “actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness,
bad as they tend to produce unhappiness.” To determine whether an action tends to
produce happiness, one has to look into the consequences or result of the act rather than by
means of some features of the action itself, for instance, its intention. Actions are neither
intrinsically right nor wrong, nor does the goodness or badness of an action depend upon
the motive or intention or past action of the doer. Consequences, effects, results are most
important. Bearing in mind the principle, we should consider the possible effects of each
action or moral decision before they are acted upon. We ought to choose the action that
produces the most benefits at the least cost of pain or unhappiness.

Concerned about the possible cloud of individualism and subjectivism, Bentham

and Mill suggested an alternative formulation of the utilitarian principle popularly known
as the “principle of the greatest happiness” – An action is good insofar as it produces the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; bad insofar as it produces more harm
than benefit for the greatest number of individuals.

By introducing the “calculus of pain and pleasure,” Bentham suggests that the
principle of the greatest happiness is still made more specific in some aspects. This
“calculus of pain and pleasure includes the following aspects – “intensity, duration,
certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent.” So to speak, the more intense the
pleasure is, the better, the longer it lasts, the better.

Criticisms on Utilitarian Ethics

Timbreza (2007) notes several difficulties of utilitarianism as pointed out below.

1. The principle of utility can sacrifice the few for the sake of the many. This
implies that some individuals are considered more important than others. Their
happiness is more important than the happiness of the impoverished or ordinary
individuals. It is apparent that the utilitarian principle lacks the principle of
justice.
 2. The utilitarian principle comes from its own consideration that before an action
is done, there has to be thorough investigation on the different possible
consequences of the action. It would be impossible to be able to identify all the
possible legitimate consequences of any act.

3. Lastly, the utilitarian principle does not give consideration to the intention
or motives of the doer of the act. Or, it ignores the motive from which moral
decision are made or based. This would imply that a person who is acting out
from an evil motive but nonetheless produces some good benefits is a good
individual.
Utilitarianism has serious difficulties but enjoys certain popularity. People act with
the immediate concern whether the action benefits and warrants better conditions for the
majority especially when needs and concerns are characterized by certain urgency.
Utilitarianism has the advantage of the clarity as amoral theory and can be measured more
easily as its rightness or wrongness is determined by the consequence of the act. If an act
brings good consequences, then it is good, if it doesn’t, then it is not good.

However, Utilitarianism fails to ask the intention or motive behind the act and
whether the act in its performance has not affected or disadvantaged some.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Historical events and situations are excellent backgrounder to contextualize
something for better and appropriate understanding. In the historical sense, justice is born
as a clamour where it was not given a chance to flourish even when the opportunities were
there.

The French Revolution has led to the three great ideas of liberty, equality and
fraternity. Later reason was the centerpiece of the period of enlightenment and the period of
Romanticism gave rise to the importance of the idea of being able to contribute.
Throughout the different periods, a number of important ideals developed - independence,
reason, respect and tolerance, but justice was far from being perfected. John Rawls ’
theory of justice as fairness is thus anchored on the idea that justice was never given
enough consideration and importance. Justice is far from being realized and “the
obvious inequality is there,” as pointed out by Professor Bitanga.
A. Background of the Rawls’s Theory of Justice or Fairness

Scholars agree that the modern period started with the French Revolution. The
people revolted against the monarchy and were successful. This event, the French Revolution
resulted to three great ideas:
1. Liberty
2. Equality
3. Fraternity
The three were born through rationality. This was the time when rationality was
given importance and influenced the development of things. Thinkers came out also during
the era like Rene Descartes and others.

Rationality influenced the way things developed. Rationality has triggered the
invention of gadgets, technology and advancement was in. Continuing the direction of
development resulted to new ways of thinking and led to the period of post-modern period.

Liberty is understood in the sense of autonomy, the ability to do what you

want, organize, plan according to what you think make sense for you. Without which, there
can be no liberty.
 Further, autonomy is also understood in the sense of freedom. Freedom is born from
the experience of autonomy. Closely then, liberty and freedom are deeply rooted in the idea
of autonomy which is understood as independence or the state of being and having the
power to do things according to your choice and this in turn is the essence of liberty. Because
of this, it resulted to invention, innovation and discovery. Science then overcame theology.
Philosophy and theology tried to be powerful. As a consequence, this resulted to
specialization. It is expressed in the sense of “I could be good without the help of religion.”
This is the age of great narrative according to sociology.

What about equality? How should equality be understood? It is understood in

the sense of having equal value. For instance, now philosophy and theology and others are of
equal value. You can now criticize especially religion. However, theology still enjoyed
certain superiority. The church was still too powerful to go against it. Thus, in the work
of Rene Descartes, “The One Outside is Given by God,” is an admittance that one is trying to
be careful and avoiding to be excommunicated by the church.

Fraternity came out from the idea of independence. How come? Is it out place? It
has nothing to do at all with love. But related to people we do not love at all even those we
hate. What is then the sense of fraternity? It came from the idea of equality. It implies the
sense of equal value. Equality in value implies the dignity in each person and that calls for
respect which is a call to fraternity. Brothers are equal.

Thus, the virtue of tolerance has to be operative. Those in philosophy were allowed
to exercise their kind of discipline or that they allowed others in their field to flourish.
“Hayaaan na natin” because they have their own autonomy and therefore let us give them
respect for what they are and for the things they want to achieve.

The climate above has given rise to empiricism, positivism and the descriptive ideas.
It has resulted to experimentation characteristically physical and concrete. These concepts
are the concepts of the period of Enlightenment characterized by the idea of independence,
the opportunity to achieve which gave the idea that one had always the chance to become
better. The period also allowed the recognition of the value of others: this is me and that is
you. But it meant that one could always go up in the sense of more and better achievements.
This is now the modern period and the ideal of the modern man. Here, anyone can make a
difference.

The concept further developed with the advent of the period of romanticism. The
new idea is that you and I are different but we are related. The idea is, we are different but
we can work together and which is why we are related. The big word is unity in
diversity. We recognize therefore plurality in our midst. We move in the same space and
therefore we have to learn how to live with one another. With this, it announces the end of
the narrative. Why, because the narrative highlighted only the great and maybe the worst.
Now we give importance to the small and ordinary people having done small things but
contribute to achieve greater things. The idea behind was tolerating people with “small”
mind; it was enough that you make sense. The spotlight is no more, as it were, on the main
actors but on the supporting actors.

In contradiction to politics that is looking for power, now there is also greatness
below and that is the spirit of Romanticism. Equality is now to be understood in the sense
of equal value as having the same dignity and respectability as human beings. In this new
context, tolerance has become the new challenge because of the wide differences. Respect
then has become wider during the period.

In this brief presentation of the historical context of Rawls theory of justice, there
are two movements involved namely: 1) during the time of enlightenment reason was
considered the goal, expressed in terms of scientific research and hard science, and 2) during
the period of romanticism in which the most important thing was being reasonable. It is
enough that you make sense (not anymore the achievement of something great). This
makes us acceptable already. We tolerate ordinary and simple people but who make their
share of contribution that made impact as a whole (Example, independent films are now
popular and not necessarily the ones with big budgets.).

In Romanticism, we are more for the difference than similarity, looking for the
in- between and this meant the emancipation and recognition of the lowly and ordinary
people. The teaching is that it allows people to contribute.

B. John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness

The Theory of Justice as Fairness consider the idea of tolerance, equality,

independence, reason, respect, etc. Even if we talk about them though, reality tells us
that justice has not yet been perfected. We need to recognize that there are those who benefit
better in the world. There is something not equal. The obvious inequality is there. There is
wide gap between the situation of the poor and the rich. In this sense, to be fair is to give to
the poor.

The basic concept about justice is the giving what is due and it is called fairness.
This presupposes that there is something unequal. Hence, we speak of justice as fairness.
Let us consider the Illustration below:

Class Poor Middle Rich

Eco A 10 k 50 k 100 k
Eco B 30 k 80 k 150 k
Eco C 1k 60 k 500 k

Above there is obviously unequal distribution of resources. It is clearly an

artificial and theoretical distribution, as it were, of resources, but what it wants to
demonstrate is that in some societies, the unequal distribution of resources is more
pronounced. Somehow, it is reflective of the reality that the poorer the society is, the
greater is the disparity in the distribution of wealth among the poor and the wealthy.
In poor societies, the poor are poorer and the wealthy wealthier. Hence, the clamor
for a just and fair society is stronger or in which the clamor for better
distribution of resources is more obvious.

Justice as Fairness in a Liberal Society

In a liberal society, we find the following characteristics:

. The liberal society is democratic, tolerant, open and tolerating.

. It is a society governed by a body that would heed to a clamor of society and

responds to their needs. It shows that the government cares for the people.
This government sets the maximal standard which is the best, arranging
society to bring out what is best in education, business, in the family, in the
legislation of laws or constitution, etc. They arrange together then they could
give what is the best (Emil Durkheim).

. For Rawls, it is the question of providing not just the best but the morally
best for the society. This is justice as fairness in which citizens are equal
within a realistic society where people are free and they have to be fair to
one another. In such a society, people are considerate by being fair.
. As each does his or her services, there is a need to be fair. Along this line,
the delivery of services people need to be considerate and should practice
fairness. Example, if people came from a considerable distance and they
happen to reach the office at mealtime, to be fair is to be able to accommodate
these people.

. Justice as fairness is egalitarian. It is the most fundamental interpretation of

the concept of liberalism. Fairness provides a superior understanding of
justice better than utilitarianism.

. In Rawls’s concept, transformative change in the exercise of justice should

start with the basic structure of society. When this happens there will be a
major change in social institutions like the family, school, etc giving them
what is morally the best. There will be an arrangement of societal basic
structure aligning them and working as a team. The basic structure is the place
of justice. The locus where justice has to bloom is in the structure. It will
imply the provision of basic rights, etc. Why the structure? Because it
has profound influence on the people’s life. This will have effect on their
relationship and their life in the society. There will be more institutions that
will be involved. Favorable conditions should be met to serve the needs
of the people. The idealism is “Gawin nating kaayaaya para sa lahat
lalo na sa mga nangangailangan,” Professor Bitanga exclaimed!

. Guiding ideas: Social cooperation will be necessary to live a decent

life. Cooperation should be fair. Here, both positive and negative theses are
implied because of the assumption that people have been deprived of the
fundamental justice due to them.

- Negative: Citizens do not deserve to be born rich or poor. Born poor –

we do not deserve that. A lot of people are poor because of unfair set up.
This is the reality but this is not supposed to be how things should be.
This inequality should not be the basis for the services in the society.

- Positive: Equality is based on reciprocity. Goods should be

distributed equally. It is the guiding idea. Justice requires that any
inequality must benefit all citizens especially those who will have the
least.

. Principles of Justice as Fairness:

1. Each person has the same opportunity. The society fills the gaps. In
the liberal society, the government has to move first. The top has to
initiate changes since it has the resources and power to make changes.

2. Social and economic principles are to satisfy two conditions:

1.2 They are attached to offices and positions open to all
under the conditions of fair and equal opportunity.

1.2 They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least

advantaged members of the society (the difference
principle) . In terms of equal opportunity, priority should
be accorded to those who need the most in the society.
This must become the policy and the first move is to be
initiated by the government. Then, make laws for the
benefit of the least in the society.
 Timbreza (2007) further explains Rawls Theory of Justice twofold principles
in the following manner:

1. “Equal access to the basic human rights and liberties. The first principle
of justice articulates that every individual has inherent equal liberty of citizenship.
It means that the basic right and liberty of every citizen includes the right to vote, to
be eligible for public office, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, liberty
of conscience, freedom of thought, right of ownership and freedom from arbitrary
arrest and seizure...”

2. “Fair equality of opportunity and the equal distribution of socio-

economic inequalities.” Timbreza explains, that Rawls admits” not everyone in the
society enjoy the same privileges and opportunities or status. But that he maintains;
however, that in a just society, the differences are tolerable only when they can be
shown to benefit everyone, including and especially those who have the fewest
advantages. Further, he maintains that in ajust society it is not that everyone is equal,
but in which inequality is demonstrated to be legitimate.

Rawls theory of Justice as Fairness is not a naive kind of idea in

which everybody is equal and enjoys equal privileges and much more with equal
economic resources. Having not the same will always characterize every society.
But where inequality is present, Rawls looks for their legitimacy.
Rawls exposes the inequalities in the society both on the level of the social
and economic domains. He reports that the present situation characterized by bitter
injustice is rooted in human history. Somehow the French revolution that has inspired
significant socio- economic and political reforms and the ideals of the succeeding
important historical periods inspired by it did not succeed to eradicate injustice.

Rawls proposes avenues by which to combat injustice in the society. Thus, he came
out with his theory of Justice as Fairness. Rawls suggests that the liberal society is the
venue for his theory in which it should be the task of the government to initiate structural
changes that can benefit other institutions – family, education, etc. He believes that the top
has the power to do it because it has the resources to make it happen. He proposes as well
that in the liberal society, the government should not only offer what is the best for its
citizens, but what is morally the best. This will bring about changes in dealing with one
another as everyone will be fair in offering their services giving priority to the least
advantaged member of the society. Rawls admits however, that in a society not everyone
will enjoy the same benefits, privileges and opportunities. But that the differences will be
tolerable. Further, he maintains that in a just society, not everybody will be equal, but that
such inequality must be based on legitimate reason or that it should be demonstrated to be
legitimate.
77 |