Ethics

Mark Anthony S. Bartolome, MAEd

Subject Instructor

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO STATE COLLEGE
Murtha Campus
GOOD
MORNING!
 Chapter I
The Ethical
Dimensions of
Human Existence
 Topics:
Basic Concepts | Ethical Dimensions of Human
Existence:
1. Difference between moral and non-moral standards
2. What are moral dilemmas?
3. The three levels of moral dilemmas
 Individual;
 Organizational; and
 Systemic
 Lesson’s Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students must be able
to:
 Differentiate between moral and non-moral standards;
 Recognize a moral experience;
 Detect a moral dilemma;
 Identify the three levels of moral dilemmas; and
 Explain why only human beings can be ethical.
Topic 1:
Basic Concepts
of Moral and Non-Moral
Standards
 Moral Standards
Moral standards are the criteria people or individuals
have about the different actions considered to be morally
right or morally wrong, and also the values attached to
what is believed to be morally good or morally bad.

It is usually said that moral standards promote “the

good,” or the welfare and well- being not only of
humans but also animals and the environment.
 Moral Standards
These are the actions that can cause either benefit or
harm.

Therefore, moral standards determine what people ought

to do in terms of rights and obligations.
 Non-Moral Standards
Non-moral standards are guidelines which are
entirely not associated with ethical or moral
considerations. The act of doing something which
falls under non-moral standards does not harm human
beings. For example, the manner by which a person
eats, either by bare hands or by using utensils, falls
under non-moral standards.
Topic 2:
Moral
Dilemmas
 Moral Dilemmas
Before we go to moral dilemmas, let us first understand
what dilemma means. It is defined as being in a situation
where a person has to choose between two or more
conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable.
Moral Dilemmas, therefore, are circumstances wherein
persons, referred to as “moral agents” in Ethics, are
forced to choose between two or more opposing
alternatives neither of which leads to a morally
acceptable outcome.
 2 3
1 ORGANIZATIONA
L DILEMMAS
STRUCTURAL
DILEMMAS
refer to moral
INDIVIDUAL can take many forms predicaments in
DILEMMAS and these are the public
a person, or an individual, administration.
has two or more moral
moral problems in the
values to consider, he or workplace.
she can choose one only,
and choosing one or the
other will not solve the

3 Levels/Kinds
problem in
a moral way.

of Moral Dilemmas
a.) there is an agent about to choose among
two or more options and must act
accordingly;

 b.) the options from which to Three (3) conditions to be called a

choose from are conflicting; and moral dilemma

c.) no matter which course of action

the moral agent chooses, there is
always that moral principle that is
compromised
Topic 3:
Freedom as Foundation
for Human Acts
 Freedom
Freedom, defined as the act of doing something without
any impediment, is an important factor in doing moral
actions. Man is said to be the highest of all creations and
is endowed with intellect and free will. In the Catechism
of the Catholic Church Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1,
Article 3, No. 1730 it is stated, “Man is rational and
therefore like God; he is created with free will and is
master over his acts.”
 Freedom
Even Charles Darwin (1871) wrote that he agreed
with those writers who reinforced the judgment that
the most important difference between man and lower
animals is the former’s moral sense or conscience.
 Freedom
Darwin further stated that the biological makeup of
man determines the presence of three necessary
conditions for ethical behavior:

A.) the ability to B.) the ability to C.) the ability

anticipate the make value to choose
consequences of one’s
judgments; between.
own actions
 Chapter II

The Moral
Agent
 Topics:
1. Culture and moral behavior
2. What is culture? How does it define our moral behavior?
3. What is cultural relativism? Why is it not tenable in ethics?
4. Universal Values
5. The moral agent: Developing virtue as a habit
6. Moral development. The stages of moral development. How
do we get to the highest level, conscience-based moral
decisions?
 Lesson’s Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students must be able
to:
 Articulate what culture means;
 Attribute facets of personal behavior to culture;
 Recognize differences in moral behavior of different
cultures;
 Appreciate the differences;
 Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism;
 Lesson’s Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students must be able
to:
 Analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity in
their own moral experiences;
 Evaluate elements that need to be changed;
 Identify universal values;
 Explain why universal values are necessary for human
survival;
 Recall defining moments in their moral formation;
 Lesson’s Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students must be able
to:
 Explain the relationship between individual acts and
character; and
 Identify each stage of moral development
Topic 1:
Culture &
Moral Behavior
 Culture and Moral Behavior
Merriam-Webster (2020) defined culture as the
customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of
a racial, religious, or social group. Moral behavior, on
the other hand, refers to the rightness or wrongness of a
human act. A recurring theme in social science is
“different cultures have different moral codes.” What
is practiced in one culture might be taboo in another
culture.
Story:
Darius, a king of Persia, travelled a lot. In one of his
travels, he encountered a group of Indians, the
Callatians, who ate the bodies of their dead fathers.
Darius knew that the Greeks, usually practiced
cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the
customary and natural way of disposing the dead.
Story:
Darius believed that an appreciation of different cultures
was one way to understand the world. One day, to prove
his point, he summoned some Greeks to his court and
asked them what would make them eat the bodies of
their dead fathers. The Greeks were, of course, horrified
and said no amount of money would make them do so.
Story:
He then called in some Callatians and, while the Greeks
were listening, asked them what it would take for them
to burn their dead fathers’ bodies. The Callatians were
shocked and asked the king never to mention it again.
 From the aforementioned example,
we can see that what is practiced in one culture and is
believed to be the norm is actually an abomination to
another culture. What we are accustomed of doing could
be something other cultures find hard to accept
and vice versa.
Topic 2:
Cultural
Relativism
 Cultural Relativism
It is a belief that there is no universal truth. For the
cultural relativists, all that exist are the customs of
different societies. Said customs can neither be judged as
right or wrong since doing so would mean that there is
an independent standard by which they will be judged.
 Cultural Relativism
To many thinkers, this observation – “Different cultures
have different moral codes” – has seemed to be the key
to understanding morality. The idea of universal truth in
ethics, they say, is a myth. The customs of different
societies are all that exist. These custom cannot be said
to be “correct” or “incorrect,”for that implies we have an
independent standard of right and wrong by which they
may be judged.
 Cultural Relativism
But there is no such independent standard; every
standard is culture-bound. The great pioneering
sociologist William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906,
put the point like this:

The “right” way is the way which the ancestors used and
which has been handed down. The tradition is its own
warrant. It is not held subject to verification by
experience.
 Cultural Relativism
The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of
them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In
the folkways, whatever is, is right. This is because they
are traditional, and therefore contains in themselves the
authority of the ancestral ghosts.

When we come to the folkways we are at the end of our

analysis. This line of thought has probably persuaded
more people to be
 Cultural Relativism
skeptical about ethics than any other single thing.
Cultural Relativism, as it has been called, challenges our
ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of
moral truth. It says, in effect, that there is no such thing
as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various
cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own
code has no special status; it is merely one among many.
 Cultural Relativism
As we shall see, this basic idea is really a compound of
several different thoughts. It is important to separate the
various elements of the theory because, on analysis,
some parts turn out to be correct, while other seem to be
mistaken.
 Cultural Relativism
As a beginning, we may distinguish the following
claims, all of which have been made by cultural
relativists:
1. Different societies have different moral codes. right, then that action is right, at least within
2. There is no objective standard that can be that society.
used to judge one societal code better than 6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the
another. conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an
3. The moral code of our own society has no attitude of tolerance toward the practices of
special status; it is one among many. other cultures.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is,
there are no moral truths that hold for all
people at all times.
 Cultural Relativism
Although it may seem that these six propositions go
naturally together, they are independent of one another,
in the sense that some of them might be false even if
others are true. In what follows, we will try to identify
what is correct in Cultural Relativism, but we will also
be concerned to expose what is mistaken about it.
 Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism is a theory about the nature of
morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible.
However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by
subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyze
Cultural Relativism we find that it is not so plausible as
it first appears to be
 Cultural Relativism
The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of
Cultural Relativism there is a certain form of argument.
The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from
facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a
conclusion about the status of morality. Thus, we are
invited to accept this reasoning:
 Cultural Relativism
1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead,
whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the
dead.

2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right

nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion,
which varies from culture to culture.
 Cultural Relativism
Or, alternatively:
1. The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide,
whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral.
2. Therefore, infanticide is either objectively right or
objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
 Cultural Relativism
Clearly, these arguments are variations of one
fundamental idea. They are both special cases of a more
general argument, which says:

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.

2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
 Cultural Relativism
We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To
many people, it is persuasive. But from a logical point of
view, is it sound?
It is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does
not follow from the premise – that is, even if the premise
is true, the conclusion still might be false.
 Cultural Relativism
The premise concerns what people believe. In some
societies, people believe on thing; in other societies,
people believe differently. The conclusion, however,
concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that this
sort of conclusion does not follow logically from the
premise.