MODULE IN GEC 6

Teacher: Prof. Calvin Paul I. Adrales

Module #: 7
2nd semester S.Y. 2020-2021

1
 Table of Contents
Title Page……………………………………………………………………………………1
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………2
Lesson 11 framework and principles behind moral disposition framework…………………3
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..4
2. Aristotle’s Virtue ………………………………………………………………………….5
3. Forms and Telos…………………………………………………………………………….6
4. Virtue as the golden mean………………………………………………………………….7
5. Illustration of Aristotle's golden mean………………………………………………………8
6. Aquinas natural law………………………………………………………………………….9
7. Kant’s right theory…………………………………………………………………………..11
8. Principles of justice………………………………………………………………………….14
9. Activity and references………………………………………………………………………16

2
 MODULE
Lesson 11 framework and principLe behind ou moraL disposition
frameworks
Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, the students are expected to:

1. Determine Aristotle's key concept about virtues ethics
2. Identify the ethical behavior illustrated in Aristotle's golden mean
3. Differentiate the concepts of justice and fairness

What is the aim of human life, according

to Aristotle?

What do you think is required to

achieve this aim?

Does thinking about the aim of human

life provide a good starting point for
ethical discussion? Why or why not?

SAQ_________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

3
Introduction

People are often most remembered by their most significant character traits. These traits
are the product of a consistent display of a particular behavior. Some people are known to be
courageous, some quick-witted. While some are remembered for their diligence and work ethic.
To a certain extent, a person is defined (at least in the minds of others) by what he/she does and
how he/she lives his/her life. On one hand, character traits such as thoughtfulness, temperance,
and respectfulness are often seen in a positive light. On the other hand, cowardice, laziness and
shamelessness are generally frowned upon by most.

Consistently exhibiting certain behavior in various situations gains a peculiar identity that
somehow determines how others perceive a person.
For example, people associate the nickname Bertong Tigasin (Bert the “formidable”)
to a person who has consistently displayed strength and grit in character .
We build our characters through how we make choices in different situations we face in
our lives. In meeting and speaking to different people, facing various problems, and handling
different day-to-day tasks, we develop a certain way of being, a unique style of being a person.
Through the constant interaction of thought and action as prompted by various situations that call
for one’s decision, a person comes to know himself/herself as a certain type of character or
personality.

In one’s journey towards self-realization and self-flourishing, there is an implied

necessity to understand what he/she is actually aiming for in his/her life. In aiming for a goal, the
person must also first understand what he/she actually is and is potentially capable of. Self-
actualization is not attained through theory but by practice: character is a product of practice.

But what does it actually mean for a human person to flourish?

What does it mean for one to achieve his/her goal?

What is the goal of our existence as human beings and what does
character have to do with it?

Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a

field distinct from the theoretical sciences. Its
methodology must match its subject matter—
good action—and must respect the fact that in
this field many generalizations hold only for the
most part. We study ethics in order to improve
our lives, and therefore its principal concern is

4
the nature of human well-being. Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in
taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. Like Plato, he regards
the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance and so on) as complex
rational, emotional and social skills. But he rejects Plato's idea that to be
completely virtuous one must acquire, through a training in the sciences,
mathematics, and philosophy, an understanding of what goodness is. What
we need, in order to live well, is a proper appreciation of the way in which
such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as
a whole.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

What makes us Human?

In Aristotle’s ontology, all things have both Form and Matter. The Form is
what makes something essentially the kind of thing that it is. X is a Chair. X is a Horse.
What is, then, the Form of Human? What makes us essentially human?
We saw in Plato that we should try to be like our Form: the more we resemble the perfect,
ideal Form, the better we are as Humans. Aristotle did not believe in separately existing
immaterial Forms, but he did believe that our Form gives us a potential to fulfil.
To be a virtuous human, we should fulfil our function as Humans. But what is this
function? In order to see this, we must look at what it is that distinguishes humans from other
things.
3 Types of Souls
Aristotle thought that all living things have a soul (ANIMA). This is because the soul is
what gives life to things. Without a soul, there is only a material object, like an eye without
vision. The type of soul defines one’s essence.
There are 3 kinds of soul, going from the lower primitive level to the higher one:
1. The Vegetative Soul: the ability of self-nutrition and growth. This is the soul of plants.
2. The Sensitive Soul: the ability of movement and sensations, in addition to self-
nutrition and growth. Animals have this soul.
3. The Rational Soul: the ability of thought and deliberation, in addition to movement,
sensation, self-nutrition and growth. Humans have this soul.

5
 There can be a conflict between the rational part of the soul and the irrational ones.
Unlike Plato, who said that to know what is right is to do what is right, Aristotle thought that one
can know what is right to do, but still not do it. This is because the rational soul is not always in
charge of the irrational part. One can have weakness of the will.

Form and TELOS

The type of soul gives us different types of potentials and TELOS. As humans, we have a
number of abilities, capacities or powers that we can actualize. What is unique for the human
Form is that we have a rational capacity for knowledge, reasoning and truth. This is a main
function of being human.
When the rational soul is in control of the irrational soul, we can become virtuous. We
are not born with virtue and our souls are not already good, as in Plato. But we carry within us
the potential for good and virtue. It takes lots of hard work and practice to realize this potential.
We saw that the Form in Aristotle is always related to a TELOS; the final cause or aim
for development. Knowledge is an aim of Humans but not the only one. We have different types
of potentials to fulfil, since the human soul includes many abilities: political, ethical, intellectual,
personal and biological.

Happiness as the Human TELOS

The ultimate aim (TELOS) of Human life is Happiness. Happiness, unlike money and
wealth, is an ultimate aim because it is not “for” anything else. Everything we do, we do to be
happy.
Happiness has intrinsic value. Money only has instrumental value. We want it for what
we can get with it.
The greatest Happiness (EUDAIMONIA) has three qualities that make it the ultimate aim
or TELOS of all our actions:
1. Happiness is desirable in itself.
2. Happiness is not desirable because it brings other goods.
3. All other goods are desirable because they lead to Happiness.
Happiness = Living a Life of Virtue
Aristotle thought that Happiness (EUDAIMONIA) comes from living the good life. This
is not primarily a life of pleasure, but of virtue (ARETE). We become happy when we fulfil our
potential in a virtuous way. But we need both intellectual and moral virtues. We must also
actualize potentials of our rational soul.

6
 To be a good and virtuous person, it is not enough to be so now and then. The good
actions should come spontaneously. Morality should be an integrated part of us, so that we make
good choices and act morally. How does this happen?
Aristotle thought that the only way to become virtuous is to act virtuous: To become
good, we must do good acts. Moral goodness is a result of habit and takes a lot of practice.
Virtue as the Golden Mean
Aristotle thought that ethical virtues were found in the middle of two extremes: The
Golden Mean. If one has too much of a virtue it becomes a vice, and the same if one has too little,
it becomes a different vice. A brave person is a virtuous one, but if one is too brave, one becomes
reckless, which is a vice. To be not brave enough is to be coward, which is also a vice.
People are different and we have different strengths and virtues. But some are more
important than others. Like Plato, Aristotle thought of Wisdom, Courage, Self-control and
Justice as cardinal virtues. In addition, he discusses virtues such as Generosity, Mildness,
Friendship, Wittiness and Modesty
Let’s put Aristotle's theory in a situation
Bravery, and the correct regulation of one's bodily appetites, are examples of character
excellence or virtue. So acting bravely and acting temperately are examples of excellent
activities. The highest aims are living well, and eudaimonia – a Greek word often translated as
well-being, happiness or "human flourishing".
Virtues are the Golden Mean between two vices:

Moral behavior is the mean between two extremes - at one end is excess, at the other
deficiency. Find a moderate position between those two extremes, and you will be acting morally.

https://www.google.com/search?q=healthy+lifestyle+cartoon&tbm

7
Illustration of Aristotle’s Golden Mean

The Golden Mean is a sliding scale for determining what is virtuous. Aristotle believed
that being morally good meant striking a balance between two vices. You could have a vice of
excess or one of deficiency. ... Aristotle believed that the good life lived from exercising
capacity to reason.
The golden mean focuses on the middle ground between two extremes, but as Aristotle
suggests, the middle ground is usually closer to one extreme than the other. For example, in the
case of courage, the extremes might be recklessness and cowardice. Being closer to recklessness
would be the sweet spot or “mean,” rather than being in the middle, which might represent
inaction.

SAQ

What does Aristotle mean by calling virtue a mean between extremes?

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

8
Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) was an intellectual and religious

revolutionary, living at a time of great philosophical, theological and
scientific development. He was a member of the Dominican Friars,
which at that time was considered to be a cult, and was taught by one of
the greatest intellects of the age, Albert the Great (1208–1280). In a
nutshell Aquinas wanted to move away from Plato’s thinking, which
was hugely influential at the time, and instead introduce Aristotelian
ideas to science, nature and theology.

Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory contains four different types of law: Eternal Law,
Natural Law, Human Law and Divine Law. The way to understand these four laws and how they
relate to one another is via the Eternal Law, so we’d better start there…
1. “Eternal Law’” Aquinas means God’s rational purpose and plan for all things. And
because the Eternal Law is part of God’s mind then it has always, and will always, exist. The
Eternal Law is not simply something that God decided at some point to write.
Aquinas thinks that something is good in as far as it fulfill its purpose/plan. This fits with
common sense. A “good” eye is one which sees well, an acorn is a good if it grows into a strong
oak tree.

But what about humans?

Just as a good eye is to see, and a good acorn is to grow then a good human
is to…?
Is to what?
How are we going to finish this sentence? What do you think?
Aquinas thinks that the answer is reason and that it is this that makes us distinct from rats
and rocks. What is right for me and you as humans is to act according to reason. If we act
according to reason then we are partaking in the Natural Law.
2. Natural Law : If we all act according to reason, then we will all agree to some overarching
general rules (what Aquinas calls primary precepts). These are absolute and binding on all
rational agents and because of this Aquinas rejects relativism.

Natural Law does not generate an external set of rules that are written down for us to
consult but rather it generates general rules that any rational agent can come to recognize simply
in virtue of being rational. For example, for Aquinas it is not as if we need to check whether we
should pursue good and avoid evil, as it is just part of how we already think about things.
Aquinas gives some more examples of primary precepts:
1. Protect and preserve human life.

9
 2. Reproduce and educate one’s offspring.
3. Know and worship God.
4. Live in a society.

3. Human Law which gives rise to what he calls “Secondary Precepts”. These might include
such things as do not drive above 70mph on a motorway, do not kidnap people, always wear a
helmet when riding a bike, do not hack into someone’s bank account. Secondary precepts
are not generated by our reason but rather they are imposed by governments, groups, clubs,
societies etc.
It is not always morally acceptable to follow secondary precepts. It is only morally
acceptable if they are consistent with the Natural Law. If they are, then we ought to follow them,
if they are not, then we ought not. To see why think through an example.
4. The Divine Law, which is discovered through revelation, should be thought of as the
Divine equivalent of the Human Law (those discovered through rational reflection and created
by people).
Divine laws are those that God has, in His grace, seen fit to give us and are those
“mysteries”, those rules given by God which we find in scripture; for example, the ten
commandments. But why introduce the Divine Law at all? It certainly feels we have enough
Laws. Here is a story to illustrate Aquinas’s answer.

Example:
We recognize that we find it hard to forgive our friends and nearly always impossible to
forgive our enemies. We tell ourselves we have the right to be angry, to bear grudges, etc. Isn’t
this just human? However, these human reasons are distortions of the Eternal Law. We need
some guidance when it comes to forgiveness and it is where the Divine Law which tells us that
we should forgive others — including our enemies. Following the Human Laws and the Divine
Laws will help us to fulfil our purposes and plans and be truly happy.

SAQ

What is wrong with natural law theory?

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

10
Emmanuel Kant’s Rights Theory

Emmanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) examined the idea of human rights within politics in such
a way that it “is only a legitimate government that guarantees our natural right to freedom, and
from this freedom we derive other rights”. From this basis it can be assumed that Kant looks at
the development, creation and implementation of rights as primarily dependent on the state and
how the government within the state functions.

Furthermore, Kant stresses that a society can only function politically in relation to the
state if fundamental rights, laws and entitlements are given and enhanced by the state. As Kant
teaches, these “righteous laws” are founded upon 3 rational principles:

1. The liberty of every member of the society as a man

2. The equality of every member of the society with every other, as a subject
3. The independence of every member of the commonwealth as a citizen.

Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty

Emmanuel Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas
begins with the thought that the only thing good without
qualification is a “good will”. While the phrases “he’s
good hearted”, “she’s good natured” and “she means well”
are common, “the good will” as Kant thinks of it is not the
same as any of these ordinary notions.
The idea of a good will is closer to the idea of a
“good person”, or, more archaically, a “person of good
will”. This use of the term “will” early on in analyzing
ordinary moral thought prefigures later and more technical
discussions concerning the nature of rational agency.
Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important commonsense touchstone to which
Kant returns throughout his works.
The basic idea, as Kant describes it in the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person
good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way “determined” by, or makes its decisions
on the basis of, the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who is
committed only to make decisions that she holds to be morally worthy and who takes moral
considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This sort of
disposition or character is something we all highly value, Kant thought. He believes we value it
without limitation or qualification. By this, we believe, he means primarily two things.
 First, unlike anything else, there is no conceivable circumstance in which we regard our
own moral goodness as worth forfeiting simply in order to obtain some desirable object.
 Second, possessing and maintaining a steadfast commitment to moral principles is the very
condition under which anything else is worth having or pursuing. Intelligence and even

11
 pleasure are worth having only on the condition that they do not require giving up one’s
fundamental moral convictions.
The value of a good will thus cannot be that it secures certain valuable ends, whether of
our own or of others, since their value is entirely conditional on our possessing and maintaining a
good will. Indeed, since a good will is good under any condition, its goodness must not depend
on any particular conditions obtaining.
Thus, Kant points out that a good will must then also be good in itself and not in virtue of
its relationship to other things such as the agent’s own happiness, overall welfare or any other
effects it may or may not produce A good will would still “shine like a jewel” even if it were
“completely powerless to carry out its aims” .
Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide

range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are
actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequential
ism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc.
that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being
evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In the language
of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” i.e. that action or policy that
produces the largest amount of good.
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative
principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex
because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things:
a) what things are good and bad;
b) b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize;
c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences

What is Good?
Jeremy Bentham (he is primarily known today for his moral philosophy, especially his
principle of utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based upon their consequences).

He answered this question by adopting the view called hedonism. According to hedonism,
the only thing that is good in itself is pleasure (or happiness). Hedonists do not deny that many
different kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many other things,
but hedonists see these as “instrumental” goods that are valuable only because they play a causal
role in producing pleasure or happiness.

12
 Utilitarian reasoning can be used for many different purposes. It can be used both for
moral reasoning and for any type of rational decision-making. In addition to applying in different
contexts, it can also be used for deliberations about the interests of different persons and groups.

John Rawls was an American political philosopher in the

liberal tradition. His theory of justice as fairness describes a
society of free citizens holding equal basic rights and
cooperating within an egalitarian economic system. His
theory of political liberalism explores the legitimate use of
political power in a democracy, and envisions how civic
unity might endure despite the diversity of worldviews that
free institutions allow. His writings on the law of peoples set
out a liberal foreign policy that aims to create a permanently
peaceful and tolerant international order.

Rawls constructs justice as fairness around specific interpretations of the ideas that citizens are
free and equal, and that society should be fair. He sees it as resolving the tensions between the
ideas of freedom and equality, which have been highlighted both by the socialist critique of
liberal democracy and by the conservative critique of the modern welfare state. Rawls also
argues that justice as fairness is superior to the dominant tradition in modern political thought:
utilitarianism.
These guiding ideas of justice as fairness are given institutional form by its two principles of
justice:
First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same
scheme of liberties for all;
 The first principle affirms that all citizens should have the familiar basic rights and
liberties
 the basic rights and liberties must not be traded off against other social goods.
Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
 Allowing inequalities of wealth and income can lead to a larger social product:
higher wages can cover the costs of training and education, for example, and can
provide incentives to fill jobs that are more in demand.

Justice and fairness means:

 Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms,
giving each person his or her due.
 fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's
feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that
are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case.

13
 Principles of Justice

The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it
was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals
should be treated equally and equals unequally."
 In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals
should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in
which they are involved."
For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences
between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages.
And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we
have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal
work situations.

Why Justice?
Justice, quite simply, forms the foundation of a civilized society.

Societies without just laws tend to be harsh and intolerant, often leading to conflict. We
hold up the rule of law and the ideal of justice as being blind to social status, wealth or anything
else.

In the Western world, we say that everyone has the right to ‘a fair trial’. We may or may
not entirely believe that on a personal level, but we probably all understand that the
principle is crucial.

The principle of justice has also led to some of the great changes in social issues in the
last two or three centuries. Think, for example, of the emancipation of women, the downfall of
apartheid in South Africa, or the civil rights movement in the USA. All, for the most part, were
driven by a strong sense of unfairness among first a few, and then many more, and not just
among the disenfranchised groups concerned.

Assessing your Sense of Fairness

To make an assessment of your sense of fairness, ask yourself a series of questions:

 Do I want the things that will help me to live a ‘good’ life (that is, a life that I will look back
on with pride and not with regret)?
 Do I have more or less than my fair share of the good things in life?
 Do I want to see a fair distribution of goods in the world, and do I dislike seeing unfairness
in the way that things are distributed?

14
 For example, do you find it difficult to justify the differences between the developed and
developing world and feel slightly uncomfortable when you think about poverty?

 How difficult do I find it to see others having good luck?

Ask yourself how you would feel if your partner or sibling won the lottery, and whether you
would feel delighted for them, or envious. How do you show your feelings towards others’
undeserved good luck?

 How much pleasure do I take in others’ bad luck?

SAQ

What is the role of justice and fairness in human behavior?

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

15
 ACTIVITY:

Ensuring Justice

1. Create a 3 minute video presentation (monologue) where you can find yourself in a situation
where you think you need to exercise justice or fairness.

2. In your video presentation , make sure that you emphasize the concept of justice and fairness
properly .
3. Be creative in your video presentation.

references

1. Eddie R. Babor, Ph.D. LL B. Ethics, updated edtition,ISBN 971-23,Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Manila , Phil.2010
2. Shafer-Landau, Russ, Ethical theory : an anthologyPublisher: Malden, MA : Blackwell
Pub., 2007
3. https://books.openedition.org/obp/4422

4. Banazon, prisciliano, Essentials of Values Education, Manila N.bookstore, 2012

5. Foot, Philippa, Ethics, great Britain: Oxford University 2010.

16