INTRODUCTION

It is the natural inclination or need of man to live with his fellow human beings, thus, the
existence of social groups like the family, the community, and the social clubs or
organizations. With other men in his household and work, in organizations and
gatherings such as celebrations, conventions, competitions or demonstrations, man
behaves according to what he is right or what the group approves. And in evaluating
his own or other people’s conduct, man usually asks the following questions:

 Was my act ethical or unethical? Moral? Immoral? Or amoral?

 Did I have the right or obligation to do such an act? Did I act freely?
Or did I do it involuntarily?
 Was it in accordance to what is generally considered good?

1. What is Ethics?

Ethics is essentially a study of ethical principles, codes or systems which should be

strictly observed or followed. It determines what conduct is good and what is bad. It
points out which human acts ought to be approved and which ones should be
disapproved. It furnishes us with standards on the basis of which we are able to know
whether our conduct is good, right, proper virtuous and desirable.

 The term moral is ordinarily understood to have the same meaning with ethics.
Strictly speaking however, the term moral is distinct from ethics.

Moral refers to the conduct itself. It is the application of man of ethical principles or
codes which he learned, accepted, internalized, applied or practiced in his day to day
living and indicated by his by his decisions and actions.

 Essentially, however, ethics and morals are similar. Both have to do with human
behavior, particularly with its quality which makes it acceptable and customary
among members of social groups.

Ethical vs. Unethical

Ethical is a term used to describe a behavior which conforms to accepted standards.

Unethical, on the other hand, is an ambiguous term which is commonly used to refer to
behavior which deviates from the norm. Technically however, the term unethical is a
description of a man who is without any code of ethics, or of an individual who fails to
live up to accepted standards set up by his group or his profession.
Moral vs Immoral

The term moral, is understood in the same way as the term ethical, it is relating to what
is good or right to human behavior. The term immoral is the opposite of the term
moral, immoral is used to describe a person whose behavior does not conform to moral
standards; not morally good or right. The triad of amoral, unmoral, and nonmoral are
one in meaning , that is, they all refer to conduct which is neither moral or immoral. To
do one’s duty is moral, to neglect it is immoral, but those what shirt to wear is amoral.

Right vs Obligation

Right refers to something to which one has a just claim, such as piece of property,
power or privilege to which one is justly entitled. In relation to conduct, the term right as
well as the term good are used to describe an act which conforms to some norm or
standard by which it is to be judged. Obligation, on the other hand, is a duty or
responsibility to which one is bound. Rights and obligations are correlative terms,
meaning, they have a mutual relation or are reciprocally dependent. (Example: Parents
have rights over their children who in turn have obligations toward their parents. If the
father has the right to his son’s respect, then the son has the obligation to show respect
to his father.)

Norm vs. Standard

Ethically, the terms norms and standard are essentially the same. Both terms refer to
principles of right action binding upon the members of a social group. Conduct based
on these principles constitutes the model after which the behavior of the group is
patterned and judged as good or bad. Norms and standards guide, control or regulate
proper and acceptable behavior. According to Ward, a standard is a “ measuring rod”, a
“rule and measure” of the rightness or wrongness of men’s free acts. “ It is a roadway
to good; it sets limits, it measures good and at the same time it makes room for the
exercise of genuine human freedom”.

2. Moral vs. Non- moral Standards

Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right and
wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or
relating to human behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad (or right
and wrong) behavior.
 
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe
are morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects
they believe are morally good and morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards
with moral values and moral principles.
 
Non-moral standards  refer to rules that are
unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily
linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of non-moral
standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various
house rules.
 
Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and
ordinances) are non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending
on some factors and contexts.
 
The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from
non-moral standards:
 
a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit
human beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following
or violating some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not
necessarily affect one’s life or wellbeing.

 
b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral standard
states that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed
to do that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.
 
Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but they take precedence
over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones. A
person may be aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his
life to painting, but morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It
may be prudent to lie to save one’s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so.
When a particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people’s moral duty to
exercise civil disobedience.
 
There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the
injustice of an evil law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation
(such as the antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).

 
c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or
persons such as nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be
considered in the process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot
be changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing
about these standards, nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the soundness or
adequacy of the reasons that are considered to support and justify them.

 
d. Moral standards have the trait of universality.
Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more
accurate, however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the
relevantly similar situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person
P, then it is morally right for anybody relevantly similar to P.
 
This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others what you would them
do unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in the formal Principle of Justice, “It cannot
be right for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, merely
on the ground that they are two different individuals, and without there being any
difference  between the natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a
reasonable ground for difference of treatment.” Universality is an extension of the
principle of consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent about one’s value
judgments.

 
e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain
person or group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint
in which each person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.
 
Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. Impartiality in morality
requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all
concerned parties.
 

f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.

Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards. These
moral standards are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not
kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are
proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to action. Retroactively, this feature is
used to evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to produce feelings of
satisfaction or of guilt.

If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is
not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards.
On the contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g.
refusing to wear tattered jeans). (Copyright 2013 by Jensen DG. Mañebog)
3. Dilemmas

The terms “ethical dilemma” and “moral dilemma” interchangeably, per popular
usage. They overlap to a large degree; that is to say that most dilemmas discussed
are both moral and ethical dilemmas at the same time.

Moral dilemmas are thought-experiments, imaginative scenarios used to argue

philosophical points.  They are often presented in order to refute one or another
system of ethics; one may argue that if the dilemma is unreasonable, the ethical
system is incomplete.

However, the status of moral dilemmas has become a major philosophical issue in its
own right.  Some philosophers argue that there are no true moral dilemmas, others
that they are unavoidable and do not necessarily indicate a flawed system of ethics.  
Thus, moral dilemmas are a way to explore the question of what an ethical system
must or must not be expected to accomplish.

For those who are not professional philosophers, ethical dilemmas serve mainly as a
tool for exploring one’s own and others’ ethical values.  The question, “what
would YOU do?” in regards to a moral dilemma must, in most cases, reveal one’s
priorities – or provoke one to determine those priorities.

A lot of moral dilemmas revolve around conflicts between teleological, or result-

oriented, ethics and deontological, or precept-oriented, ethics.  This has also been
characterized as the conflict between what is “right” (deontological) and what results
in “good” (teleological).  However, some of the most difficult moral dilemmas do not
revolve around this conflict; moral dilemmas are more difficult if symmetrical – if they
require choosing between two morally identical options, such as in the choice to save
only one of two innocent lives.

 Types of Dilemmas

Epistemic versus Ontological dilemmas: A dilemma is epistemic if the problem is

that one does not know which choice will result in the greatest good (or least evil).   A
dilemma is ontological if knowledge is not an issue; one simply has a choice.

Obligation versus Prohibition dilemmas: Sartre’s story about the young man going
to war is an obligation dilemma; the man is obligated to do two incompatible things. 
 Sophie’s Choice is a prohibition dilemma; she must choose between two morally
prohibited actions—choosing one person to be killed or another.  Prohibition choices
seem more problematic in general, since they require one to directly violate morals,
whereas obligation dilemmas merely require one to neglect a moral obligation.

4. Levels of Ethical Behaviors

Donaldson and Dunfee have argued that either adopting host countries’ ethical
standards or exporting the values from the home countries to the host countries is
equally problematic—photocopying values shows disrespect for local cultures.
Therefore, they proposed a classification system to show different categories of global
norms:

 Hypernorms: Norms which are accepted by all cultures and organizations.

 Consistent norms: Norms which are culturally specific, but consistent with
hypernorms and other legitimate norms, such as organizational cultures.
 Moral free space: Norms which could be in tension with hyper norms, but are
unique cultural beliefs.

 Illegitimate norms: Norms which are incompatible with hypernorms.

While public relations is commonly known for its unethical conduct, unethical behaviors
should be understood at three levels: individual, organizational and national. “The
question of ethical behaviour, from the level of the individual, through the totality of
organizational manifestations to the level of national and international bodies, has
become the number one issue on the global agenda.”

At the same time, the model of ethical responsibility should also be understood at three
levels:

1. The causation of negative effects through human or organizational actions

2. The presence of subjective factors held by individuals, and

3. The set of values attributed to society.

While what society expects of organizations could affect the ethical norms that
organizations impose on individual employees, organizational structures could also
prevent individuals from taking responsibility for unethical actions. This is especially the
case when individuals’ actions are not attributed to their conscience but their
perceptions of what is accepted socially, professionally and organizationally. As public
relations practices transform to adapt to changes in economic, social, business and
cultural conditions, the ethical values of the practice could also change that the work it
does could change the complexity of the dynamics of interrelationships in the global
context.
Tsetsura and Valentini produced a model which incorporated the significance of
personal, professional and environmental values in affecting ethical judgements. They
proposed a similar model of ethical judgement based on three levels:

 Micro-level: At the personal level, human values, including their preferable

modes of behaviors and outcomes, would affect their views on how and what
should be achieved through his or her behaviors.
 Meso-level: At the professional level, judgements could be affected by what
guides their values in terms of what is seen as being accepted by the
organizations and the professions they are in.

 Macro-level: At the societal/environmental level, one’s personal networks,

including family, friends and community would affect the extent to which practices
are considered ethical or unethical. And such predispositions could be reinforced
 over time. In particular, country-specific factors, including changing political,
economic and socio-cultural conditions, could influence the way public relations is
practiced.

Based on these assumptions, a model is proposed to show that an individual’s value

system is made up of personal values, professional values and environmental values.
At the same time, personal factors, including education, experiences, gender and
background, and country-specific factors, including political system, economic system,
and social-cultural system, are the external factors which could affect the values. There
could be variations from one individual to another as individuals emphasize values from
one level more than another.
5. Foundation of Morality- Freedom

Morality and Freedom

By Randall Chester Saunders from Intellectual Renegade link Jan 5, 2017

Only a moral society is a free society. But a society is not an object or thing. A society is
a collective term like team, or band, or club. It is the members of a society (or team, or
band, or club) that determine the kind of society (or team, or band, or club) it is. A moral
society is a society in which every member is a moral individual. An immoral society is
one in which some or all members of that society are immoral.

Moral individuals desire nothing in this world they have not earned by their own effort,
by producing it or acquiring it from those who have produced it in exchange for what
they have produced—that is, by trade. Since moral individuals only deal with one
another by means of reason, as traders exchanging value for value, they are never a
threat to any other individuals’ persons or property. A moral individual has no interest in
how other individual’s choose to live their lives and no interest in interfering in their lives
or business.

A society in which every member is a moral individual is a free society, because

everyone in such a society is free to live their life in any way they choose, because no
one else will ever interfere in how they live their life. Such a free society will also be the
most prosperous kind of society possible, because all moral individuals are productive
individuals. Such a free society will also be a society in which the highest degree of
good will, happiness, and friendliness exist. But the prosperity, benevolence and
happiness of a society are never the objective of moral individuals, they just happen to
be the inevitable consequence of their moral behavior.
What is moral freedom?

Understanding Moral Freedom: The power to do what is right

Moral freedom is not the right to do what you want—it is the strength to do what is
right. Moral freedom is not the absence of restraint, but rather it is a resolve to honor
God’s design of purity and holiness. Moral freedom is liberty that comes from knowing
the truth of God’s Word and living in harmony with that truth by the power of God’s Holy
Spirit.

Moral freedom stems from genuine love, which is the opposite of lust. Genuine
love gives to others, without the motive of personal pleasure or gain. Lust takes from
others, with the selfish motive of personal pleasure or gain.

6. Reason and Impartiality: Minimum requirement for Morality

Is morality based on reason?

KANT’S ARGUMENT

Immanuel Kant argued that morality was based on reason alone, and once we
understood this, we would see that acting morally is the same as acting rationally. Kant
argued that morality, by definition, must help us decide what to do. When we are
choosing how to act, we know that our self-interest or happiness influences our choices.
However, happiness can’t be the basis of morality.

First, what makes people happy differs. If morality depended on happiness, then it was
right to do would change from one situation to the next. But, he argues, morality is the
same for everyone. Second, sometimes happiness is morally bad. For instance, if
someone enjoys hurting other people, the happiness they get from this is morally bad. It
is bad to hurt someone; it is even worse to hurt someone and enjoy it.

But if morality was about producing happiness, we would have to say ‘if you’re going to
hurt someone, it is better to enjoy it – at least that way, someone is happy’. Which just
seems wrong. So if morality is not based on happiness, but it can help us decide what
to do, then there must be something else that is capable of influencing our choices apart
from happiness. And Kant argues there is – reason. We are able to think about and
reflect on different actions, and decide between them. We are not ‘forced’ by our desires
to act this way or that, we have a power of will that is distinct from desire and the pull of
happiness.

Connecting reason and morality

So what is the connection between reason and morality? First, this capacity to choose
freely is necessary for morality – animals and young children simply act on their desires,
and so we don’t think they are capable of acting morally. Yes, their actions can have
good or bad consequences, but because they don’t make choices in the right sense, we
don’t really praise or blame them in the same way we do adults.

Morality and Impartiality

It is generally assumed that impartiality is a defining feature of morality. Philosophers

started using the term “impartiality” as late as the 18th century but recognition of the
importance of impartiality in moral assessments of human conduct can be traced as
far back as the Golden Rule of morality, “one should treat others as one would like
others to treat oneself,” and the Christian version, “you shall love your neighbor as
yourself,” covering the spectrum of the most important systems of ethics throughout
history. Impartiality means treating all people and groups equally; not partial or
biased.

This is scarcely surprising. The term “impartiality” is associated with moral

requirements such as “treating similar cases similarly,” “not to make an exception of
oneself,” “to give equal weight to everybody’s legitimate claims,” etc. Thus impartiality
is easily seen as constitutive, if not identical, to what we commonly understand by
morality.