ETHICS REVIEWER

RACHELS MORALITY : THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL • What we try to do in ethics is to approach

PHILOSOPHY disagreements through open-minded discussions of
alternative viewpoints? Because ethics is based on reason,
 James Rachels and Stuart Rachel’s we should be able to explain or justify our moral judgments
 The problem of definition(of morality)- They are many through reasoned arguments, and thereby persuade others to
rivals theories, each expounding a different accept our viewpoint.
conception of what it means to live morally, and any
definition that goes beyond Socrates simple • To think critically and reason well about an issue, we should:
formulation(how we ought to live) is bound to offend
at least one of them. 1. Understand the background or situation
 Rachels proposes a minimum conception of morality:
a core that every moral theory should accept, at least 2. Think open-mindedly and raise relevant questions
as a starting point.
 First, some moral controversies... 3. Gather and evaluate information
1ST EXAMPLE:
Baby Theresa (she’s an anencephalic infants: babies • An argument is composed of a premise (or several premises)
without brain ) supporting a particular conclusion.
 The benefits arguments - if we can benefit
someone without harming anyone else, we ought to • Premises are reason or evidence offered to support a belief
do so. or judgment, and the conclusion is the belief or judgment that
 The argument from the Wrongness of Killing - It the premises are intended to support.
is wrong to kill one person to save another.
2nd EXAMPLE
Jodie and Mary (conjoined twins, joined at the lower
abdomen; spines fused; one pair of lungs between
Major premise = general/objective knowledge (true and
them).
factual)
 The argument from the Sanctity of Human Life -
1. all human life is precious, regardless of age, race,
social class, or handicap. 2. The prohibition against Ex. (1) According to WHO, smoking can cause cancer. (2) All
killing innocent human is absolute. 3. Mary is an BSED students are smart and beautiful (?)
innocent human being. 4. Therefore, she should not
be killed. Minor premise = Specific situation/example.
3rd EXAMPLE:
Tracy Latimer ( 12 year old victim of cerebral Ex. (1) Sir John always smokes (2) Linda is a BSED student
palsy, killed by her father with exhaust fumes while
the rest of the family were at church). Conclusion = Decision/judgment.
 The argument of wrongness of Discriminating
against the Handicap - 1. Handicapped people Ex. (1) John can get cancer from smoking. (2) Linda is smart
should be given the same respect and the same and beautiful
rights as everyone else. 2. Tracy was killed because
she was handicapped. 3. Therefore, killing her was (1) Valid and logical reasoning
wrong).
 The Slippery Slope Argument – if we accept any (2) Invalid and Illogical reasoning
sort of mercy killing, we still slide down a slippery
slope, and in the end all life will be held cheap. Where • Generally speaking, arguments are either 'valid' (logical) or
will draw the line). 'invalid' (illogical).
 Slippery Slope – this kind of argument is all too easy
to abuse. If you are opposed to something but have • A valid argument is one in which the support is as strong as
no good arguments against it, you can always make can be: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
up a prediction about what it might lead to; and no conclusion.
matter how implausible your prediction is, no one can
prove you wrong. • An inference from a number of particular facts or
observations to general conclusion is called 'generalization'.

• generalizing from a limited set of facts or observations,

Moral Reasoning however, is not always reliable. This is called 'the problem of
induction' or 'the problem of the black swan'.
• As we can see, babies as young as 3 months old prefer nice
behavior to mean behavior. They also have an 'innate sense of • Philosophy in general and ethics in particular often have to
justice'. For example, they think that bad behavior should be deal with questions and issues that do not have model
punished. answers.

• However, babies' moral judgments are not based on reason. Although there are usually no model answers to controversial
As shown in the video, they prefer others who are similar to moral issues, some arguments are clearly better than others.
them. They even want those who are different from them to be
treated badly. • There are good arguments as well as bad ones, and much of
the skill of moral reasoning consists in discerning the
• Babies' moral judgments are often irrational and difference.
unreasonable. They cannot explain, justify, or give reasons for
their judgments. • Good arguments are relevant, valid, and well supported by
evidence (facts, observations, statistics and examples).
• From an ethical point of view, we need to think about the
reasons or justifications of our moral judgments, i.e. what • When we evaluate our own or other people’s arguments, we
makes an action right or wrong. should consider the following questions:

• As we have seen, ethical choices are not simply a matter of 1. Is the evidence relevant?
personal preference. 2. Are the facts correct?
3. Is the reasoning logical?
• Good moral judgment and decision-making should be based 4. Are there are any counterarguments?
on objective knowledge of actions, events and situations.
Moreover, it also requires the use of 'reason'.

• 'Reason' is the ability to think logically. Persons, objects, The ethical decision-making model (Cirey, et al., 1998)
actions, events and situations are represented in the human
mind as ideas (or concepts). 1. Identify the problem

• We use reason to make sense of the world by figuring out 2. Identify the potential issues involved
the relationship between ideas or concepts inside our minds.
That is how we form our beliefs and judgments. 3. Review relevant ethical guidelines
• What should we do when people disagree on an 4. Know relevant laws and regulations
ethical issue? When people have different views, we can
examine the facts and the reasoning (or supporting
5. Obtain consultation
arguments) behind their beliefs and judgments.
6. Consider possible and probable courses of action 3. Do you act on your choice repeatedly and consistently?

7. List the consequences of the probable courses of action

8. Decide on what appears to be the best course of action Fallacies

• Reasoning, as we have seen, is the act of deriving a

conclusion from a premise or a set of premises.
Scott Rae's 7 steps of moral reasoning
• A 'fallacy' is an error in reasoning. An argument is fallacious
1. Gather the facts, information if the premise or premises do not support the conclusion.

2. Determine the ethical issues, similar to statement of the FALLACIES

problem
• ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM = Argument based in
3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the threats or force - "fear"
case
• ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM = argument based
4. List the alternatives or develop a list of options on pity

5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles • ARGUMENTUM AS POPULUM = Majority

6. Consider the consequences or test the options • ARGUMENTUM AS TO QOUQUE = Binabalik ang past,
ginagawang argument
7. Make a decision
• ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM = attack to the person

Testing the options (for #6)

False Analogy
1. Harm test: does this option do less harm?
Two things may have superficial similarities, but they are not
2. Publicity test: would I want my choice of this option exactly the same.
published in the newspapers?
False analogy is the mistake of overlooking the dissimilarities
3. Defensibility test: could I defend my choice? between things.

4. Reversibility test: would I still think this option was a • For example, you may think that a person is lazy just
good choice if U were adversely affected by it? because you have seen that the person's brother is lazy.

5. Colleague test: what do my colleagues say if I suggest This is likely to be case of False Analogy because having the
this option? same biological parents may have little or nothing to do with
the character trait of laziness.
6. Professional test: what my profession's governing body
say about this

7. Organization test: what does my company's offer say BEGGING THE QUESTIONS
about this?
• Another common fallacy or error in reasoning is called
begging the question or arguing in a circle. Consider the
following statement:
The following are steps of the values clarification
model: "Abortion should be permitted because women should be
allowed to make choices."
• Choosing Freely: Did you choose this value freely? Where
do you suppose you got that idea?

• Choosing from alternatives: what reasons do you have STRAW MAN FALLACY
for your choice? Or how long did you think about this problem
before you decided? •The straw man fallacy is an error in reasoning that we
commit when we attribute a poorly reasoned argument to
• Choosing after thoughtful consideration: what would someone who never actually made that argument.
happen if this choice were implemented? If another choice was
implemented? FALLACIES

• Prizing and being happy with the choice. •Here is an example: "The Buddha thinks that desire is the
root cause of suffering. The best way to extinguish ones
THE FOLLOWING ARE STEPS OF THE VALUES desires is to commit suicide. Therefore, the Buddha
CLARIFICATION MODEL: encourages people to commit suicide”.

• Prizing and Willing to affirm the choice Publicly: "would • When someone criticizes Buddhism for encouraging people
you be willing to tell the class how you feel?" Or "Should to commit suicide, they are attacking a straw man because the
someone who feels like you stand up in public and tell people Buddha never says anything to that effect. The Buddha does
how he or she feels?" not think that committing suicide is the best or only way to
extinguish desire.
• Acting on the choice: "What will you do about your
choice? What will you do next?" Or "are you interested in
joining this group or people who think the same as you do
about this? SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS

• Acting repeatedly in some pattern of life: "Have you • Slippery slope arguments are often put forward to criticize
done anything about it? Will you do it again?" Or "should you certain proposals or initiatives on the grounds the putting
try to get other people interested in this?" them into practice would lead to terrible outcomes in the long
run.

To sum up into 3 big clarifying questions:

PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES
1. Did you choose your action freely from among alternatives
after thoughtfully considering the consequences of each • Moral principles are general rules or standards for evaluating
alternative? conduct.

2. Do toy prize or cherish your choice by publicly affirming it • EXAMPLES of moral principles include the Golden Rule (Treat
and by campaigning for others to choose it? others as oneself) and the principle of equality ( Like cases
should be treated alike).
• Many ethical arguments consist of principles being applied to • Virtue means excellence and virtue ethics is excellence
the facts of particular cases, for examples: ethics.

 All humans should be treated equally.

 African Americans arte humans.
 Therefore, it is wrong to discriminate against African VIRTUE AS A MEAN
American.
• For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two
• Moral theories serve two main purposes in the study of extremes. The virtue of courage is a mean between two
ethics: extremes of deficiency and extreme, namely, cowardice and
foolhardiness, respectively.
 They provide reasons or justification for our own
actions and decisions. • Too little courage is cowardice and too much courage us
 We can rely on them to evaluate the actions and foolhardiness.
decisions of others

• There are two broad theoretical approaches to moral

reasoning: VIRTUE ETHICS IN OTHER TRADITIONS

 Consequentialism holds that we should choose the • Confucius emphasized two virtues, Jen (or ren) and li. Jen
available action with the best overall means humaneness, human-heartedness and compassion. Li
consequences. means propriety, manners or culture.
 Deontology holds that we should act in ways
circumscribed by moral rules irrespective of • Hinduism emphasizes five basic moral virtues: nonviolence,
consequences. truthfulness, honesty, chastity, and freedom from greed.

• Kantian ethics, on the other hand, is an example of a • Buddhism also has its intellectual and moral virtues. From
deontological theory, according to which right actions are ones the eight fold path are the intellectual virtues if right
that conform to requirements of nationality and human understanding and right mindfulness and the moral virtues if
dignity. right speech, right action and right livelihood.

• Moral theories and principles should not be seen as ready- • Jesus Christ preached the virtues of love, mercy and
made solutions that can be applied mechanically to deal with compassion, hunger for justice, patience, kindness,
moral problems. gentleness, self-control.

• In fact, when two or more ethical principles or theories come • St. Thomas Aquinas taught the theological virtues – faith,
into conflict in a particular situation, may we find ourselves hope and love. (Too much love for the person – obsession. Too
caught in a moral dilemma? much love for things - greed. Too much love for God is
genuine)
Framework- (guidelines) and Principles behind our Moral
disposition. • Christian tradition teaches four cardinal moral virtues,
namely prudence, justice temperance and fortitude.
Ethical Framework
IMPORTANT!!
Guides an individual in answering these two questions: "What
do I ought to do?" And "why do I ought to do so?" So ethical The virtuous person did not inherit his/her virtues. Neither
Frameworks serve as guideposts in moral life. were these virtues simply passed on to him automatically. His
being a person of virtue is a product of deliberate, consistent,
continuous choice and practice of living the virtue or virtues.

VIRTUE OR CHARACTER ETHICS Universalizing test- TESTING YOUR ACTION IF THAT

ACTION WILL BE RIGHT OR ACCEPTABLE IF EVERYONE IS
• An ethical act is the action that a virtuous person would do in DOING IT
the same circumstance.
WHAT IS VIRTUE? Is a character traits manifested in habitual
• Virtue ethics is person-based rather than action-based. actions that is good for anyone? Habitual actions mean
unchanging character.
• Virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of the person's life,
rather than particular episodes or actions. Character traits VS Behavioral Traits

• A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who Example: Honesty (character)
possesses and lives the virtuous.
But how is honesty manifested?

Answer: Through behavioral traits

INTELLECTUAL VS MORAL VIRTUES
THERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE CONSIDERED
• Intellectual Virtues refer to excellence of the mind while VIRTOUS:
moral virtues refer to a person's dispositions to act well.
Moses, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, St. Francis,
• Ability to understand reason and judge well while moral Abraham Lincoln, Father Damien ( the priest who worked
virtues dispose a person to act well. among lepers), John Stuart Mill, Albert Schweitzer, Mohandas
Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Mother Teresa.
• Virtue is an attained, actualized or self-realized potential or
possibility. IMMANUEL KANT

• When one has the potential or possibility of becoming a • Live your life as though your every act were to become a
musician, he tries to train and study to become a musician universal law. Immanuel Kant “What makes a right act, right?”
following a musician's virtue as a framework.
Morality has a value in its own right.

Kant says: “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or

VIRTUE ETHICS even out of it, which can be called good without qualification,
except the Good Will…. like a jewel, it would still shine by its
• A person has an obligation to be what he/she is meant or in own light, as a thing which has its whole value in itself. Its
potency to be. usefulness or fruitfulness can neither add to nor take away
anything from this value”.
• It is his/her obligation to develop his/her talent and virtue.
These are moral principles which are true in
• The highest good or end, telos (purpose), of a person is the themselves:
fullness of his/her self-development or actualization.
• Moral rules such as “don’t cheat”; “don’t lie”; “keep your
• The concomitant result of this development or actualization promises”; “always tell the truth”
of his/her potentials is what Aristotle termed as happiness or
the experience of happiness. What is ought?
Kant explains through this example: There is something exceedingly valuable in human life: Your
worth as a person. In other words, never treat a person as a
• “If you want to become the best chess player, then you means towards achieving an end.
ought to study the techniques of the grand masters”

• “If you want to pass this course, then you ought to study
well” Concept of Right

Right means “individual’s entitlement to something”

Morality then is based on: “If you want so-and-so, then you A person has a right when:
ought to do such-and-such.”
 he is entitled to act in a certain way
For Kant, morality is NOT based on desires.  entitled to have others act in a certain way towards
him
Morality is based on the categorical: “You ought to do this….”
Moral rights = rights of all persons by virtue of their
For Kant, the moral rule is NOT: humanity

“If you care for other people, then help them” Elements of Right

“If you want people to respect you, then be honest” 1. To do whatever the law does not positively prohibits

Instead (The Moral Rule IS): 2. To empower to secure the interest of the individual

“I want to help other people, period” 3. To prohibit others in order for the individual to pursue his
own interests
“I want to be honest, period.”
Note: No. 3 is the domain of Moral Rights = to prohibit others
Categorical ought is dictated by reason… in order to pursue my interest as a human being

It is reason that tells us to be honest; to be truthful; just;

For Kant, the categorical ought must be followed by any 3 Main Features of Moral Rights
rational person. Thus, the Categorical Imperative.
1. Moral rights is correlated with duties
What is categorical imperative?
Example: I have the moral right, then you have the moral duty
It is the unqualified moral demand dictated by reason. to respect my right.

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the 2. Moral rights provide us with autonomy and equality to freely
same time will that it would become a universal law.” pursue our own interest. Individual must be left free to pursue
or not to pursue
“You must act “as though the maxim of your action were by
your will to become a universal law of nature” Example: My right to worship implies that I am free to choose
what I want to worship

In this case, my freedom to worship is not subordinated on

Categorical imperative is a prima facie duties anyone’s permission.

 We ought to fulfill, regardless of the consequences. 3. Justification for one’s action

Example: You promise your friend that you will accompany Example: If I have the moral right to do something, then others
her to attend the graduation day of her son. When that day don’t have the moral justification for interfering with me.
arrives, you found out that your daughter is sick. The only
person that could bring her to the hospital is you. Are you If others have moral justification, then they can prevent me
willing to break the promise to your friend? from exercising my right

KANT ON LYING

Categorical Imperative: Are you willing to lie so that this act Positive and Negative Rights
becomes a universal law?
Positive Rights: The right to free expression
(1) We should do only those actions that conform to rules that
we could will to be adopted universally. Negative right: Duty not to intervene

(2) If you were to lie, you would be following the rule “It is Examples: My right to privacy (positive right)
okay to lie.”
Duty of others not to intervene with my private affair (negative
(3) This rule could not be adopted universally, because it rights)
would be self-defeating: People would stop believing one
another, and then it would do no good to lie.

Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)

ANALYZING KANT Father of Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1831)

In the 1st formulation of the Categorical Imperative, we have This theory states:
to admit that there are actions, if universalize, become a moral
law. However, there are instances wherein our actions cannot • “The greatest amount of utility”
be universalized since they will lead to contradictions.
• “Greatest benefits for the greatest number of people”
2nd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

“There is an intrinsic worth of every human beings”

3 Things to Remember
Human beings are above all prices, unique, irreplaceable and
with dignity above all. 1. What are the alternative actions I have?

For Kant, People are rational agents, free, autonomous, 2. For each alternative action, I must estimate the direct and
creative and productive. Thus, 2nd formulation runs: indirect benefits and costs that the action will give to every
affected person.
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means 3. The greatest utility is the ethically appropriate course.
only.”
 • Luck egalitarianism is a view about distributive justice
(what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods in
What is justice? Justice means treating others as they have a society; outcomes are the result of brute luck (e.g.,
the right to be treated. misfortunes in genetic makeup or being struck by a bolt of
lightning) and those that are the consequence of conscious
o It is the duty I expect from others because of my inherent options (e.g., career choices or fair gambles).
moral right as an individual.
• Gender egalitarianism (or Zygarchy): is a form of society
o It is the duty I give to others with respect to their moral in which power is equally shared between men and women or
rights as individual. a family structure where power is shared equally by both
parents.

• Racial egalitarianism (or Racial equality): the absence

Capitalist- isa lang ang nakikinabang of racial segregation or separation of racial groups.

 Capitalist countries: US, Singapore, Australia, India, • Opportunity egalitarianism (or asset-based egalitarianism) is
South Korea, Germany, Italy and Philippines. the idea that equality is possible by a redistribution of
resources, usually in the form of a capital grant provided at
Socialist- sharing (two-way process) the age of majority.

 Socialist Countries: China, Denmark, Finland, • Christian egalitarianism: all people are equal before God and
Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Ireland, New Zealand in Christ, and specifically teaches gender equality in Christian
and Belgium. church leadership and marriage.

TYPES OF JUSTICE

1. Distributive Justice- Requires distributing societies TAXATION

benefits and burdens fairly.
2. Retributive Justice- requires fairness when blaming or Taxation is a State power that is exercised only through the
punishing persons for doing wrong. law making body of the state or the legislature. Neither the
3. Compensatory Justice- requires restoring to a person president nor the judiciary has the power to impose taxes.
what a person lost when he or she was wronged by
someone.

Discussion on Philosophical view of taxation

Liberalism and Libertarianism • Utilitarianism: it aims for the greatest total happiness
across the population in the economic sphere, we can
Rawls and Nozick interpret ‘happiness’ as the satisfaction of our dearies, and so
Utilitarianism aims for maximum satisfaction of desires.
Rawl’s Theory of Justice
• Deontology: which bases ethics on the idea of duty.
Original Position: What if we could create our own society?
• Virtue ethics: virtues such as honesty and using one's
Veil of Ignorance: No one would know one’s social position in talents, and leading a fulfilled life.
advance

Equal liberty principle: Society ought to safeguard the greatest

liberty for each person compatible with an equal liberty for all Discussion on Basic Principles of a Sound Tax System
others.
• Fiscal Adequacy: the source revenue should be sufficient
Difference principle: Society ought to promote the equal to address the demands of public expenditures.
distribution of wealth, except for inequalities that serve as
incentives to benefit everyone (including the least advantaged • Equality or Theoretical Justice: the tax burden should be
group) and are open to everyone on an equal basis. proportionate to the taxpayer’s ability to pay.

POLITICAL DOCTRINES • Administrative feasibility: the tax should be capable of

convenience, just and effective administration.
• Egalitarian Justice: People should get the same, or be treated
the same, or as equals, in some respect. All human persons
are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.
Discussion on essential characteristics of taxation
• ”Egal” means equal or Level.
• It is enforced contribution

• It is generally payable in money

Discussion on types of egalitarianism
• It is proportionate in character (income)
• Economic egalitarianism (or Material egalitarianism):
societies are of equal standing and have equal access to all • It is levied by the state, which has jurisdiction over the
the economic resources in terms of economic power, person or property
wealth, and contribution
• It is levied by the legislative branch of state.
• Moral egalitarianism: equality is central to justice.
Individuals are entitled to equal respect. • It is levied for public purposes.

• Legal egalitarianism: the individual is subject to the same

laws, with no class having special legal privileges.
Utilitarianism - greatest giving benefits to the greatest
• Political egalitarianism: members of a society are of equal member of people.
standing in terms of political power or influence.