Ethics

Foundations of Moral Valuation Lesson 1

Chapter I: The EthicalDimension of HumanExistence

Objectives

• Value

• Sources of Authority

• Senses of Self

After reading this chapter, you should beable to:

• Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;

• Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and

• Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-

held notions on ethics

▪Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we
should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in
which we could or should act and the wrong ways of acting.

▪Ethics as a subject for us to study is about determining the grounds for the
values with particular and special significance to human life.

Kinds of ValuationT

here are instances when we make valuejudgements that are not considered
to bepart of ethics.▪ Aesthetics – from the Greek word “aisthesis” which
means “sense” or “feeling” and refers to the judgments of personal approval
or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. Kinds
of Valuation

▪Etiquette – concerned with right or wrong actions, but those which might be
considered not quite grave enough to belong to a discussion on ethics Kinds
of Valuation

▪Technique/ Technical – from the Greek word “techne” and refers to a proper
way—(or right way) of doing things ▪ The distinction between what belongs
to ethics and what does not is not always clearly defined.▪ Recognizing the
characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough
guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics.▪ Therefore matters that
concern life and death such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and
matters that concern human well-being such as poverty, inequality, or sexual
identity are often included discussions of ethics Ethics and Morals“Morals”
may be used to referto specific beliefs or attitudesthat people have or
todescribe acts that peopleperform. We also have termssuch as “moral
judgment” or“moral reasoning,” whichsuggest a more rationalaspect. Ethics
and Morals“Ethics” can be spoken of asthe discipline of studying
andunderstanding ideal humanbehavior and ideal ways ofthinking. Thus,
ethics isacknowledged as anintellectual disciplinebelonging to philosophy.
Ethics and MoralsEthics – is the branch ofphilosophy that studiesmorality or
the rightness orwrongness of human conduct.Morality, speaks of code
orsystem of behavior in regardsto standard of right and wrongbehavior.
Descriptive and Normative▪ A descriptive study of ▪ A normative study of
ethics, as is often done in philosophy or ethics reports how moral theology,
engages the people, particularly question: What could or should groups,
make their be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a moral
valuations normative discussion prescribes without making any what we
ought to maintain as judgment either for or our standards or bases for moral
valuation. against these valuations. Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

A situation thatcalls for moralvaluation can becalled a moralissue. Issue,

Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

▪When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act
to perform, s/he is called to make a moral decision Issue, Decision,
Judgment, and Dilemma

When a person is anobserver making anassessment on theactions or

behavior ofsomeone, s/he ismaking a moraljudgment. Issue, Decision,
Judgment, and Dilemma

▪When one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing between
the lesser of two evils, this is referred to as a moral dilemma. Only Human
beings can be Ethical A. Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and
self – conscious. B. Only human beings can act morally or immorally. C. Only
human beings are part of the moral community. Reasoning▪ What reasons
do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or
wrong?▪ A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide
him/her a reason for acting in a certain way.▪ The promise of rewards and
the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in
themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of
acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit.▪ Beyond rewards and
punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation—our decisions and
judgments—to be based on a principle. SOURCES OF AUTHORITY▪ Law - It is
supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines,
Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the
country’s criminal and civil codes. The law cannot tell us what to pursue, only
what to avoid. ▪ Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of
providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory applicable to all.▪
However, there are some problems with this. Can one simply identify ethics
with the law? ➢One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. (the
law does not tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from
performing acts that we should not do.) ➢Would we be satisfied thinking
about ethics solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not
do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and maybe
even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law. ▪ In line with
this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not
forbidden by the law, but are ethically questionable to us.

▪ For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to give its
employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The
company can do so by refusing to hire people on a permanent basis, but
offering them six-month contracts.▪ In view of all this, perhaps one should
think of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with the obedience of
the law. SOURCES OF AUTHORITY ▪Religion - The divinity called God, Allah,
or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey his/her Creator
(Divine Command Theory). ▪ Taking religion as a basis of ethics has the
advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a
supreme authority that can inspire and compel our obedience in a way that
nothing else can.▪However, there are some problem with this. First, on the
practical level. ▪ each faith demands differently from its followers which
would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards▪Second problem, on
what may be called a more conceptual level ▪ Where one requires the
believer to clarify her understanding of the connection between ethics and
religion. ▪Our calling into question of the divine command theory is not a
calling into question of one’s belief in God; it is not intended to be a
challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there
may be more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection
between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethical with
whatever one takes to be commanded by God. SOURCES OF AUTHORITY ▪
Culture - Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us
aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our
own, that there is in fact a wide diversity in how different people believe it is
proper to act. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one’s culture. This position is
referred to as cultural relativism. ▪ Taking cultural relativism as basis of
ethical standards teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures,
as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought
or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable.

▪ However, there are problems in cultural relativism as shown in a classic

exposition by James Rachels. His criticisms regarding to cultural relativism. ▪
First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of
difference. ▪ Because different cultures have different moral codes, we
cannot say that any one moral code is the right one.▪ Second under cultural
relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of
judgement on the practices of another culture? ▪ What if the practice seems
to call for comment? ▪ Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? ▪
Would we be satisfied with concluding that we cannot judge another culture?
▪ Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to
render judgement on the practices of even our own culture. ▪ If our culture
was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say
that something within our cultural practice was problematic.▪ Fourth,
perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism is
that we can maintain it only by following presumption of culture as a single,
defined substance or as something fixed and already determined. ▪ It is
always possible to find examples of a certain culture having a unique
practice or way of life but it is also becoming increasingly difficult to
determine what exactly defines one’s culture SENSES OF THE SELFEthical
Subjectivism - the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and
nothing more. On this view, there is no such thing as ʺobjectiveʺ right or
wrong.▪A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea: ▪ “No one
can tell me what is right or wrong” ▪ “No one knows my situation better than
myself” ▪ “I am entitled to my own opinion ” ▪ “It is good if I say that it is
good” ▪There is something appealing about these statements because they
seem to express a cherished sense of personal independence. But a close
look at these statements may reveal problems and in seeing these, we see
the problems of subjectivism.▪They refer only to people’s attitudes, but not
into actual objective moral facts. Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism
▪What is Egoism? ▪A doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of
all actions and all forms of egoism require explication of “self-interest”
Psychological Egoism Ethical Egoism

(WE ‘DO’ ACT IN OUR OWN SELF- (WE ‘SHOULD’ ACT IN OUR OWN INTEREST)
SELF-INTEREST) STATES THAT ANY CONSEQUENCESTATES THAT PEOPLE
ALWAYS ACT BROUGHT ON BY AN ACTION THAT OUT OF SELF-INTEREST
BENEFITS THE DOER IS ETHICAL