Name: __________________________________________ Date: __________________

Course/Year: _____________________________________ Score: _________________

LESSON 2
Moral and Non-Moral Standards

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Distinguish between moral and non-moral standards

TIME FRAME: 3 hours

MATERIALS NEEDED: Module and Pen

Ethymology and Meaning of Ethics

The term “ethics” comes from the Greek word “ethos” meaning “custom” used in the
works of Aristotle, while the term “moral” is the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek and Latin
etymology of the word “ethics”, ethics deals with morality. When the Roman orator Cicero
exclaimed, “O tempora o mores” (Cicero, 1856) (Oh what time and what morals), he may have
been trying to express dismay of the morality of his time.
Ethics or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy which deals with moral standards,
inquiries about the rightness or wrongness of human behavior or the goodness or badness of
personality, trait or character. It deals with ideas, with topics such as moral standards or norms
of morality, conscience, moral values and virtues. Ethics is a study of the morality of human acts
and moral agents, what makes an act obligatory and what makes a person accountable.
Moral is the adjective describing a human act as either ethically right or wrong, or
qualifying a person, personality, character, as either ethically good or bad.

Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-Moral Standards

Since ethics is a study of moral standards, then the first question for the course is, what
are moral standards. The following are supposed to be examples of moral standards: “Stealing
is wrong.” “Killing is wrong.” “Telling lies is wrong.” “Adultery is wrong.” “Environment
preservation is the right thing to do.” “Freedom with responsibility is the right way.” “Giving what
is due to others is justice.” Hence, moral standards are norms or prescriptions that serve as the
frameworks for determining what ought to be done or what is right or wrong action, what is good
or bad character.
Moral standards are either consequences standards (like Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism) or
non-consequence standards (like Aristotle’s virtue, St. Thomas’ natural law, or Immanuel Kant’s
good will or sense of duty).
 The consequence standards depend on results, outcome. An act that results in the
general welfare, in the greatest good of the greatest number, is moral. To take part in a project
that results in the improvement of the majority of people is, therefore, moral.
The non-consequence standards are based on the natural law. Natural law is the law of
God revealed through human reason. It is the “law of God written in the hearts of men.” To
preserve human life is in accordance with the natural law, therefore it is moral. Likewise, the
non-consequence standard may also be based on good will or intention, and on a sense of duty.
Respect for humanity, treatment of the other as a human person, an act that is moral, springs
from a sense of duty that you wish will apply to all human persons.
On the other hand, non-moral standards are social rules, demands of etiquette and good
manners. They are guides of action which should be followed as expected by society.
Sometimes they may not be followed or some people may not follow them. From time to time,
changes are made regarding good manners or etiquette. In sociology, non-moral standards or
rules are called folkways. In short, non-moral actions are those where moral categories cannot
be applied.
Examples of non-moral standards are rules of good manners and right conduct,
etiquette, rules of behavior set by parents, teachers, and standards of grammar or language,
standards of art, standards of sports set by authorities. Examples are “do not eat with your
mouth open;” “observe rules of grammar,” and “do not wear socks that don’t match.”
An indicator whether or not a standard is moral or non-moral lies in compliance as
distinguished from its non-compliance. Non-compliance with moral standards causes a sense of
guilt, while non-compliance with a non-moral standard may only cause shame or
embarrassment.

Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards

Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various moral standards formulated by moral
philosophers as follows:
1) Consequence (teleological, from tele which means end, result, or consequence)
standard states that an act is right or wrong depending on the consequences of the act,
that is, the good that is produced in the world. Will it do you good if you go to school? If
the answer is right, because you learn how to read and write, then going to school is
right. The consequence standard can also be a basis for determining whether or not a
rule is a right rule. So the consequence standard states that the rightness or wrongness
of a rule depends on the consequences or the good that is produced in following the
rule. For instance, if everyone follows the rule of a game, everyone will enjoy playing the
game. This good consequence proves the rule must be a correct rule.
2) Not-only-consequence standard (deontological), holds that the rightness or
wrongness of an action or rule depends on sense of duty, natural law, virtue and the
demand of the situation or circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an action does
not only depend or rely on the consequence of that action or following that rule.
Natural law and virtue ethics are deontological moral standards because their basis for
determining what is right or wrong does not depend on consequences but on the natural law
and virtue. Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the rightness or wrongness of an act
depends on situation and circumstances requiring or demanding exception to rule.
Rosen and Garner are inclined to consider deontology be it rule or act deontology, as
the better moral standard because it synthesizes or includes all other theory of norms. Under
this theory, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on (or is a function of) all the
following: a) consequences of an action or rule, what promotes one’s greatest good, or the
greatest good of the greatest number; b) consideration other that consequences, like the
obligatoriness or the act based on natural law, or it’s being one’s duty, or it’s promoting an ideal
virtue. Deontology also considers the object, purpose, and circumstances or situation of the
moral issue or dilemma.

What Makes Standards Moral?

The question means what obliges us to follow a moral standard? For theists, believers in
God’s existence, moral standards are commandments of God revealed to man through
prophets. According to the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments were revealed by God to
Moses. One who believes in God vows to Him and obliges himself/herself to follow His Ten
Commandments. For theists, God is the ultimate source of what is moral revealed to human
persons.
How about non-theists? For non-theists, God is not the source of morality. Moral
standards are based on the wisdom of sages like Confucius or philosophers like Immanuel
Kant.
In China, B. C., Confucius taught the moral standard, “Do unto others what you like
others to do unto you” and persuaded people to follow this rule because it is the right way, the
gentleman’s way. Later, Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, formulated a criterion for
determining what makes a moral standard. For instance, does the maxim “Stealing is wrong”
pass this test? Can one will that this maxim be a universal maxim? The answer is in the
affirmative. The opposite of the maxim would not be acceptable. Moral standards are standards
that we want to be followed by all, otherwise, one would be wishing one’s own ill fortune. Can
you wish “do not kill” to be a universal maxim? The answer has to be yes because if you say
“no” then you are objecting to someone killing you. Thus, the universal necessity of the
maxim, what makes it a categorical imperative is what makes it obligatory. “Stealing is
wrong” means “one ought not steal” and “Do not kill” means “one ought not kill.” It is one’s
obligation not to steal or kill. Ultimately, the obligation arises form the need of self-
preservation.

The Origin of Moral Standards: Theist and Non-Theist

Related to the question on what makes moral standards moral is how do moral
standards arise or come into existence? A lot of new attempts to explain the origins of morality
or moral standards have been made.
The theistic line of thought state moral standards are of divine origin while 20 th century
thinkers claim state that they simply evolved. The issue is: Are moral standards derived from
God, communicated to man through signs or revelation, or did they arise in the course of man’s
evolution?
With the Divine source concept, moral standards are derived from natural law, man’s
“participation” in the Divine law. The moral principle, “Do good and avoid evil” is an expression
of natural law. Man’s obliging himself to respect life, liberty, and property of his fellowman arises
from the God-given sacredness, spirituality, and dignity of his fellowman. It arises from his faith,
hope, and love of God and man.
With the evolutionary concept, the basics of moral standards – do good, avoid evil –
have been observed among primates and must have evolved as the process of evolution
followed its course.
Are these theist and non-theist (evolutionary) origin of moral standards
reconcilable?
The evolutionist claims that altruism, a sense of morality, can be observed from man’s
fellow primates – the apes and monkeys and, therefore, it can be said that the altruism of
human persons evolved from the primates. Neither can it be scientifically established that the
theist view, that man’s obliging himself to avoid evil, refrain from inflicting harm on his
fellowman, is a moral principle implanted by God in the hearts of men. But the concept of
creation and evolution are not necessarily contradictory. The revelation of the norms of Divine
origin could not have been instant, like a happening “in one fell swoop.” It could have happened
gradually as man evolved to differ from other primates. As the evolutionist claim, creation may
be conceived as a process of evolution. Hence, the biblical story of creation could have
happened in billions of years instead of six days.

ACTIVITY 2
I. Distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards. Underline the statement if it is a moral
standard and encircle the dot before the statement if it is a non-moral standard.

 No talking while your mouth is full.

 Do not lie.
 Wear black or white for mourning; never red.
 The males should be the one to propose marriage not females.
 Don’t steal.
 Observe correct grammar when writing and speaking English.
 Submit school requirements on time.
 If you are a male, stay by the danger side (roadside) when walking with a female.
 Go with the fashion or you are not “in”.
 Don’t cheat others.
 Don’t kill.
 When you speak pronounce words correctly.
 Focus the microscope properly.
 Maintain a 36-24-36 body figure.
REFERENCE:
o Ruben A. Corpuz and Brenda B. Corpuz (2020). Ethics. Cubao, Quezon City, Metro
Manila: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.

Name: __________________________________________ Date: __________________

Course/Year: _____________________________________ Score: _________________

EXERCISE 2
I. Answer the following in two to five sentences.
1. Here are two questions:
a) Can one eat while praying?
b) Can one pray while eating?
Which is a moral question? Which is a non-moral question?

2. I did not dress appropriately formally for a party. Which did I fail to observe? Moral on non-
moral standard? Why?

3. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamasov, Ivan Karamasovone asserted the famous
line, “If God did not exist, everything is permitted.”
a. How does this relate to our lesson on source of moral standards? Based on this line, what is
the source of moral standards?
b. The deeper and stronger one’s faith in God is, the deeper and stronger is his/her morality. Is
this an implication of this quoted line?

c. Using your own knowledge of logic, what will be the continuation of Karamasov’s syllogism?