GE 108

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the module, you should
be able to:
1. explain the importance of ethics for
Filipino people regardless of time;
2. demonstrate the difference between
moral and non-moral problem-
situation;
3. discuss what moral experience is as it
happens at certain levels of human
existence;
4. explain understanding of the crucial
experience of philosophizing and
addressing ethical issues in
consideration of the socio-cultural
contexts of Filipinos;
5. describe the elements of moral
ETHICS development and moral experience;
6. apply ethical frameworks or principles
to analyze moral experiences;
7. decide sound ethical judgments
based on principles, facts and
stakeholders affected;
8. illustrate actions showing sensitivity for
the common good, as guided by the
spirit of genuine services;
9. develop and exhibit a life that
integrates principles of ethical
behavior in the modern, multi-cultural,
and globalized world at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with
the environment and other shared
resources.
COURSE INTRODUCTION
GE 108 is a course designed for the learners’ awareness formation on situations
requiring moral reflection, judgment as well as decision thereby revealing intricacies
surrounding moral choices and frameworks of public policies. This is recognized by the
Commission on Higher Education with its view on ethics dealing with the principles of
reasonable behavior in our present society at the stratum of the person and society, as
well as environmental interaction and other shared resources (CMO 20 s 2013). Morality
refers to conventions on the rightness and wrongness of human conduct. It is the
standards of actions every individual gathers from the community. Thus, the course helps
the students in making moral reflection, judgment and decision by employing dominant
moral frameworks along with the application of a number of steps in reasoning thereby
analysing and solving moral dilemmas. The course is arranged in three main elements of
the moral experience, i.e., the agent inclusive of cultural, communal, and environmental
contexts, the act, as well as the reason or framework for the act. Among others, it includes
important topics such as taxation.
A university’s vision is faithful to the development of virtuous human capital of
innovations for inclusive local and global development needs. Its mission is to produce
globally performing professionals and industry-ready graduates equipped with various
modalities to engage on both knowledge and technology thereby generating
improvement in the quality of life for sustainable society. The goal is to deliver quality
instruction in the arts and sciences and develop and produce competitive professionals
who are independent, confident, scientific and critical thinkers; 2) maintain the
preservation of cultural heritage, become proactive means of change, exemplify
disciplined and moral living, value and cultivate the arts, and contribute for the
enhancement of life. While supporting outcomes-based specialization program, every
graduate is able to 1) appreciate and appraise the different theories and societal
practices in politics and ethics; 2) adapt responses of people having varied views on
society, politics, and ethics; 3) address post-modern life’s challenges in society, politics
and ethics.
 COURSE GUIDE

COURSE TITLE: GE 108 – ETHICS

COURSE OVERVIEW
Dear Learner,

You are being welcome to this Course, GE108 or Moral Philosophy. This course
guide is constituted to give information on what you are expected to achieve in the
learning tasks you will undergo within the entire 1st Semester of the School Year 2022-
2023.

A. Introduction
The course, GE108 is designed for the learners’ awareness formation on situations
requiring moral reflection, judgment as well as decision thereby revealing intricacies
surrounding moral choices and frameworks of public policies. This is recognized by the
Commission on Higher Education with its view on ethics dealing with the principles of
reasonable behavior in our present society at the stratum of the person and society, as
well as environmental interaction and other shared resources (CMO 20 s 2013). During
the term, student is introduced to the ethical dimension of human existence in its different
levels – personal, societal, environmental, and cultural. The main queries this course seeks
to address includes what is ethics all about, how it is framed and practiced, and what is
the value thereof to the society and to him/her as a human person.
The present study on ethics or moral philosophy is intended to facilitate the
learning of the important concepts in ethics and the understanding of the right and
wrong standards. It helps student to come up moral decisions and demonstrates moral
reasoning and judgment through dominant moral frameworks with further application of
models of moral reasoning for the analysing and addressing moral dilemmas. The course
employs modular approach. Therefore, accomplishing the assigned tasks and activities
before and after the discussions and readings is a must.

B. Module and Unit Topics

In order to achieve the course learning outcomes within the entire First Semester,
the modules are assigned corresponding to the grading division of the term. Modules 1
to 4 are for the Midterm Grading period while Modules 5 to10 shall be for the Final Grading
period. Unless a new arrangement for the grading periods shall be deemed necessary.
The modules and unit topics hereunder shall be for the whole course coverage.

Module 1: Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 Definition and Nature of Philosophy
1.2 Branches of Philosophy
 1.3 Importance of Doing Philosophy

Module 2: Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

2.1What is Ethics? What Ethics is not?
2.2 Importance of Ethics
2.3 Moral vs Non-Moral Standards
2.4 What are dilemmas? Moral vs Non-Moral Dilemmas
2.5 Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas
2.6 Distinction of Action
2.7 Three-Fold Elements of Human Acts
2.8 Determinants of Morality

Module 3: The Moral Agent

3.1. Culture in moral behavior
3.1.1 Culture and its role in moral behavior
3.1.2 Cultural relativism
3.1.3 Asian and Filipino understanding
3.1.4 Moral behavior: strength and weaknesses
3.2. The moral agent: developing virtue
3.2.1 Moral character development
3.2.2 Moral development
3.2.3 Stages of moral development
3.2.4 Conscience-based moral decision

Module 4: The Act

4.1.1 Feeling and moral decision-making
1. Feelings as instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas
2. As obstacles to making the right decisions
3. Helping to come up with the right decision
4.1.2 Role of reason and emotion in moral decisions
4.1.3 Reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality
4.1.4 Reason and impartiality defined
4.2. The 7-step moral reasoning model
4.3. Moral Courage
4.3.1 Impediments to ethical decision-making
4.3.2 Moral Courage and Will

Module 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

5.1 Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism
5.2 Origins and Nature of the Theory
5.3 Utilitarianism
5.4 Relevance of Utilitarianism
5.5 Objections to Utilitarianism
Module 6: Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist
6.1 Immanuel Kant
6.1.1 Good Will
6.1.2 Categorical Imperative
6.2 Different Kinds of Rights
6.2.1 Legal
6.2.2 Moral

Module 7: Ethical Framework: John Rawls on Justice as Fairness

7.1 The Nature of the Theory
7.2 Distributive Justice
7.2.1 Egalitarian
7.2.2 Capitalist
7.2.3 Socialist
7.3 The State and Citizens: Responsibilities to each other
7.4 The principles of taxation and inclusive growth

Module 8: Ethical Framework: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

8.1 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
8.2 Telos
8.3 Virtue as Habit
8.4 Happiness as Virtue

Module 9: Ethical Framework: Thomas Aquinas Natural Law

9.1 St. Thomas Aquinas: Natural Law
9.2 Natural Law and its Tenets
9.3 Happiness as Constitutive of Moral and Cardinal Virtues

Module 10: Ethics through thick and thin, globalization and religion
10.1 Challenges of pluralism and fundamentalism: search for universal value
10.2 Globalization and pluralism: new challenges to ethics
10.3 Challenges of filinnials
10.4 The religious response: The role of religion in ethics.

III. Course Study Guide

1. You are advised to refer to the study schedule at the end of this section. You may at
will set your own time for studying this course. Make sure that you do not delay the
completion of every module in its prescribed schedule as your professor has provided 2
formative assessments in every unit particularly in the Engage and Elaborate segments,
i.e., an evaluative assessment at the end of the unit in the form of a quiz, a case analysis,
or a short essay. You are also required to have 2 summative tests (midterm and final
exam) for the entire semester.
2. You are provided hereby a Course Specification, Course Guide, and PDF files for your
readings.
3. You have to religiously follow the learning schedule. It is recommended that you allot
thereto 3-4 school days per topic.
4. You do not have to neglect reading all the discussions under the “Explain” section of
each module. Watch the suggested videos which are usually indicated in the “Explore”
section of the modules. Assimilate the materials given to you.
5. Pay attention to the formative assessments in the “Engage” section of each module.
They are intended to introduce you to the lessons discussed in the “Explain” sections.
Primarily they are simple questions which invite you to reflect on your own experiences,
thoughts, and behaviors, in relation to the topics covered in a specific module. In short,
you may provide subjective answers to the questions in the “Engage” sections since they
are intended for self-assessment. Meanwhile, the formative assessments in the
“Elaborate” section of each module are intended to test your understanding by applying
the lessons to yourself and/or other people’s experiences as well.
Please note that all formative assessments are not graded. However, you have to
accomplish them as part of your preparation for the evaluative assessments like the
quizzes and the summative tests (midterm and final exams) which are graded. The
activities and quizzes that you have to accomplish and the answer sheets that you will
be using are integrated in the module that you received or will be sent to you using either
the messenger, the student portal and/or google classroom.
6. There will be no face-to-face discussions for this course. There is also no synchronous
online discussions.
7. Type or write legibly in answering the assigned activities. Observe proper standards
required for academic writing. Be conscious with your grammar, word choice, and do
not forget the citations. Always observe the copyright laws and laws on data privacy.
The faculty handling the course may or will post in the Google classroom additional
instructions on how to comply your activities, quizzes, examinations and among others.
8. Once accomplished, submit your work to the Google classroom or as instructed by
your professor. Details for joining the Google classroom will be posted through the
Messenger group chat. Additional information will be announced by the faculty handling
the course on line.
9. Your course facilitator’s contact information is located at the end of this document.
However, you are not advised to contact him beyond office hours. You may rather see
him in person for important and urgent matters as we are also adopting the transition
period to a fully face-to-face classes in the new normal.
IV. Study Schedule

Week Topic Learning Activities

Outcomes
Module Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy
1
1 Week 1. Distinguish the Engage: state your initial impressions about what
Sept. 19 main concerns of philosophy is and your attitude towards people
to Sept. the different referred to as, “pilosopo.”
25, 2022 branches of
Philosophy; Explore: For a brief overview of philosophy’s humble
beginning and it development, explore Hanks 10
2. elaborate on minutes video here:
the basic topics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY
and frequent
questions dealt Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
with in philosophy; for the discussions).
and
Elaborate: Elaborate on the implication/s of the three
3. express what it main themes in philosophy on what makes a
actually means to philosopher, “philosopher,” in short, “what does it
“love wisdom.” mean to love wisdom?”

Evaluation: Answer the 1st quiz provided in the

module.
Module Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics
2
1 Week 1. compare and Engage: Do you think it is okay for us to pronounce
Sept. 26 contrast judgment about the morality or immorality of any
to Oct. “ethics/ethical” person based on what we have seen, or what we
02, 2022 and have heard about him or her? Would circumstances
“morality/morals;” around people matter when making moral
judgments?
2. discuss the
importance of Explore: Read through the discussion provided in the
Ethics to one’s life; “Explain” section of the module and then answer the
formative assessment provided.
3. decide whether
the dilemma Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
faced by people for the discussions).
in given situations
are moral Elaborate: What is “impartiality?” Elaborate its role and
dilemmas or not; significance in making moral decisions

4. identify which Evaluation: Answer the 2nd quiz provided in the

among the module.
determinants of
 morality is/are
involved in a
certain dilemma;
and

5. illustrate
understanding of
the fundamental
concepts in ethics
and morality such
as “knowledge,”
“voluntariness,”
and “impartiality”
by applying them
in solving certain
moral dilemmas.
Module The Moral Agent
3
2 Weeks 1. discuss what is Engage: Give at least (A) one cultural practice in the
Oct. 03 “Cultural place where you grew up, which is openly
to Oct. Relativism;” performed but you think is immoral, and (B) another
16, 2022 one cultural practice in your place which is
2. defend the prohibited but you think is moral. Give a brief
morality or critique justification for both.
for the immorality
of certain cultural Explore: Visit the following short videos to familiarize
practices; yourself to different cultural practices and beliefs
around the world:
3. articulate the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a_Gimqd6X4
strengths and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAdrZdis8c
weaknesses of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7GlMv5yflU
your own culture; For Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory on the 6 Stages of
Moral Development, watch the following short video
4. enumerate the about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4
different stages of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtIIs0WsRQ
Kohlberg’s theory
of Moral Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
Development; and for the discussions).
5. point out Elaborate: Reflecting on Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral
exactly which Development, what is the highest stage you have
stage a person is reached so far? Were you able to maintain or stay
“in to” in given in that stage for a long time or you slide to the
situations.
lower levels every now and then? Elaborate.

Evaluation: Answer the 3rd quiz provided in the

module.
Module The Act
4
2 Weeks 1. elaborate the Engage: Which do you usually rely on when making
Oct. 17 significance of decisions: your heart (feelings) or your mind
to Oct. emotions and (reason)? Could one be more reliable than the other
30, 2022 reason in making when making moral decisions?
moral decisions;
2. outline the 7 Explore: Watch any Video on Scott Rae’s Moral
steps of Scott Reasoning available in Youtube.
Rae’s Moral Watch Alex Gendler’s presentation of Plato’s Allegory of
Reasoning Model; the Cave here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA
A presentation and discussion of the Allegory of the Cave
3. apply Scott
in Filipino version can be seen
Rae’s 7-step Moral here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6hok2YmrIk
Reasoning Model
in certain moral Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
dilemmas; for the discussions).

4. appraise the Elaborate: How were the Impediments to Ethical

significance of Decision-making portrayed in Plato’s Allegory of
having moral the Cave? What specific character or objects in
courage and will; the allegory correspond to the specific
and impediment to ethical decision-making?

5. evaluate moral Evaluation: Answer the 4th quiz provided in the

situations with module.
impartial eyes.

MIDTERM EXAM
Week Topic Learning Activities
Outcomes
Module Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
5
2 Weeks 1. Differentiate Engage: Given the dilemma between your individual
Oct. 31 Ethical Egoism happiness and the happiness of the majority, which
to Nov. from Ethical one will you choose? Why?
13, 2022 Altruism;
Explore Watch the following short video
2. trace the presentations:
development of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI
Utilitarianism from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr9954kaFBs
the early https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MnnN000iXM
Hedonism;
Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
for the discussions).
 3. justify our Elaborate: Having read the discussions above and
present watched the suggested videos, differentiate Act
quarantine Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism.
protocols in the
country using Evaluation: Case Analysis 1: On the Covid-19
Bentham’s Felicific protocols and the current education system. Refer
Calculus; and to the “Evaluation” section of this module.

4. evaluate the
present education
system which is
Distance Learning
Education (DLE)
thru the lens of J.S.
Mill.
Module Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist
6
2 Weeks 1. State the Engage: Which do you think should be given more
Nov.14 importance of weight when making moral decisions: the
to Nov. sound and consequences of the action or the intention of the
27, 2022 reasonable person doing the act? Why?
decisions in moral
dilemmas; Explore For additional knowledge on Kantian ethics,
explore the following videos:
2. identify the Short doodle presentation of Kant’s ethics:
different kinds of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UhiRLuSlIU
Rights; Short discussion of Kant and Categorical Imperatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw
Discussion of the comparison between Mill’s Utilitarianism
3. discuss the role
and Kant’s Categorical:
of duty as the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg3mzfuCks
basis of good;
Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
4. formulate for the discussions).
maxims that can
become a moral Elaborate: Construct MAXIMs either about issues on
law; the Covid-19 pandemic or issues about
education.
5. cite instances
where someone Evaluation: Evaluation for module 6 is integrated in in
else’s maxim Module 7. Refer to the Evaluation section of Module
cannot rationally 7 and answer the Case Analysis provided.
become a moral
law;

6. differentiate a
hypothetical from
 the categorical
imperative; and

7. illustrate the
strengths and
weaknesses of
deontology as a
moral framework.
Module Ethical Framework: John Rawls on Justice as Fairness
7
1 Week 1. Portray the Engage: If given the opportunity, what specific
Nov. 28 background with government position would you want to have and
to Dec. which Rawls’ what specific problem will you be solving using that
04, 2022 theory of Justice is position? How will you solve that problem/issue?
based;
Explore: Explore videos on Rawls’ Theory of Justice:
2. discuss the two A visual review of Rawls’ theory of justice in just 2 minutes:
principles inherent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-J8huxT8E
in the concept of A discussion presentation of Rawls theory of justice in 16
“justice as minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI
fairness;”
Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
3. justify the for the discussions).
importance of
undergoing the Elaborate: Do you think the “equal opportunity
“veil of ignorance” principle” and the “difference principle” of Rawls’
when making theory of justice are seen/applied in our country’s
policies and moral taxation system? If NO, why? If YES, in what sense?
decisions; Evaluate:

4. tell why the Evaluation: Case Analysis 2: On the issue about

concept of justice “ayuda.” Refer to the “Evaluate” section of Module
as fairness is 7.
practical or not;
and

5.recommend
specific actions as
solutions to certain
specific problems
currently faced by
our present
government.
Module Ethical Framework: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
8
1 Week 1. Trace the Engage: Do you think you have the virtue of
development of courage? If yes, in what way? If no, why?
Dec. 05 the concept of
to Dec. Eudaimonia as the Explore:
11, 2022 highest good; Watch a summarized presentations of Aristotle and
Virtue Theory here:
2. identify which https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ
are the virtues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLsUO6uK4M
among the
different vices; Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
for the discussions).
3. determine the
possible level of Elaborate: What is happiness? Are virtuous people,
happiness that such as your hero, happier than vicious people?
one can attain, Are you happier when you are being virtuous? How
given the end that does being vicious affect you?
one is pursuing;
Evaluate: Evaluation for this module is integrated in
4. justify why man the next module. Please refer to the “Evaluate”
is considered as section of Module 9.
the “highest”
animal; and

5. apply Aristotle’s
“doctrine of the
Mean” in different
facets of life.
Module Ethical Framework: Thomas Aquinas
9
1Week 1. Trace the Engage: You know that you are failing in one of
Dec. 12 connections your subjects. Is it better to cheat during exam
to Dec. between the than to fail in that subject?
18, 2022 Eternal Law and
Natural Law; Explore Warch the following short videos for
additional knowledge on Saint Thomas’ moral
2. compare and philosophy:
contrast Aristotle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJvoFf2wCBU
and Saint https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVfd6oCF5M
Thomas’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo
concept of Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
happiness and for the discussions).
goodness;
Elaborate: “Can I still be good or capable of doing
3. differentiate what is good even if I do not believe in God?”
the cardinal Assuming you were Saint Thomas, what would your
virtues from the answer be? Elaborate.
 theological Evaluation: Answer the 6th quiz provided in the
virtues; and module.

4. argue for the

possibility or
impossibility of
“synderesis.”
Module Ethics through thick and thin, Globalization and Religion
10
1 Week 1. Explain the main Engage: Cite one specific problem associated with
Jan. 02 characteristics of globalization that is greatly affecting you right
to Jan. globalization, now and then reflect on how you should or
08, 2023 pluralism, and could cope with it using any of the ethical
fundamentalism; principles presented in the earlier modules.

2. enumerate the Explore Read N. Ramanuja’s article on the

challenges posed “Challenges in Global Ethics” and
by pluralism and Kazuisa Fujimoto’s article entitled, “Globalization and
fundamentalism in Ethics for the future.”
our quest for
universal value; Explain: (Refer to the “Explain” section of the module
and for the discussions).

3. assess the Elaborate: What does Ramanuja say about the

significance of effects of globalization in terms of religious beliefs?
religion and ethics Do you agree with him or not?
as a course in our
search for Evaluation: Editorial Cartoon: refer to the “Evaluate”
meaning in the section of the module for the instructions and
chaotic global guidelines.
world.
FINAL EXAM

V. Evaluation

Formative Assessment

The materials that may be reproduced include activities that you may answer
independently to test your knowledge about the lessons. There may also be embedded
activities in other presentations that will be provided for which you are encouraged to
perform as well. Formative assessment activities are not graded, but all of them are
necessary to prepare you for your evaluative assessments and summative tests.
 Evaluative Assessment

Evaluative assessment activities are graded. They are given as a quiz at the
“Evaluate” section in modules 1-3. The quiz for module 8 is integrated in module 9. There
are two (2) case analysis: one is in module 5 and the other is unified with the topics
covered in modules 6 and 7. Lastly, one (1) editorial cartoon which serves as the
completion project for this course. This last evaluative activity aims to integrate any of
the chosen ethical frameworks to the global issue of either on education or on the
global threat brought by the Covid-19 pandemic. Make sure that you accomplish all
the evaluative assessment activities since they are all graded and will comprise the
scores for your overall class performance.

Summative Assessment

There are only two (2) summative assessments for this course. The first summative
test is the Midterm Exam; it comprises all the topics covered by modules 1-4. The second
summative test is the Final Exam which includes all the topics found in modules 1-10.

Midterms and Final Exams Grading System

Midterm Grade
Class Standing (Quizzes) = 60%
Examination = 40%

Tentative Final Grade (TFG)

Class Standing
(Quiz, Case Analysis, and Editorial Cartoon) = 60%
Examination = 40%

FINAL GRADE
Midterm (50%) + TFG (50%)

VI. Technological Tools

The delivery of the course will require the use of the LNU subscribed Google Site,
LNU E-Learning Resources, and LNU Student Portal. Same Google Site will be used by the
students to send back their outputs if necessitated under covid emergency condition.
Otherwise hard copy/written outputs should be passed onsite.

VII. Contact Information of the Facilitator

Course Facilitator: E-mail:
PROF. BACTOL, JR. VICTOR P. vjr.bactol@lnu.edu.ph
Mailing Address: BAPoS/Soc. Sci. Unit
Leyte Normal University
Cor. Paterno St. & Sta. Cruz Sts., Tacloban City

Accomplished August, 2021

MODULE 1: Overview and Brief Introduction to Philosophy

This module is written for dual purposes. First, as an introduction to Philosophy for students
who never had encountered philosophy subject before and second as a re-view of what
philosophy is, for those who are oblivious about the course or whose propensity falls out
of the way to philosophizing.

The aim of this module is to:

(1) define what is philosophy;
(2) describe the nature of philosophy;
(3) present the different branches of philosophy; and
(4) state the importance of philosophizing.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 1, it is expected that you will be able to:
1. distinguish the main concerns of the different branches of Philosophy;
2. elaborate on the basic topics and frequent questions dealt with in philosophy; and
3. express what it actually means to “love wisdom.”

ENGAGE
Many people are either devoid of idea or possessing such a faint idea of what philosophy
is or think that we cannot have a sensibly serious conversation with a philosopher
because the latter think and speak of things “outside of what is usual.” Referred to as
“pilosopo” in our Filipino context has earned a pejorative meaning and so such a person
cannot be treated seriously in the sense that he/she is simply source of funny ideas. Before
proceeding to the formalities on the basic themes and branches of philosophy, and who
indeed is a philosopher, kindly state your initial impressions about what philosophy is and
your attitude towards people referred to as, “pilosopo.”

EXPLORE
For a brief overview of philosophy’s humble beginning and its development, explore
Hanks 10-minute video presented in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY

EXPLAIN

 1. Understanding Philosophy

In its nominal sense, the term philosophy is derived from the Greek words, philos
meaning lover or friend and Sophia which means wisdom or knowledge. Hence,
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Meanwhile, in its real sense, Philosophy is a science of
the ultimate reasons of beings as acquired by the aid of human reason alone (Bittle, 3-
12).

Philosophy, as a course, is quite different from other academic subjects. No brief

definition can express the richness and variety of philosophy. It is unique both in its
methods and in the nature and breadth of its subject matter. Philosophy delves into the
questions concerning every dimension of human affairs. Its techniques can be applied
to problems in any field of study or endeavor. There are various desirable descriptions of
Philosophy: a) Philosophy is a search for meaning or a quest for understanding; b)
Philosophy is a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths; c) Philosophy is a study of
principles of conduct; d) Philosophy seeks to establish standards of evidence to provide
rational methods of resolving conflicts, and to create techniques for evaluating ideas
and arguments; e) Philosophy develops the capacity to see the world from the
perspective of other individuals and other cultures; f) Philosophy enhances one's ability
to perceive the relationships among the various fields of study; and, g) Philosophy
deepens one's sense of meaning and variety of human experience.

Every aspect of human experience brings out questions to which its techniques
and theories apply, and its methods may be used in the study of any subject or the pursuit
of any vocation. Indeed, Philosophy is in a sense inescapable since life confronts every
thoughtful person with some philosophical questions, and nearly everyone is guided by
philosophical assumptions. To a large extent one can choose how reflective one will be
in clarifying and developing one's philosophical assumptions, and how well prepared
one is for the philosophical questions life presents. Philosophical training enhances our
problem-solving capacities, our abilities to understand and express ideas, and our
persuasive powers. It also develops understanding and enjoyment of things whose
absence impoverishes many lives such things as aesthetic experience, communication
with many different kinds of people, lively discussion of current issues, the discerning
observation of human behavior, and intellectual zest. In these and other ways, the study
of philosophy contributes immeasurably in both academic and other endeavors in life.

Philosophy, as a systematic study of ideas and issues, examines concepts and

views drawn from science, art, religion, politics, or any other endeavor. Philosophical
appraisal of ideas and issues takes many forms, but philosophical studies often focus on
the meaning of an idea and on its basis, coherence, and relations to other ideas.
Philosophy, in general, guarantees wisdom, leadership, and an excellent guide for our
genuine existence. Philosophy will never become obsolete as long as there is life.

 2. Approaches in Doing Philosophy

Since time immemorial, people need morality that promotes unity, peace,
harmony and solidarity in community. The moral life is and will always be the concern of
humanity and for as long as people have been living together in groups, the moral
regulation of behavior has been necessary to the group's well-being. Although these
morals were formalized and made into arbitrary standards of conduct, they developed,
sometimes irrationally, after religious taboos were violated, or out of chance behavior
that became habit and then custom, or from laws imposed by chiefs to prevent
disharmony in their tribes. Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations developed no
systematized ethics; yet, maxims and precepts set down by secular leaders mixed with a
strict religion that affected the Egyptian worldview. In ancient China, the maxims of
Confucius were accepted as a moral code. The Greek philosophers, beginning about
the 6th century BCE, theorized intensively about moral behavior, which led to the further
development of philosophical ethics.

From the Ionians to Socratic Greek world, it was always about the amazement and
wonder of how to live in relation to the environment. As such, these thinkers were then
cosmocentric because they were reflecting on the relation of man to nature. Medieval
life was focused on the relation of man to God thus were theocentric because they were
proving God as the beginning and end of man’s life. Modern thinkers were focused on
the use of human reasoning and human abilities thus from then on, the main concern of
doing things was anthropocentric because everything is centered on the human person.
Contemporary life or human endeavor today integrates the moral experience of
cosmocentrism, theocentrism, and anthropocentrism. In short, we cannot deny our
human need for nature, interpretation of human experience in relation to faith towards
the Mystery, the Sacred or the Divine Being and, the need to bring back the glory of
humanity as the center of all human experiences. Practically, there is no denial of ethical
life so that it is important to consider why are there moral standards and how do they
differ from rules of lives. What are moral dilemmas? Why is freedom crucial in our ability
to make moral decisions? What are the advantages of owning moral standards over
merely abiding by moral standards? Let us now look into the following moral versus non-
moral standards, moral dilemmas, three levels of moral dilemmas and, foundation of
morality.

 3. Importance of Philosophy in Life

Generally, philosophy is important 1) For acquiring persuasive powers: Philosophy

helps develop one’s ability and charisma to be more convincing of himself and of others.
2) For better communication skills: Philosophy helps one to express properly one's views,
enhances one's ability to explain difficult and challenging reading materials, and helps
one to eliminate ambiguities and vagueness from one's writing and speech; 3) For
enhancing better writing skills: Philosophy helps one to use his philosophical reasoning
and imaginations, and express his ideas through writing. Creativity and originality are also
encouraged; 4) For problem solving: Philosophy helps one to distinguish fine differences
between views and to discover common ground between opposing positions.

Specifically, philosophy is important in educational pursuits. It is very much

beneficial in the pursuit of education: 1) For better understanding of other academic
disciplines: Philosophy is helpful and useful in assessing the various standards of evidence
used by other academic disciplines; 2. For enhancing and developing sound methods of
research and analysis: Philosophy emphasizes clear formulation of ideas and problems,
selection of relevant data, and objective methods for assessing ideas and proposals, 3.
For those undergraduates who wants to pursue post- graduate studies: Philosophy, as a
course, is a good preparation for post-graduate degrees such as Law, Medicine, Master
in Business Administration, Master in Public Administration, Master in Educational
Management, and other master’s program.

Philosophy is also important in non-academic careers: 1) For personal

development; Philosophy helps one to gain better self-knowledge, better foresight, and
a better sense of direction in life; 2) For professional advancement and promotion:
People trained in philosophy are not only prepared to do many kinds of tasks; they can
also easily cope with change, or even move into new careers, more readily than others.
A recent long-term study by the Bell Telephone Company, determined that majors in
liberal arts fields, in which philosophy is a central discipline, "continue to make a strong
showing in managerial skills and have experienced considerable business success"
(Career Patterns, by Robert E. Beck).

ELABORATE

With the given discussion above and the video you explored, show what you think are
the implication/s of the three main themes in philosophy on what makes a philosopher,
“philosopher,” in short, “what does it mean to love wisdom?”

Love Wisdom

EVALUATE
Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

QUIZ 1: In the space provided before each number, write TRUE if the statement is
correct and write FALSE if the statement is incorrect. 1 point for each item.

___________ 1. “Philosophy” is derived from two Greek words namely, ‘philos’ and
‘sophos’ which means wisdom and love, respectively.

___________ 2. A student thinker also philosophizes especially when he or she applies

reasoning in the investigation of the truth, the good, and the beautiful.

___________ 3. Philosophy is in a sense escapable since life confronts every thoughtful

person with some philosophical questions, and nearly everyone is guided
by philosophical assumptions.

___________ 4. One of the main objectives of philosophy is to find meaning in life which
can be applied to one’s passion and pursuit of perfection.

___________ 5. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that guides us in evaluating the

arguments of others and in constructing correct arguments for ourselves.

___________ 6. If Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, then it asks everything and anything
about the world, ultimate causes of things, and even in the understanding
of the self.

___________ 7. Logic an Ethics are indispensable since all fields of knowledge professions
imply and necessitate sound reasoning and ethical standards.

___________ 8.We can learn philosophy by way of observing event happening in the
environment alone.

___________ 9. Philosophy is only for the intellectual people.

__________ 10. It is the practice of philosophers to regularly build on both the successes
and failures of their predecessors.

MODULE 2: Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

Module 2 will introduce you to the basic terms used in Ethics and to the main
components to be considered when dealing with ethical issues and when making moral
decisions. In this module we will:
(1) examine the subject matter of Ethics;
(2) determine what ethics is, and what ethics is not;
(3) distinguish actions, on whether they are “human acts” or “acts of man”
(4) show examples of moral dilemmas; and
(5) analyse the different determinants of morality.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Module 2, it is expected that you will be able to:

1. compare and contrast “ethics/ethical” and “morality/morals;”
2. discuss the importance of Ethics to one’s life;
3. decide whether the dilemma faced by people in given situations are moral
dilemmas or not;
4. identify which among the determinants of morality is/are involved in a certain
dilemma; and
5. illustrate understanding of the fundamental concepts in ethics and morality such
as “knowledge,” “voluntariness,” and “impartiality” by applying them in solving
certain moral dilemmas.

ENGAGE

A lot people easily judge others based on what they see about them at their “face
value.” For instance, when one sees a person giving a penny to a beggar, the former
may right away considers the latter as a “moral person,” a “good” person who is doing
what is “right.” Or when one sees someone being caught by a police officer for stealing,
the former may right away judges the latter as an “immoral person,” a “bad” person with
the offense committed.

Do you think it is okay for us to pronounce judgment about the morality or

immorality of any person based on what we have seen, or what we have heard about
him or her? Would circumstances around people matter when making moral judgments?
Write your answers in space provided.

EXPLORE
Read the discussion provided herein on the Basic and key Concepts in Ethics. Answer the
given formative assessment below to determine whether or not you can recognize the
differences between “human act” and “act of man.”

TRUE OR FALSE: Before each number, write T if the statement is correct, or F if the
statement is incorrect.

1. Circumstances may change a good or indifferent act into punishable one.

2. Circumstances may not increase or diminish the goodness or badness of an
action.
3. A gravely bad circumstance may destroy the goodness of an act which
eventually makes the whole act bad.
4. The intention determines the fundamental goodness or badness of an action.
5. The end or telos is not the purpose that motivates a person to perform the act.
6. A good intention cannot in anyway make a bad act good.
7. The end is good if it conforms with reason, otherwise it is bad.
8. Knowing the qualities or elements of human act will enable a person to make a
responsible judgment.
9. Moral responsibility is considered intrinsic or internal moral duty to knowingly,
voluntarily, and freely respond to a need in a situation.
10. An act of man can then become a human act when performed under the
direction of the will.

CATEGORIZING: Categorize whether the act is Human Act or Act of Man. Before each
number, write A if the act is a Human Act, or write B if the act is an Act of Man.

1. Jogging every morning

2. Brush, brush, brush, 3 times a day
3. Women monthly period
4. Praying before and after meal
5. Quick reflexes
6. Writing a good novel
7. Reading magazine everyday
8. Texting /communicating with your bf/gf daily
9. Breathing
10. Greeting Happy birthday to your friends/loved ones

EXPLAIN

 2. Basic and Key Concepts in Ethics

2.1. What is Ethics

Ethics is derived from the Greek word “ethos,” which means a characteristic way
of acting which also refers to the principles or standards of human conduct. Ethics is also
called moral philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending
concepts of right and wrong behavior; thus, ethics is sometimes referred to as the study
of morality. It is said to be a science insofar as it is a body of systematized knowledge
arranged with its accompanying explanation. In terms of content, it is not to be classified
as a course in science. Ethics as a practical science means that it consists of principles
and laws that are applied in daily living. In this sense, ethics is not a course taken for the
sake of contemplation; rather, it is a study taken for application in a person’s everyday
course of action. Ethics then is an applied knowledge.

As a philosophical science, ethics is not a technical course or a laboratory study.

Devoid of human experience, it presents and deliberates its subject matter “in the light
of its deepest principles by means of human reason alone.” There are various ways of
defining and discussing Ethics: 1) Ethics is a subject matter with content. It is a discipline
with a body of knowledge; 2) Ethics is a process of decision-making because it is a
thinking skill leading to actions that we perform coupled with accountability; 3) Ethics
refers to well-based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to
do in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. It refers to
standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder,
assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of
honesty, compassion, and loyalty. Ethical standards include values relating to rights, such
as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards
are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-
founded reasons; 4) Ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical
standards. Since feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical, it is
necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and
well-founded. It is a continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral
conduct and striving to ensure that we live up to standards that are reasonable and
solidly-based; and, 5) Ethics involves the study and application of “right” conduct. When
people ask themselves, “What ought I to do?” they are concerned of their actions that
might be wrong or are having difficulty working through the moral or values dimensions
and from these, they are asking an ethical question.

What Ethics is Not

Before we understand the moral from the non-moral standards, it is important to

look into some misinterpretations and misconceptions of what Ethics is all about. Such
misinterpretations and misconceptions can obliterate the real essence of Ethics as an
important branch of Philosophy. Raymond Baumhart, a sociologist, asked some people,
"What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following: "Ethics has to
do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong;" "Ethics has to do with my religious
beliefs." "Being ethical is doing what the law requires;" "Ethics consists of the standards of
behavior our society accepts;" and, "I don't know what the word means." These replies
might be typical of our own. The meaning of ethics is hard to pin down, and the views
that some people have about ethics are shaky and dangerous.

Ethics and Feelings

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings.
But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person following his
or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from
what is ethical. Several students fall into the trap of engaging in pre-marital sex because
they allow their feelings or emotions to dominate their rationality.

Ethics is not the same with psychology but is a companion to it.

Ethics is not merely attributed to observations and scientific interpretations of behaviors

like what psychology does. The ethicists dig deeper on the reason why an action is such
without necessarily quantifying and measuring human behaviors. However, psychology
admits that it developed and progressed in the course of time due to the contribution of
philosophy, a companion to its scientific investigations of human behaviors.

Ethics and Religion

Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to
religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to
the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards
and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be
confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Ethics is not the same with religion but speaks about it.

While religion seeks the meaning of human existence through spiritual nourishment with
Creed, Code and Ceremonies, ethics dwell on the reason or existence of religion. This
explains why we have philosophy of religion. However, since religion uses reason to
explain faith like theology, then we do philosophizing which we call moral philosophy. In
fact, ethics is also known as the study of morality.

Ethics and Law

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical
standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what
is ethical. What is legal is not necessarily ethical; but what is ethical is necessarily worth
legalizing. For instance; gambling, divorce, abortion, prostitution and the like can be
legalized in some nations, but they do not necessarily mean that they are ethical.

Ethics is not the same with studying law but is closely related to it.

While law is concerned about the effects of action through punishment and reward,
ethics dwell on a deeper meaning of action by finding the main reason of the act. This
explains the old adage, “not all legal is ethical.” However, if ethics reflect laws founded
on reason as their bases, then we do philosophizing like legal ethics.

Ethics and what Society accepts

Being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most
people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society
can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi
Germany before, particularly during the time of the holocaust, is a good example of this.
If being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical,
one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about
abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then
conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an
ethical issue by doing a survey.

Ethics is not the same with culture but is closely connected to it.

Ethics is not only about etiquette or manners like the GMRC (Good Manners and Right
Conduct) we used to learn. Learning variety of cultural norms is not a guarantee of
ethical evaluation. This explains why ethics is not only researches in cultural anthropology
or sociology that studies behaviors of a social group, an organization or a community.
However, in studying society and culture, we have social philosophy to explain the
reasons of organizations to exist. We can say then that culture and society are associated
with ethics as a branch of philosophy.

Finally, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics
with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not.
If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an
agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

Ethics and Morality

Ethics is not the same with morality but is closely linked to it. While moral standard or norm
of action is fixed and already set, ethics dwells on the use of reason. It is because we
cannot limit philosophy from mere norms of conduct. However, ethics is identical to moral
science or moral philosophy based from the Latin term mos (nominative) or moris
(genitive) which also means custom, or “traditional line of conduct.” It is from this root
word that the word moral or morality is derived. The term morality is synonymous with the
word ethics in etymological meaning; however, ethics deals more on the principles and
laws on the morality of human acts by providing the person knowledge that s/he may
know, what to do and how to do it. In other words, ethics provides the guides to the
performance of an act.

2.2. Importance of ethics

For some people, the importance of ethics only comes as a result of encountering
unethical conduct. But if Ethics is inculcated into one’s system, it is being carried into
one’s bloodstream and to the day-to-day activity of the individual. Ethics is an important
requirement for human existence. It is our means of deciding a proper course of action.
Without it, our actions would be aimless and not properly rooted. When a rational ethical
standard is taken, we are able to correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish
our most important values. Any blunder in our ethical values will reduce our ability to be
successful in our endeavors.

Ethics is important because of the following reasons: 1) It serves as a guide towards

our goals, rather than just allowing our lives to be controlled by self-serving motives,
accidental occurrences, customs, feelings, or our impulses; 2) It helps us deepen our
reflection on the ultimate questions of life and help us think better about the concerns of
morality; 3) It offers us a wider perspective on how to live our life to the fullest, taking into
consideration that we do not have the luxury of eternal time in this world; 4) It reminds us
of our duties, responsibilities, and accountabilities to ourselves, to our fellowmen, to our
society, to our nation, and to the world in general; 5) It encourages us to examine our life
and honestly evaluate how we are responding to the challenges and demands of this
contemporary time; 6) It increases our capacity to perceive and be sensitive to relevant
moral issues that deserve consideration in making our choices that will have significant
impact on ourselves and on others; 7) It polishes, strengthens and brings out to the fore
our value priorities in life which will make us better and happy individuals; and, 8) It helps
us realize and become what we ought to be in this challenging, yet beautiful, world.

2.3. Recognizing Terms in Ethics

There are ethical terms to be distinguished in relation to human acts: It is important

to consider Moral, Amoral, and Immoral actions.

Moral actions or events are those which require the goodness of the object
chosen, the intention or the end in view, and of the circumstances together. Moral
actions are deemed to be good as one performs the moral rules or codes of the
society.

Immoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest where moral categories
do apply and are considered to be evil, sinful, or wrong according to the code of ethics.
For examples: consciously telling a lie; graft and corruption; cheating during
examinations, gluttony, taking a sip of water fully aware that there is hemlock in it
(suicide), and many more.

Amoral actions or events are those actions or areas of interest exhibiting

indifference. At times, these are manifested in the absence of knowledge,
freedom and voluntariness on the part of the acting agent. For examples: a young
child who speaks bad words, an Aeta who just came from the mountain obstructs
a city traffic, a person innocently taking a sip of water but the water contains a
hemlock, or a man accidentally entering the ladies comfort room.

2.4. Moral versus Non-Moral Dilemmas

A moral dilemma is a situation in ethics where the human person is to choose

between two possible alternatives and the options become limited. In decision-making,
even when you do not want to choose to act in a situation, that is still considered a
choice. It is impossible then that there is no possible option. Thus, whatever is the decision
a person makes, it is expected for that person to stand and be responsible with the
decision s/he takes whatever the consequences could be. To decide is to be responsible.

Moral dilemma happens when we cannot make a distinction between what is a

good act from an evil act. When we encounter question of ethics like, is it moral to attend
my class even if I am sick? Is it necessary to avoid killing someone when my life is in
danger? Is waking up early necessary when am always late in going to school? Is it
important to maintain my diet even if my doctor advised me not to? To avoid moral
dilemma, it is important to distinguish the good act from a bad act.

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object chosen, of the intention,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself like for instance in the case of praying and fasting in order to be seen by
men. The chosen object can by itself vitiate or destroy an act in its entirety. There are
some concrete acts, such as bribery, robbery, fornication, and the like, which are always
wrong to choose, because choosing them entails an evil act.

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the
intention that inspires them or the circumstances which supply their context. There are
acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are
always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy, murder, adultery, and
the like. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. According to St. Thomas
Aquinas, an evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention. A good
intention does not make the action or behavior that is intrinsically disordered, good or
just. The end does not justify the means. Thus, the condemnation of an innocent person
cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the country.

2.5. Distinction of Action:

Human acts are the fundamental foundation of morality. These acts which are
under the control of the will and therefore done knowingly and willingly; not acts which
happen by accident, as falling, or by nature, as growing, but acts performed by choice,
that is, after deliberation and decision. They are imputable to their human author to the
extent that he has knowledge of his own activity and its import, and to the extent that he
has freedom of election. The moral or ethical character of the human act lies in this, that
it is freely placed with knowledge of its objective conformity or nonconformity with the
law of rational nature.

As elaborated by ethicists, human acts are characterized by the following: 1) Acts

which are free and voluntary; 2) Acts done with knowledge and consent; 3) Acts which
are proper to man as man; because of all animals, he alone has knowledge and freedom
of the will; 4) Acts which are under man’s control, and for which he is responsible for its
consequences; and, 5) Acts which man is the master and has the power of doing or not
doing as he pleases. On the other hand, human acts should be differentiated from
ordinary ‘acts of man’. Acts of man are bodily actions performed without deliberation
and in the absence of the will. For instances, the blinking of our eyelids, our breathing
patterns, sneezing, and the like are considered as acts of man. In many ways, we are
accountable to our actions but somehow our responsibility is lessened unlike human acts
that absolutely require moral obligation and responsibility.

Human Act requires moral responsibility that is derived from a person. If

responsibility is a coined term of “response” and “ability” then the ability to response is
important in ethics because “no one can give what he/she does not have.” It is expected
for young people studying ethics to respond to the problems of society today based on
their capacities. As such, we can apply the old saying, “if there’s a will, there’s a way.”
For example, the right to vote in local and national election, participate in any assembly,
joining school organizations, becoming choir members of the Church, joining professional
associations, and other organizing activities, are simple ways that young people can do
to become responsible individuals. If a person achieves an ethical attitude, it presupposes
that he/she takes moral responsibility to society. A personal conviction of what is “right
and wrong” becomes a social duty and such duty must be put into action. This makes
ethics an axiology, or what philosophy calls praxis, the emphasis on the practical
application of ethical ideas.

There are two significant considerations of ethics; the Ethics of Being and the Ethics
of Doing. In the Ethics of Being, the emphasis is on the “character development” which
involves the integrations of virtues, values and personhood; it is looking into the foundation
of actions who is the “good person” while the Ethics of Doing focuses not only the
goodness of the person but on the ability of the person to put into action his/her ethical
conviction (Fr. Ramon Coronel & Fr. Paul Van Parijs, CICM, Bioethics, 1996). It is not enough
simply to be contented in believing to be a good person while forgetting to do good
actions. On the other hand, it also not good just to think that you are doing good while
you forget that you are first and foremost a good person. There is the need to harmonize
the two considerations of ethics. Hence, you do a good act because you believe and
think that you are a good person capable of doing good. Both considerations are
inseparably related to be better person – intellectually mature, psychologically stable,
socially involved, spiritually nourished and economically well-off and, to do good acts.

Our ethical responsibility is reflected in the following scheme:

Foundation of Morality

Ethics:
Ethics Human acts: Bases of
human responsibility: Free, Moral Responsibility
Theory and
voluntary, and deliberate
Principles as
guidelines of
human actions

The fundamental bases of morality start with the use of reason, exercise of human
freedom, wilful, voluntariness, and deliberate act. Ethical principles and theories are
guidelines for human actions for which we can only talk about moral responsibility. It is
because we cannot be totally responsible to our actions that we are not aware of. We
can only be responsible to our actions that we are aware of, freely acting on them, and
voluntarily responding to the circumstance we are engaged in. With our moral conviction
arises our moral responsibility.

2.6. Three-fold Elements of Human Acts

There are three essential elements to consider any action to be a human act.
Without one of these elements, the action cannot be considered as a human act. These
are knowledge, freedom of the will, and voluntariness.

Knowledge is awareness or being conscious of one’s actions including its possible

consequences. The act of knowing is always consciousness of something which is
inevitably linked to the subject, who is the knower. For example, an insane person and a
three-year old child are not liable for their actions since they are not capable of acting
with proper knowledge. Their actions can never be considered as immoral. College
students and professionals are expected to be possessors of knowledge; thus, they
cannot claim excuses for their immoral actions. They are liable for the consequences of
their actions. According to Aristotle, knowledge is the first element of ethical practice.
This knowledge provides a framework for deliberating about the most appropriate
technique(s) by which the good can be attained. But, it should be noted that; although,
knowledge is a requirement for considering an act to be a human act, being
knowledgeable or being aware of what is ethical or moral is not a guarantee that the
person is already considered as an ethical or moral person. It is not enough for an
individual to know what is good. What really count are his good acts.

Freedom of the Will. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is the power which human
beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their reasons. This
always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a certain action.
Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the part of the
individual would be meaningless. Insane people who have no control of their minds and
children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do or not to do, are
not responsible for their actions. Matured people, college students and professionals are
expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they are responsible or liable for their
actions.

Voluntariness. This is an act of consenting or accepting a certain action whether

it is done whole-heartedly, half-heartedly, or non-heartedly. According to Aristotle, the
moral evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of responsibility to a human
agent; thus, responsible action must be undertaken voluntarily (Nicomachean Ethics III).
Agapay presented four modes of voluntariness. These are perfect, imperfect,
conditional, and simple voluntariness.

Perfect Voluntariness is actualized by a person who is fully aware and who fully
intends an act. The person, under perfect voluntariness, is fully convinced of his action
including its consequences. A politician who, in his right mind, engages in graft and
corruption is considered to be acting with perfect voluntariness. Imperfect Voluntariness
is seen in a person who acts without the full awareness of his action or without fully
intending the act. A drunken person who, acting irrationally, jumps from a ten-storey
building is said to be exhibiting an imperfect voluntariness. Conditional Voluntariness is
manifested by a person who is forced by his circumstances beyond his control to perform
an action which he would not do under normal condition. A freshman college student
who is forced by his parents to enrol in a course which is against his will is showing a
conditional voluntariness. Simple Voluntariness is exhibited by a person doing an act
wilfully regardless of whether he likes to do it or not. It can either be positive or negative.
It is a positive simple voluntariness when the act requires the performance of an act. For
examples: Studying one’s lesson; participating in class discussions; engaging in sports,
and so on. It is a negative simple voluntariness when the act does not require the
performance of an act. For examples: Remaining silent or choosing to be alone; deciding
not to go to a drinking spree; avoiding to take illegal drugs; and so on.

2.7. Determinants of Morality

Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to
speak, the master of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in
consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either
good or evil. The morality of human acts depends on the object chosen; the end in view
or the intention; and the circumstances of the action. These are the factors to consider
in making ethical judgement in determining the morality of human acts.

Object Chosen: This is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. The
chosen object resides out the acting subject. The object chosen morally specifies the act
of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with
the true good. Examples of Good Chosen Objects: nutritious foods; hard-earned money
or wealth; educational books and films; and the like. Examples of Bad Chosen Objects:
Forbidden drugs; Pornographic materials; Leakages for examinations; and others.

The Intention: This is a movement of the will toward the end. It is concerned with
the goal of the activity. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose
pursued in the action. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken.
Intention is not limited to directing individual actions but can guide several actions
toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end.
For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same
time be inspired by the love of the Divine Being as the ultimate end of all our actions.
One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing
a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it. The intention resides in the acting
subject as contrast to the object chosen. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an
action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral
evaluation of an action.

The Circumstances: These, including the consequences, are secondary elements

of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of
human acts. For instances: the number of people killed; the amount of money being
stolen; the number of trees cut by loggers; the regularity of the graft and corruption done
by politicians; the number of times a lie is spoken; or, the number of times a student
cheated. They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility. For examples:
acting out of ignorance or fear of death; acts done because of habit; choosing between
two or more evils in a certain situation; being forced to do something against one’s will;
and so on. It should be noted that circumstances of themselves cannot change the
moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is
in itself evil.

In Summary: A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end,
and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is
good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of
the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such
as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a
disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of
human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances
(environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context.
There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and
intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and
perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of
the morality of human acts. The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing
accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil. "An evil action cannot be
justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). A
morally good act therefore requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its
circumstances together. There are concrete acts which are always wrong to choose
because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil
so that good may result from it.

ELABORATE

What is “impartiality?” Elaborate its role and significance in making moral decisions in
the box provided.
EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

QUIZ 2: This is a quiz on Ethics and Morality [20 points].

ON ETHICS AND MORALITY:

ENUMERATION
1-4 Enumerate at least 4 significance of Ethics and briefly describe each. 8 points
A. ______________________________________________________________________________

B. ______________________________________________________________________________

C. ______________________________________________________________________________

D. ______________________________________________________________________________

5. Enumerate the similarities and differences between Ethics and morality.12 points
Similarities:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Differences:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
References:
Agapay, Ramon B. (1991) Ethics and the Filipino: A manual on morals for students and
educators. Manila: National Bookstore, Inc., 1991.

Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. (Fall 1987). Issues in ethics: Vol.1 No.1, Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics.

Audi, Robert. (2000). Philosophy: A brief guide to undergraduates. The American

Philosophical Association.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). (1994) Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP).

Coronel, Ramon & Parijs, Paul Van, CICM. Bioethics (1996). Baguio City: St. Louis
University (SLU)

Frank Navran, (1998) Ethics. Resource Center’s Principal Consultant Jackson, Wayne.
Christian Courier: Archives. October 26, 1998.

Gensler, Harry J. (1998). Ethics: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.

Gualdo, et al. (2012). Ethics and contemporary moral issues. Revised Edition. Quezon
City: Mutya Publishing.

Kaplan, J. D, Ed. (1958). The pocket Aristotle. New York: Washington Square Press.

Montemayor, Felix. Ethics: The philosophy of life. (1994). Navotas: National Bookstore.

Petrick, Joseph A and John F. Quinn. (1997) Management ethics: Integrity at work.
California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pp. 89-91.

Rachels, James (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th Edition. Boston: McGraw
Hill.

Velasquez, Manuel. (2005). Philosophy: Text with readings. “Ethics.” 9th Edition.
Australia: Thomson and Wadsworth.

Electronic Sources:
http://www.ethics.org/staff_bios.
http://www.philosophy.lander.edu
http//www.philosophy.lander.edu
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialresponsibility.asp
http://www.ehow.com/info_7861861_difference-between-social-responsibility-
ethics.html
https://www.pachamama.org/social-justice/social-responsibility-and-ethics
http://www.imasocialentrepreneur.com/social-responsibility/
MODULE 3: The Moral Agent
 Module 3 looks at culture and its role in the development of the human person’s moral
behavior. Here we will be looking at our own Filipino culture vis-à-vis Asian and other
countries’ culture, and determine their influences in our process of becoming as moral
human agents. Specifically this module aims to:
(1) revisit our own Filipino cultures and reflect on their roles in the development of our
moral behaviors;
(2) familiarize with other countries’ cultural practices and beliefs;
(3) understand what is “Cultural Relativism;”
(4) analyse cultural ambivalence
(5) show the different stages of moral development.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Module 3, it is expected that you will be able to:

1. discuss what is “Cultural Relativism;”
2. defend the morality or critique for the immorality of certain cultural practices;
3. articulate the strengths and weaknesses of your own culture;
4. enumerate the different stages of Kohlberg’s theory of Moral Development; and
5. point out exactly which stage a person is “in to” in given situations.

ENGAGE

Give at least (A) one cultural practice in the place where you grew up, which is openly
performed but you think is immoral, and (B) another one cultural practice in your place
which is prohibited but you think is moral. Give a brief justification for both.

A. ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
B. ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

EXPLORE

Visit the following short videos to familiarize yourself to different cultural practices
and beliefs around the world:

Strange Customs Around The World That Are Still Happening in 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a_Gimqd6X4

Insane Beauty Standards Across Different Cultures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAdrZdis8c
 10 Most Bizaare Traditions From Around The World:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7GlMv5yflU

For Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory on the 6 Stages of Moral Development, watch the
following short videos about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtIIs0WsRQ

EXPLAIN

 3.1. Culture and Its Role in Moral Behavior

What is the role of culture in shaping moral behavior?

For centuries, culture has been

Kinds of Culture
defined in so many ways. But
Culture is that complex whole anthropologists, scientists,
which includes knowledge, belief, Individual Culture
thinkers and experts could not (i.e., Rodrigo,
art, morals, law, custom, and any
create and agree on one Baustista, Donald,
other capabilities and habits
universal definition of culture. student, driver, farmer)
acquired by man as a member of
society,” Studies and discussions about it Organizational
Culture (i.e., company,
[Tylor, E. (Spencer- Oatey, 2012)] are impressively mushrooming
institution, association
and increasingly becoming agency, corporation,
controversial everywhere. Thus, group, firm, assembly)
it would be safer to first typify culture into two: material and formal. Structural (i.e.,
network of institutions,
Formal Culture points to all the abstract, non-physical, spiritual, information systems,
global network, United
mental, immaterial, invisible elements such as knowledge, Nations)
philosophy, beliefs, ideas, morals, laws, customs, values, emotions,
assumptions, systems, orientations. Whereas Material Culture refers
to all the physical, corporeal, solid, spatial, sensible, temporal, actual, observable (visible
and audible) and tangible objects such as the artifacts, actions or behaviors, arts,
buildings, technology, music, “popular” (television, movies, mass media, social media,
fads, digital gadgets), costumes, architectures, food, utensils, designs, dances, smell,
means of transportation, tools and inventions. As a vehicle or expression, Material Culture
is shaped by Formal Culture in the same way as the Material Culture (e.g. popular culture)
may also shape Formal Culture (e.g. new radical religious sects).
The two types are interrelated co-principles. Their being intertwined Arranged Child
makes an overlap that makes it difficult to create a universal Marriage is a
meaning of culture. This is manifested in Oatey’s (2012) distinction of cultural practice by
the three fundamental levels at which culture manifests itself: (a) some of the tribes in
observable artifacts, (b) values, and (c) basic underlying the Cordilleras in
assumptions. They could also be categorized as the individual which some parents
culture, organizational culture and structural culture. Following the agree on having
Western or deductive process since culture is a foreign concept, the their children to get
three levels of culture are discussed from the structural to the marry when they
reach young
individual.
adulthood. ”
[Tylor, E. (Spencer-
The first level (INDIVIDUAL), the analysis of the Eskimo’s moral behavior Oatey, 2012)]
(under Material Culture) – “lending his wife to a guest for a night” is
visible and easily described as distasteful but hard to decipher or
interpret especially the underlying good or right reasons why it is done and being
preserved.

Following Oatey’s (2012), to analyze this Eskimo’s moral behavior it is important to study
the values (under both Material and Formal Culture) that govern such behavior. But the
espoused value such as hospitality (Rachels, 2003) of “lending a wife to a guest for a
night” is hard to observe directly. So when the Eskimos say that such moral behavior is
part of their hospitality it is interesting to analyse why hospitality is the reason for such
behavior, what they ideally would like hospitality to be, and what are often their
rationalizations for “lending of wife to a guest for a night.” Or could it be that the value
of hospitality is just the biased understanding of non-Eskimo observers. The value of
hospitality is becoming the acceptable value to some Eskimos and outsiders.
Nevertheless, the underlying espoused value of hospitality for the “lending of wife to a
guest for a night” remains unknown.

“To really understand a culture and to ascertain more completely the group’s values and
overt behavior, it is imperative to enquire into the underlying assumptions, which are
typically unconscious but which actually determine how group members perceive, think
and feel” (Oetey, 2012). Assumptions (under Formal Culture) are the philosophies and
beliefs about what things really are or their conceptions of what is good and right
(morality). They are learned and transformed values that lead to moral behaviors. To
explain such moral behavior then is to consider their assumptions on marriage, sex and
life as a whole. To Rachels (2003), this could be traced from their assumptions: that men
could have more than one wife, that men can have sex regularly with other men’s wives,
and that they have less regard to human life. But, as a value of hospitality leads to the
behavior of “lending of wife to a guest for a night,” and as the “lending of wife to a guest
for a night” begins to answer disagreements or condemnations, the value of hospitality
gradually is transformed into an underlying assumption and the three original assumptions
are increasingly taken for granted. The taken-for-granted assumptions are so powerful
because they are less or non-debatable. There is a possibility to just be silent about it
because it can cause disorder and more troubles among them. Besides, they are more
concerned with other challenges of life. According to Oatey’s (2012): “they can be
brought back to awareness only through a kind of focused inquiry.”
3.1.1 The Role of Moral Behavior in Creating a Culture

It is not hidden to the consciousness of everyone that as culture shapes moral

behaviors, moral behaviors simultaneously create culture. Culture and moral behaviors
are inseparable of which a culture could be found in moral behavior just as the moral
behaviors happen in or even create and enhance a culture. This follows the Eastern or
inductive process whereby the individual leads to the structural. This is best expressed by
the author below:
“Culture in its
“All that I am, all that I have, all that I do… are all products of broadest sense is
my culture. I am and live in a culture, which eventually cultivated behavior;
becomes me, my very person. I cannot escape from my that is the totality of a
culture. It determines my every personal behavior, which person's learned,
accumulated
simultaneously reveal the kind of my culture. experience, knowledge,
beliefs, values,
Using the same example of the Bontoc Igorots, the process attitudes, meanings,
could be inverted in such a way that their artifact “o′-lâg” or the hierarchies, systems,
physical separation of the young marriageable women to live in the religion, notions of
time, roles, spatial
“o′-lâg” is what shapes their value of high respect for women and
relations, concepts of
their beliefs that monogamous marriage is a blessing of God in order the universe, and
to raise many children and that a married woman should always be material objects and
true to her husband. possessions which is
socially transmitted.”
Further, the claim that the invading western
Symbols
foreigners who brought with them their creations or artifacts
“Every culture is filled (symbols) such as their modern clothes, betamax (films) and others
with symbols, or things raised their level of awareness (just like in the case of Adam and
that stand for Eve after eating the forbidden apple). The Bontoc women started
something else and that
often evoke various to develop the values of honor and dignity through the feeling of
reactions and embarrassment. Their involuntarily adaptation of the foreign
emotions. Some values simultaneously made them hate or put malice on their own
symbols are actually values. Then, their normal practices of being visited by men to
types of non-verbal
communication, while have sex in the “o′-lâg” became a taboo such that they were
other symbols are in most likely shaping also their own culture and assumptions that
fact material objects.” marriage is essentially a sexual relationship and separation is the
(Retrieved from
answer to its problems, and that a married woman is free to be
https://doi.org/10.24926 true or not to a husband depending on what works for her (similar
/8668.2401) to that of the foreigners). Such assumptions are hard to know or
even to justify and to impose on them because they are invisible
and taken for granted. There could also be other assumptions that need further research.

Some observers attribute the growing “culture of rape” or dramatic increase of

rape cases in a certain place with the fast growing foreign influences that spouse
problematic values and beliefs. Alarmed by this developments, many moral behaviors
have been initiated by a top government official encouraging barangay officials not to
amicably settle cases of sexual abuse, and barangay councils to reassess their
development plans for the protection of children (Baybay, 2011). The political moral
behavior only expresses that such culture of immoral amicable settlement should not
determine their values. It is his people’s moral behaviors that should form a “culture of
strong respect for children and women.”

3.1.2 Cultural Relativism

With the advent of globalization and information technology, cultural diversity

became more immanent. People became more aware of the diverse cultures in the
world with just a click of their computer mouse. They could now easily visit or explore the
cultures of the world because of the advancement of transportation and technology.
They have increasingly become aware of cultural diversity and the influence of such
awareness to their understanding, decisions and values. Nevertheless, they have been
constantly confronted with the difficult moral questions of whether to just simply become
neutral to other cultures’ moral practices even if they are against their values or not, and
whether to simply adapt other cultural practices or not. They are challenged with the
phenomenon of Cultural Relativism.

Cultural Relativism refers to the

understanding or belief that
Some Cultural Facts
everything should be judged only
In the United States, for example, if we nod our head up
according to one’s own respective and down, we mean yes, and if we shake it back and
culture. A cultural relativist believes forth, we mean no. In Bulgaria, however, nodding
that there is no superior or inferior means no, while shaking our head back and forth
culture; no culture is better than the means yes! In the United States, if we make an “O” by
other. That is, all cultures are unique putting our thumb and forefinger together, we mean
“OK,” but the same gesture in certain parts of Europe
with their own strengths and signifies an obscenity. “Thumbs up” in the United
weaknesses, benefits and detriments. States means “great” or “wonderful,” but in Australia it
means the same thing as extending the middle finger in
In past centuries in Northern Luzon, the United States. Certain parts of the Middle East and
the lowlanders’ discrimination of the Asia would be offended if they see you using your left
hand to eat, because they use their left hand for
Igorots could have been a product of bathroom hygiene. Belgians count through their fingers
their belief that Igorots are animals starting from the thumb to the index finger while
because they have tails (bahag or g- Filipinos start counting the opposite way.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2401
string) and live in the mountains,
therefore, are inferior to their culture.
But after the intermarriages and interactions brought about by the development of roads
and bridges, both lowlanders and highlanders became aware of their need to
understand each other not from their own respective culture. They have learned to put
themselves “into the shoe of the other” or to understand the other by using the other’s
mind. Besides, other university students may be amused and make fun of the UP students’
“oblation run” but they could never understand unless they study how such practice
relate to UP’s “way of life.” Likewise, UPians may not understand other universities ’cultural
celebrations if they will not study the institutional history.

Here are some of the strengths and weaknesses of Cultural Relativism:

Strengths Weaknesses
 Its fails to accept that not all beliefs
It recognizes cultural and human
and cultural or social practices are
differences.
equally admirable.
It promotes respect and tolerance to It leads to mediocrity, moral
diversity or cultural-sensitivity and indifference and end of moral
uniqueness. progress.
It produces a peaceful and harmonious It promotes social anarchy because
society despite mass migration and each culture claims and stands for “a
differences. true culture.”
It rejects moral absolutism, imperialism It upholds democracy, consensus and
and superior ideologies. fairness to other ideologies.
It recognizes the natural sociality,
It seems culture has the sole influence
conformity and interdependency
on human life and morality.
among peoples.
It strengthens personal responsibility: It weakens social responsibility as if
each is fully responsible for his own humans cannot do anything to
moral actions and beliefs. change culture.
It advocates true multiculturalism and It leads to deterioration or corruption
adjustments for changing factors in of moral values, institutions and
society. societies.
It promotes humility and acceptance of
It promotes skepticism and atheism.
limitation or probability of things.
It recognizes that language is not It discourages common language for
neutral because culture determines unity and common standards to judge
language. moral beliefs or actions.
It supports non-judgmental attitude that It makes the job of ethics as purely
foster dialogue, cooperation and descriptive (non-prescriptive), thus,
learning. ineffective.
It allows one culture solve its own moral
It rejects any interference by one
problems and grow naturally in its
culture in the morality of another.
morality.
It accepts other ethical theories that It fails to determine other ethical
can bring a good life. theories that can bring a good life.

Thus, Cultural Relativism is not absolute. There will always be an occasion where
people will somehow judge another culture as inferior through their own cultural beliefs
and practices. Somewhere, somehow, there are some cultural practices that are
condemned, even if they are the most valuable or practiced, because they violate some
basic human rights. For example, a common practice in areas of India and Pakistan
is dowry deaths, where a husband and his relatives murder the husband’s wife because
her family has not provided the dowry they promised when the couple got married
(Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009).
Non-tenability of Cultural Relativism in Ethics:
The Asian-Filipino Way Filipinos who know they
are doing wrong but do not
want to change easily find
While recognizing the strengths of Cultural Relativism for
excuses like "ako'y tao
loosening stringent and absolute attitudes and opening lamang" (I'm but
conservative minds toward others, it is very critical to respond human), "ganyan lamang
to the weaknesses of Cultural Relativism. Acknowledging ang buhay" (life is like
strengths should all the more encourage courageous solutions that), "bahala na" (come
to the weaknesses of Cultural Relativism. These weaknesses what may), or "eveybody is
doing it."
could be answered by considering other ethical theories.
In this age of "passing the
Because of globalization that somehow ironically buck," another excuse
opened and vastly exposed cultural diversity, people have for shrinking
recognized cultural personal
variations over time responsibility is the
Some Socio-cultural Facts periods, between Filipinism, "I am not the
In China, South Korea, and other parts individuals, one".
of Asia, dog meat is considered a organizations,
delicacy, and people sometimes kill dogs Gorospe, V., SJ. Retrieved
structures, from http://thefilipinomind.
to eat them (Dunlop, 2008). As one countries and blogspot.com/2006/04/our
observer provocatively asked about
continents. -christian-god-religion-
eating dog meat, “For a Westerner, and-common.html
eating it can feel a little strange, but is it
Cultures are seen
morally different from eating, say, pork? to reflect the moral
The dogs brought to table in China are and ethical
not people’s pets, but are raised as food, standards and beliefs that determine
like pigs. And pigs, of course, are also decision, actions and interactions. Moral
intelligent and friendly” (Dunlop, practices are basically peculiar to a society
2008). Should we accept the practice of and as society change its culture and
eating dog meat on its own terms? Is it practices also change.
any worse than eating pork or
slaughtering cattle in order to eat beef?
Using a changing culture as a basis for
If an Asian immigrant killed and ate a
dog in the United States, should that decisions and actions is not enough and quite
person be arrested for engaging in a dangerous. The need for enduring belief and
practice the person grew up with? values as bases can bring more convincing
and strong actions. Though humans have
Retrieved from different languages, they can use their
https://doi.org/10.24926/8668.2401
capacity for language to create a globalizing
language that all children can learn and use to
study other cultures.

As social beings who have invented technologies such as the internet, televisions,
airplanes, bullet trains, they have successfully created globalization. Globalization has
allowed different people of diverse cultures to constantly check and balance their beliefs
and standards. People may have experienced reluctance in judging other cultural
practices but deep within them is the possibility of considering others’ cultures as inferior
to them. People are naturally inclined to the good and right so that they must have
made a choice whether theirs is better than the others though not necessarily considering
them as inferior. This has been the problem of many Filipino indigenous peoples who have
felt inferior to the foreigners because of their cultural practices and so they have blindly
adapted the foreigners’ culture.

However, some assumptions, beliefs and philosophies behind the indigenous

practices that were abandoned could be actually far better and practical than that of
the foreigners’.

According to Vitaliano Gorospe, SJ, “there is a Recent studies of college

conflict between what Filipinos say as Christians and what students provide additional
they do as Filipinos; between their actual Filipino behavior and evidence that social contact
can help overcome cultural
their ideal Christian behavior; in short, between what is and differences and prejudices.
what ought to be.” Because many students are
randomly assigned to their
Gorospe have observed that in the Filipino culture, roommates when they enter
which is the product of the long colonization of the Spaniard, college, interracial
roommates provide a
is based on "group-centeredness" or "group-thinking." The
“natural” experiment for
group determines for the individual what is right or wrong so studying the effects of social
has not yet attained moral independence and maturity. The interaction on racial
individual is guided by the basic questions: "What will my prejudice. Studies of such
family, or my relatives and friends, or my barkada think or say?" roommates find that whites
with black roommates
"What will others say" usually determines Filipino moral
report lowered racial
behavior; it is "conscience from the outside." prejudice and greater
numbers of interracial
Gorospe accuses that Filipinos have a conflict between friendships with other
individual and social morality, between internal and external students. (Laar, Levin,
morality. He believes that Filipinos should internalize the norms Sinclair, & Sidanius, 2005;
Shook & Fazio, 2008).
of morality so that he can mature as individual and form his Retrieved from
own moral conscience from the inside. But using cultural https://doi.org/10.24926/8
relativism, Gorospe may have misinterpreted the Filipinos. It 668.2401
must be understood that Christianity is a western religion
imposed to them.

Gorospe’s example: parents tell their daughter who is being courted: "Iha, please
entertain your boyfriend at home. Do not go outside. What will the neighbors say?
Nakakahiya naman." He believes that “shame or hiya makes the parents and the girl
conform to the social expectations of the neighbors lest they become the object
of chismis or gossip.” But this could be understood differently by saying that Filipinos are
highly social and cultural-sensitive. Filipinos just like other Asians recognize that their
society is greater than them and that they value group harmony and community. They
could not just be so individualistic in their decisions and actions just like the Westerners.
Gorospe could have interpreted Filipino values from the American or Western
perspective.

Consider the Japanese when moral problem arise. “Japanese minimize conflict
by resolving disputes amicably. Lawsuits are uncommon; in one case involving disease
and death from a mercury-polluted river, some Japanese who dared to sue the
company responsible for the mercury poisoning were considered bad citizens” (Upham,
1976). This could be attributed to the high regard to group harmony and community just
like the Filipinos.

But another Filipino cultural norm cited by Gorospe, the "Don't be caught" based
on shame or fear of the authority figure such as parent, teacher, priest or policeman is
quite disturbing. As many students would say: "What's wrong with cheating if I am not
caught?" If this explains why Filipino drivers only obey traffic rules because there is a
policeman on duty, then Gorospe is correct in saying that Filipino norm of moral behavior
is purely external.

It could be argued that Gorospe is wrong in his assumptions, precisely because

Filipinos are just practical and flexible. They are ready to break rules for the sake of
greater values. One cannot just stop there and wait for the green light if there are
practically no other cars and passengers to cross or pass by. Likewise, because the traffic
structures as substitute to the presence of a policeman are Western cultural symbols.
Filipinos are more relational and appreciative to actual persons. Those structures re not
originally theirs; they are imposed on them to follow. If it is not theirs, it is hard for them to
follow. Thus, through the history of colonialization, the conflict between being a real
cultural Filipino (Asian) and the ideal mature Christian (Western) Filipino have continued.

Christian Filipinos were treated like parrots that recite incantations/prayers and
learned by rote, like robots that observe religious holidays, church rites and other symbols
of Catholicism without really understanding what they mean or stand for, and like priests
who follow the Catholic Church institution, its rules and teachings. Filipinos where not
really taught to mature and to freely live or emulate the supposed ideas and life of Jesus.
Putting Gorospe’s observations on the problematic Filipino cultural practices in their
proper cultural context is not enough. Filipino culture has changed; it has adapted the
Western culture so it must consider the western moral standards. Filipino culture could
enter into a social contract with Western culture for enhancement. Filipinos as social
beings must adapt check and balance of their culture with Western moral standards. It
is better that outsiders also question Filipino Cultural practices for improvement. What
could happen more if there is no outsider’s moral standard that condemns the Nazi
party’s Holocaust? What could happen to those who accept the Holocausts as good?
What could happen to Africa’s practice of female genital cutting if there is nobody to
question it? If it continues to happen, what could happen to Africa’s future generations?

 Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

According to Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stage Theory of Moral Development, there are three
(3) levels of moral character development namely;

Level 1: Pre-conventional level of moral development (Punishment and

Obedience – egoism or satisfying one’s desire). In this period, the child responds to the
prevailing cultural values of right or wrong, good and evil. The child has no actual
understanding of the values themselves and accepts the authority of others. The physical
consequences of the actions determine the rightness or wrongness, regardless of the
attribution of values. Response is based on two concerns, “Will I be harmed (punishment)
and will I be be helped (reward)?

Level 2: Conventional level of moral development (Pleasing others and Respecting

rules). The child conforms to societal expectations of family, group, or nation in order to
win the authority figures. Conventional morality is characterized by group conformity and
allegiance to authority. The individual acts in order to meet the expectations of others
and to please those in charge.

Level 3: Post-conventional level of moral development (Social contract and

Personal conscience). The focus of this level is the development of social contract and
autonomous decisions apart from outside authorities. Post-conventional morality is the
most advanced level of moral development where the individual is concerned with right
or wrong conduct over and above self-interest, apart from the views of others, and
without regard of authority figures. Ethical judgment are based on self-defined moral
principles.

Six Stages of Moral Development

By: Lawrence Kohlberg

LEVEL 1 Moral Reasoning of

each Stage

Stage 1: Stage of Punishment and Obedience. “I won’t hit him so he

Rules are obeyed in order to avoid punishment. will not hit me back.”

Stage 2: Stage of Individual Instrumental Purpose “I will help him

and Exchange. Conformity to rules is viewed to be because he may help
in one’s own interest because it provides reward. me in return.”
Fear of punishment is a major motivator at this level “I work extra because I
want to be given
bonus points.”
LEVEL 2
Stage 3: Stage of Mutual Interpersonal “I will go along with you
Expectations, Relationships, and Conformity. The because I want you to
concern is about the reactions of others as bases for like me.”
decisions and behaviors. The primary motive is to be “I will treat you for
good for others in order to maintain good relations. lunch so that we will be
friends.”
Stage 4: Stage of Social System and Conscience “I will comply to the
Maintenance. The person conforms to laws and to order because it is
those in authority because of duty. Both out of wrong to disobey.”
respect for them and in order to avoid censure. For
persons in this level, fulfilling role in society and living
up to expectations of others are important, and guilt
is more of a motivator than fear of punishment
noted in Level 1.
LEVEL 3

Stage 5: Stage of Prior Right and Social Contract or “Although I disagree

Utility. The relativity of some social values is with his views, I will
recognized, and moral decisions derive from uphold his right to
principles that support individual rights and transcend have them.”
particular societal rules such as equity, liberty, and
justice.
Stage 6: Stage of Universal Ethical Principles. “There is no external
Internalized rules and conscience reflecting abstract force coming from
principles of human dignity, mutual respect and trust conflicting social
guide decisions and behaviors. Persons in this level norms that can
make judgment based on impartial universal moral compel me to do an
principles, even when these conflict with societal act that is considered
standards. morally good.”

ELABORATE

Reflecting on Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, what is the highest stage you
have reached so far? Were you able to maintain or stay in that stage for a long time or
you slide to the lower levels every now and then? Elaborate.
EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

Quiz 3: 3 points for each level.

Applying Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development, preferably based from your own
personal experience, or from the experience of someone you know, give one specific
example for each stage that clearly illustrates the characteristic of the stage.

Level 1: Pre-conventional; Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Level 1: Pre-conventional; Stage 2: Individual Instrument Purpose and Exchange

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Level 2: Conventional; Stage 3: Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and

Conformity
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Level 2: Conventional; Stage 4: Social System and Conscience Maintenance

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Level 3: Post-Conventional; Stage 5: Rights and Social Contract

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Level 3: Post-conventional; Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For scoring, consider the following rubric:

3 points – the example provided correctly and clearly illustrates the characteristic
of the stage

2 points – the example provided is correct but do not clearly illustrate the
characteristic of the stage

1 point – the example provided is not a correct example for the given stage; it
may be illustrating a different stage. The example does not correspond
to the identified stage.

0 point – no example/answer is provided. Unclear or ambiguous statements,

making the examples nonsensical.
MODULE 4: The Act

Module 4 is devoted for the elaborate consideration of the importance of reason in

making moral decisions. While recognizing the significance of feelings or emotions in
making decisions, the proper use of reason and our ability to analyse in moral situations
are given more priority. The module specifically aims to:

(1) point out the obstacles in making the right decisions;

(2) suggest ways to come up with the right decision;
(3) show the role of reason and emotion in moral decisions;
(4) present steps in making moral decisions; and
(5) argue for the importance of having moral courage and will.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Module 4, it is expected that you will be able to:

1. elaborate the significance of emotions and reason in making moral decisions;
2. outline the 7 steps of Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning Model;
3. apply Scott Rae’s 7-step Moral Reasoning Model in certain moral dilemmas;
4. appraise the significance of having moral courage and will; and
5. evaluate moral situations with impartial eyes.

ENGAGE

Assess yourself on which do you usually rely on when making decisions: your heart
(feelings) or your mind (reason)? Could one be more reliable than the other when making
moral decisions? Elaborate your answers by sharing your own experience.
EXPLORE

Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoing – Youtube video.

Watch Alex Gendler’s presentation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA

A presentation and discussion of the Allegory of the Cave in Filipino version can be seen
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6hok2YmrIk

EXPLAIN

 4.1.1 Feeling and Moral Decision-Making

There is always a way to determine what is right from what
Through this interactive is not right, to distinguish what is just from what is unjust, what
lesson, we are to: a) ought to be done and what ought not to be done, and what is
identify the role and ethical from what is unethical.
function of feelings and
In the corporate world, the appropriateness of one’s
reason responding to
moral dilemmas; b) action can be decided vis-à-vis the organization’s vision-mission
manifests the functions together with its core values. In religion, what is right is judged
of feelings and based on the members’ code, creed, and professed conduct.
functions in responding In legal matters, we can know the truth based on what the legal
to the demands of principle, law and jurisprudence say. In culture, what is right is
moral responsibility adjudged based on the good custom, beliefs, and practices
that members of the said culture claim to be acceptable.

These claims are debatable since everything in philosophy can be questioned but
our proximate nearness to what is right becomes closer. We must remember, ethics is not just
in words or just academic in nature. It also includes our thoughts and how we translate into
action what we think and say.

Feelings as Instinctive and Trained Response to Moral Dilemmas

Feelings are important. It is an evidence of our being human. We feel sad upon
learning that there are about 50-200 species of plant, insect, bird, and mammal becoming
extinct every day or for 350-1,400 in a week, or 1,500-6,000 in a month and 18,000-73,000 in a
year. We feel happy when modern medicine can separate conjoined twins and allow them
to have separate lives to live. We are amazed to know that the longest name of a city
is Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin MahintharaYuthaya Mahadilok Phop
Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman and we know
this city through its shortened name as Bangkok, Thailand.

We wonder if humans have the capacity to create a machine that can convert all
human garbage to something useful. If we feel inconvenient upon knowing the number of
animal species getting extinct every day, if we have no reaction to the news of conjoined
twins being separated, if we have no amazement over the wonderful inventions and human
creations, our humanity is questionable.

Emotion results in feeling and this human ability to feel is wonderful. Feeling gives color
to our life. It comes as a natural reaction to our encounter with ourselves, others, and
anything around us. When we receive high grades as a result of our hard work, we feel elated
and we rejoice. When our grades are low because we take for granted our academics, we
feel down and regret our shortcoming.

When we see pictures of victims of crimes and violence such as the carnage of the
44 members of the Special Action Force in Tukanalipao Mamasapano, Maguindanao on
January 25, 2015, or the worst media related violence in the whole word in what is called
Maguindanao Massacre which caused the death of 58 people comprising of Esmael
Mangudadatu’s family members, civilians and Media people in November 23, 2009, we feel
sorry for the victims of these tragedies and feel a burning anger in our hearts.

In the same manner, we are moved to act when we see environmental destructions
such as the miners in Samar and the nearby provinces letting go of their chemical wastes
flowing to bodies of water threatening lives and causing even deaths of aquatic creatures,
animals and human beings.

When we learn that there were about 350,000 children getting paralyzed yearly in the
1980’s because of polio, we are shocked. But when we learn that in 2017, there were only
about 19 serious polio cases were reported, we are elated with the development that we
are becoming successful against this human pestilence.

In the same manner, we became happy to know that the human race is gaining
acceptance of respecting the rights of women and minorities. Recently, Saudi Arabia
allowed women to drive while Egypt came up with laws giving equal rights about inheritance
to men and women. In Jordan and Lebanon, laws that set free rapists who marry their victims
were repealed. Gender equality is now gaining support worldwide and this is a good
development that tells us to keep hoping for a brighter future.

Our emotions which lead to all kinds of feeling point to our humanity. We cannot
imagine what life is like if we do not have feelings at all. It is beyond question that emotion is
an important aspect of our humanity.

In previous discussions, we mentioned that reason is the basis of decision-making. This

means that there is a certain logic in analysing situations of life, and in logical interpretation,
we avoid fallacies or errors in thinking, wishful actions, invalid claims, and misjudgement in
determining rightful actions. In logical thinking, priority is right judgment and proper actions
and not based on mere intuitive knowledge and hypothetical or assumptive analysis. In
short, conclusion is achieved by analysing premises that are logically coherent and valid.

Philosophers, through the years, debate on issues and concerns relative to emotion
and reason. Traditional understanding emphasized that emotion is inferior to reason. Emotion
is said to be fleeting and can be dangerous while reason is superior and reliable.
Conventional thinking states that emotion must be controlled and tamed while reason must
be improved and perfected. But in spite of their academic discussions, no consensus yet is
arrived at on the connection between the two.

The debates between and among the philosophers seem legitimate but we might as
well leave them with their mental skirmishes. More practical thinkers would see their effort as
an exercise in futility since it will never end. To capture the connection between emotion
and reason in a box may not be possible but to approach the problem on the level of our
day to day experiences can make sense.

We should focus instead on what emotion and reason can do to us in our everyday
living. We might as well see how emotion and reason work together in real life. We might as
well focus on the impacts of emotion and reason in our everyday encounter with our fellow
human beings together with the ethical decisions we make when confronted with true to life
concerns.

Again, experience tells us that feeling leads to thinking and thinking will further push
us to reflect deeper on what to do and what not to do. Thinking will also trigger what we feel
and this feeling can push us further to think. Even without deep philosophical insights and
debates, it is clear that emotion and thinking are interconnected.

Experience shows that emotion is connected with thinking. Those who insist that the
two are entirely different and independent may be correct and we do not contradict them.
We simply maintain that there is a connection between the two. Our day to day experiences
tell us that our feeling will usually trigger us to think and what we think will usually have an
impact to what we feel.

Our emotion that comes in terms of what we feel serve as a triggering device to make
us think. When we learn for example that our sickly brother is bullied in school, we react and
feel bad about it. We may experience anger and shed tears as we pity our brother. This
natural reaction will push us to think. It will trigger our mind to think on what must be done.
We may think of or confront the bullies themselves. We may also think of reporting it to the
school authorities or we may simply think of letting it go since we do not want further trouble.

Here is another example to illustrate the point that feeling can trigger us to think.
When a gentleman sees someone attractive, there comes within him the natural feeling
of admiration. This feeling of admiration and eventually attraction will ignite him to think
on what to do. His feelings will push him to come up with a plan and eventually do his first
move. He might start asking, “How can I know her name? Is giving her a flower a good
move? Will I talk to her personally or through someone else?”

What we think can also result in what we feel. When we think of going to college
and pursue medicine, we may feel depressed upon realizing that the tuition fees and other
fees in medical schools are too high. But this depression will turn into hope and happiness if
we found that there are people willing to help students who are to pursue their goals.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements of Ethics

Plato told a story about Socrates who encounters a young

man named Euthyprho outside the court of Athens. Socrates
Through this interactive was amazed upon learning that Euthyprho is there in court
lesson, we are to: a) because he will prosecute his own father for murder. Everybody
define what reason and during those times thought that blood relationship will override
impartiality are in any conflict that involves a family member. But the contrast is
relation to ethics; b) true in the case of Euthyprho. For this young man, a crime is a
recall immediate crime and so with murder. Anyone who commits murder must
positive responses to be prosecuted even if the perpetrator is one’s own father.
moral dilemmas; and, c)
manifest well rounded The narrative tells that impartial ethical stand never takes
responses to moral personal stand since it only pursues what is true and just.
dilemmas through Impartiality neither plays favorites nor caters to some people’s
healthy interplay needs by giving in to their demands while denying others from
between reason and enjoying the same because of personal preferences.
feelings. Impartiality tells us never to manipulate rules, power, and favor
to achieve unjust advantage for ourselves and those whom we
favor.

The concern about impartiality arises because of our human nature of self-
preservation. Human beings want to protect their own life, liberty, and property together
with the interest of those who are dear to them. With this premise, judges, elders, and leaders
acting as decision makers must remain impartial at all times. Impartiality is often understood
as fair-mindedness or being objective. It rules against rendering decisions based on bias,
prejudice, and self-serving interest.

Ethical decisions must be just and any decision is just if it is impartial. Impartiality is often
equated with fair-mindedness. One who is impartial is not biased, free from prejudice, and
allows objectivity to rule at all times. Impartiality is a necessary element in any judicial system.
Judges made a sworn statement prior to their assumption to office to observe impartiality in
the performance of their duty. This however, is easier said than done based on what we
observe every day.

Our day to day experiences tell us that impartiality is not a simple concept to observe.
In the celebrated quo warranto case filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the
eight (8) justices who voted for her removal claim impartiality in their decision. In fact, they
invoked the Philippine Constitution as their objective basis in arriving at their decision. On the
other hand, those who question the removal of the Chief Justice claim that the 8 justices are
biased and were never impartial. They also invoked the Constitution as their basis to point
out the error and partiality of the 8 Supreme Court Justices.
Aside from the difficulties encountered in the actual application of impartiality,
several philosophers have both complementary and conflicting ideas on what impartiality
is. We need then to clarify the same for purposes of relating it with sound ethical decision
making.
Mohism (479-221 B.C.E.)

An influential philosophical, social, and religious movement flourished in the Warring

States in ancient China promoted “impartial care.” Mohists emphasize that every person
should equally care for everyone. It is only when a person does not discriminate on anyone
that he/she becomes truly righteous. A benevolent person must promote what is universally
good for all and refrain from committing any societal evil action.

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

He was a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century who came up with a moral point of
view popularly known as the “Impartial Spectator.” He arrived at this point of view to highlight
how a person can objectively make a judgment on person’s behavior and actions. To be
an “impartial spectator” is to empathize with the person whose behaviors and actions are
subject to our judgment. We must imagine ourselves in the circumstance of the person whom
we should judge. Our approval or non-approval of a person’s behavior depends on the
decision we make if we were the one’s involved in his/her situation. If we were in the person’s
situation and we performed the same action just like what the person did, the same is
acceptable. If we did otherwise because we claim that this behavior or action is wrong then,
the behavior or action is not acceptable.

We have the tendency to sustain and defend our ideas when they conflict with other
people’s ideas. Adam’s Smith proposes a solution by saying that “we need to move beyond
“literal impartial spectator” to reach some ideal by which we can judge both our actions
and that of others. His work is an honest attempt to lead people to become impartial and
objective in dealing with ethical concerns.

 4.2 Scott Rae’s 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

The previous topic dealt with the significance of being impartial and striking a
balance between using one’s feelings and reasoning when it comes to moral decision-
making. One does not only make a decision in a moral dilemma (or in any situation for that
matter) by simply relying on one’s gut-feeling; nor should one only be constantly logical
devoid of any emotional consideration in making moral decisions. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to exercise careful thinking when it comes to moral analysis, evaluation, and
decision-making: mindful of the persons involved, the act itself, the applicable principles,
and the overall context of the situation in which any moral decision is to be made. Scott Rae,
in his book, Moral Choices (2018), proposed a moral reasoning model that could be used as
a guide in making moral decisions. Rae’s moral reasoning model does not guide one to an
absolutely correct or “right” answer or decision to a moral dilemma; rather, his model may
guide an individual to ask the right questions to ethical deliberation (Rae, 2018).

Scott Rae’s model for moral reasoning presents a 7-step approach to moral analyses
and evaluation. It is oriented towards virtues and principles with consideration of
consequences as a supporting role (Rae 2018). The 7-step model is as follows:

1. Gather the Facts

 ➢ It is essential that in moral decision- making, one has to know the general facts of the
moral situation, before coming up with a moral analysis, more so, a decision or an
evaluation.

➢ The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear.
Ask: Do you have all the facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What do
we know? What do we need to know? In this light it might become clear that the
dilemma is not ethical but about communication or strategy (Rae, 2018).

2. Determine the ethical issues

➢ After having identified the facts and overall context of the moral situation, the ethical
issue/s involved in the situation, must be clearly stated in order to specify what issue
one has to make a decision to. This section must likewise clearly state the major moral
dilemma involved in the case.

➢ Ethical interests are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods. The
competing interests are what create the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must
support the competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot
identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma. Often
people hold these positions strongly and with passion because of the value / virtue
beneath them (Rae 2018).

3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case

➢ Applicable ethical values and principles relevant to the case must be identified and
briefly explained in order to justify how such principles could be used in coming up
with a decision concerning the moral dilemma later on. In addition, the sources of
these principles must be acknowledged likewise. These values, principles could come
from: (1) established philosophical ethical principles; (2) socio-cultural norms; (3)
socio-political norms and laws; (4) religious traditions; and others.

➢ In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are central to the competing
positions. Identify these. Determine if some should be given more weight than others.
Ask what the source for the principle is - constitution, culture, natural law, religious
tradition... These supplement biblical principles (Rae 2018).

4. List the alternatives

➢ After having identified relevant values, virtues, and principles involving the moral
situation, possible alternative courses of actions must then be proposed and briefly
explained. These suggested courses of actions must then be evaluated based on its
applicability, sensibility, practicality before selecting one as the course of action or
decision to be made regarding the moral situation.
Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost
immediately be discarded but generally the more you list the greater potential for coming
up with a really good one. It will also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas
(Rae 2018).

5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues / principles

➢ The initial list of suggested courses of actions must then be evaluated from the
vantage point of the identified ethical values and principles.

➢ This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which
have a bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all
alternatives except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues
and values - so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still
have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weight principles and virtues - make
sure you have a good reason for each weighting (Rae 2018).

6. Consider the consequences

➢ If principles have not yielded a clear decision consider the consequences of your
alternatives. Take the alternatives and work out the positive and negative
consequences of each. Estimate how beneficial each positive and negative
consequences are – some might have greater weight than others (Rae 2018).

7. Make a decision (including one’s justification for the

decision)
In understanding the
➢ After having analysed the moral dilemma situation difference between
(from steps 1 thru 6), one must now make a reason and will, we are to
decision based on what has been previously a) point out the
discussed and must clearly justify the decision that significance of knowing
has been made. and actually executing
good moral decisions;
➢ Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it
might be you have to choose the solution with the and b) evaluate actual
least number of problems / painful consequences and hypothetical ethical
(Rae 2018). behavior relative to
planning and execution
of important ethical
decisions; and c) state the
 4.3 Moral Courage significance of
maintaining a healthy
4.3.1 Impediments to Ethical Decision Making
balance and interaction
between reason and will.
There are instances when our reason runs counter with
what we do. There are also instances when our will does
not jibe with what we know as proper. As a result, there are times we end up consciously
doing that we know as wrong and refrain from doing what we know as right.

Here are some known hindrances why we fail to execute what is ethical and
consciously do what is unethical. This enumeration is not exclusive. There are others
hindrances out there that we encounter in our everyday life. You are hereby asked to
enumerate more based on your daily experiences.

1. Egocentrism

Every person generally focuses on her own thinking and feeling. We experience
the world vis-à-vis our feelings of pains and pleasure, joy and sadness, and what we long
for and what we dislike. Our experience is heavily influenced by how we think and feel
and this thinking and feeling influence a lot our decision-making.

If I am a teacher, it’s very easy to be engrossed with my tasks and needs and I
may not see things from the parents’ and administrators’ points of view. Ethical decision
making needs to see points of view that are opposed to our own. We experience that
when we focus on our reasoning and feeling, we will not hear and see what others are
saying and doing.

When too much focus is given to the self, we fail to see objectively what surrounds
us. If we fall in this trap, we lose our objectivity and become one sided towards our
personal concern.

2. Failure to go with our developmental Maturity

Our thinking and decision-making capability grow side by side with our age. In the
words of Dr. Carlos Medina (1998), “We keep on defining and re-defining our plausibility
context.” This means we undergo different stages in our lives. As children, we think, act,
and speak like children. Our world is focused on the children’s world characterized by
toys, kiddie fun activities and food. When we become adolescents, we leave our
children’s world behind to embrace a new world belonging to the young and energetic
people. We start to outgrow our love for toys and kiddie stuffs. We start to see the worlds
using the lens of young people. When we turn adults, we leave the adolescent life behind
and become more serious with life.

The problem on ethical decision-making crops up if we fail to grow. When we

continue to use the pattern in deciding and dealing with our concerns using our younger
day strategies, we will experience problem. If we deal with an adolescent concern using
a child’s reasoning or an adult concern using a child or adolescent perspective, we will
encounter problems.

3. Refusal to let go of our wrongful thinking and see things objectively

One who says he/she does not believe in hell because he/she’s never been there
is a very difficult person to convince. One who says that there can be no global warming
because nobody proved that the earth is getting warmer through a scientific instrument
all at the same time in a global scope is a person not worthy of our time for discussion
purposes. If a person refuses to believe, no amount of convincing effort can change
her/his mind.

If we only base our decision on what we have experienced, our decision can turn faulty
because our experience is often times very limited. There are those who create a picture
of what the world is through what they virtually hear and see and just use them as bases
on what they claim as true. Again, this is very limited because what we hear and see
virtually together with the information we derive from social media is often times not so
reliable.

Moral Courage and Will

Even if the person is very intelligent and has a lot of ideas but s/he lack the will and
power to implement his ideas, then the ideas remain to be abstract. The will is important
to make knowledge possible. This explains why we consider an action to be a human
act. Our Knowledge as an awareness or being conscious of one’s actions including its
possible consequences requires human will so that it becomes palatable. Since the act
of knowing is always consciousness of something which is inevitably linked to the subject
or the knower, then it is not enough for an individual to know what is good. What really
count are his good acts. Hence, an insane person and a three-year old child are not
liable for their actions since they are not capable of acting with proper knowledge. Their
actions can never be considered as immoral. College students and professionals are
expected to be possessors of knowledge; thus, they cannot claim excuses for their
immoral actions. They are liable for the consequences of their actions. According to
Aristotle, knowledge is the first element of ethical practice. This knowledge provides a
framework for deliberating about the most appropriate technique(s) by which the good
can be attained.

But, it should be noted that; although, knowledge is a requirement for considering

an act to be a human act, being knowledgeable or being aware of what is ethical or
moral is not a guarantee that the person is already considered as an ethical or moral
person.

The Freedom of the Will, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is the power which
human beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their
reasons. This always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a certain
action. Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the part of
the individual would be meaningless. Hence, insane people who have no control of their
minds and children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do or not
to do, are not responsible for their actions. On the other hand, matured people, college
students and professionals are expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they
are responsible or liable for their actions.

To develop the will, voluntariness is required which is an act of consenting or

accepting a certain action whether it is done whole-heartedly, half-heartedly, or non-
heartedly. According to Aristotle, the moral evaluation of an action presupposes the
attribution of responsibility to a human agent; thus, responsible action must be
undertaken voluntarily (Nicomachean Ethics III). It is then important to sharpen the “will”
so that that we can become consistent in doing the right and the good.

ELABORATE

How were the Impediments to Ethical Decision-making portrayed in Plato’s Allegory of

the Cave? What specific character or objects in the allegory correspond to the specific
impediment to ethical decision-making?
EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

QUIZ 4: Total score: 20 points; 7 points for Part I and 13 points for Part II.

I - Matching Type:
Based on Scott Rae’s 7-Step Moral Reasoning, Match Column A with Column B.

COLUMN A COLUMN B

1. Identify the principles that A. This involves eliminating alternatives

have a bearing on the case according to the moral principles that
have a bearing on the case
2. Gather the facts B. This part of the model is done after
deliberation
3. List the alternatives C. Moral issues should be carefully stated in
terms of competing interests
4. Determine the ethical issues D. This involves coming up with various
alternatives as part of creative thinking
5. Make a decision that is important before deciding
E. This is considered as the first important step
6. Assess/Weigh the prior to any ethical analysis or reflection
consequences F. This step has both positive and negative
consequences that requires careful
7. Compare the alternatives examination and must be considered
with principles G. The step when one decides whether
some principles are to be weighed more
heavily than others

II – Essay
Develop a short essay on the importance of moral courage and will in making moral
decisions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________-

Criteria for the essay:

Exhibit critical-mindedness: 5
Originality and Novelty of ideas: 5
Spelling and grammar: 3

References

Aquinas, Thomas (1966). On law, eternal law and natural law. Summa Theologiae, vol.
28, Blackfriars in conjunction with McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 5-97

Aristotle, (1983) Book I-III. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. Martin Oswald. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Education Publishing.

Baybay, A. (2011). Rape cases prevalent: ‘Shameful crimes’ against children up in Mt

Province.

Boyle, Joseph M. Jr., "Toward Understanding the Principle of Double Effect," Ethics, 90
(1980), 527-538

Cahill, L.S. "Teleology, Utilitarianism, and Christian Ethics," Theological Studies 42:4 (Dec.
1981) 601–629.

Grisez, Germain. (1983). Christian Moral Principles, 1, Franciscan Herald Press

Gualdo, R.S., Placido, D and Dagwasi, C. (2012). Ethics: Basic Concepts and
Contemporary Moral Issues. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.

Gula, Richard M., S.S., (1989). Reason Informed by Faith Foundations of Catholic Morality,
New York, Paulist Press.
Pasco, M.O.D, Suarez, V.F and Rodriguez, A.M.G. (2018). Ethics. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Inc.

Rachels, J. (2013). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rae, Scott B. (2018). Moral choices: An introduction to Ethics. 4th Zondervan.

Smith, Janet E. Humane Vitae: A Generation Later. Catholic University of America Press.
1991

______"Veritatis Splendor," Proportionalism, and Contraception," Irish Theological

Quarterly 63: 4 (1998) 307-26.

______ "Moral Terminology and Proportionalism," in Recovering Nature: Essays in Natural

Philosophy, Ethics, and Metaphysics in Honor of Ralph McInerny ed. by Thomas
Hibbs and John O'Callaghan (Notre Dame Press, 1999) 127-46

Electronic Sources:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-
maps/proportionality-principle
http://www.spectacle.org/0806/proportionality.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51759938_The_principle_of_proportionality_r
evisited_Interpretations_and_applications
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportionality
http://icucourses.com/pages/002-05-proportionalism-and-biologism
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_195proportionalism.html
MODULE 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

Module 5 presents the ethical framework of Consequentialism. Although Ethical Egoism

and Altruism are presented here, the bulk of the discussion is on the Utilitarianism of John
Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. This module aims to:
(1) show how to use Utilitarianism as a framework in analysing one’s moral
experiences;
(2) examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Module 5, it is expected that you will be able to:

1. differentiate Ethical Egoism from Ethical Altruism;

2. trace the development of Utilitarianism from the early Hedonism;
3. justify our present quarantine protocols in the country using Bentham’s Felicific
Calculus; and
4. evaluate the present education system which is Distance Learning Education
(DLE) thru the lense of J.S. Mill.

ENGAGE

Given the dilemma between your individual happiness and the happiness of the majority,
which one will you choose? Why?
Write your answer in the box provided:
EXPLORE

Watch the 10 minutes crash course on Utilitarianism here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI

Watch the short presentation of Mill’s Utilitarianism here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr9954kaFBs

Watch a short discussion on Bentham’s Utilitarianism here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MnnN000iXM

EXPLAIN

 Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
Also known as Consequentialism, utilitarianism as an ethical principle determines
the morality of an act/choice by its end result. Thus, one ought to choose an act that
would yield the good results. The goodness or badness of an act is determined by its
end or consequence. The working principle here is “utility” or usefulness. The usefulness
of an act is determined by its consequences.

It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the

consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist normative theories, correct
moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's
consequences. In consequentialism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable.

Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and
bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good
consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are
greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the
action is morally improper.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who

wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than
by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most
attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable
consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely
formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist
theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant.

Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

 1. Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action. There are two
kinds of egoism namely, Psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism asserts that action is good since the consequence of the
action is beneficial to the person who performs the act. Psychological egoism is a theory
of human psychology which asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or her own
self-interest alone. It is theory of human nature that every human action is motivated by
self-interest. People are incapable of being unselfish because they are so constituted
to always look out only for their own self-interest. For example, a mother sends her
children to school. Is the act of sending her child to school consummates an altruistic or
egoistic act? But what are the consequences if the mother will not send her child to
school. The act of not sending the child to school looks like to the disadvantage of her
child. But psychological egoism will evaluate the act of not sending her child to school
an act more disadvantageous to the mother because she will not gain anything if her
child will be a liability to her and to the family. Further, the mother will be in pain seeing
her child a jobless moron or a goblin while other children of the neighborhood are
successful honorable members of the society. Thus, the act of sending a child to school
is an act for the interest of the mother for the first place.

James Rachel (2002) in his book The Elements of Morality cites Thomas Hobbes’s
(1588-1679) who affirms that psychological egoism is true. For Hobbes, altruistic act is an
illusion because human nature is self-interested or human acts are dictated by human
desires. In his thesis, people do charitable works because in the first place they will get
recognition or receive the reward of heavenly bliss. We will always do an action because
it makes us feel good. Hence, people sometimes seem to act altruistically, but it is not
hard to discover that the ‘unselfish’ behavior is actually connected to some benefit for
the person who does it. Further, because of pity, man can do altruistic acts. However, for
Hobbes, pitiful acts are demonstration of one’s power over the weak. Hobbesian man is
not a God-seeker but a power-seeker. Man is engaged in an endless pursuit of power
which ends only in death. So, by nature, men seek to possess and enjoy power. What is
the importance of this? Why do men seek power? The primary reason is to ensure the
preservation of their lives. Power is the tool used by men to protect their selfish interests,
the most important of which is to preserve their own lives.

Psychological Egoism claims psychological altruism is impossible. People can act

to benefit the interests of others but only when there is something in it for themselves; that
they will get something out of it for themselves is the sole reason they benefit others.
Accordingly, people are never even partially motivated to help others for their own sake.
In the end, people care nothing for others; they care only about themselves. People
can’t care for others for their own sake.

The other kind of egoism is Ethical Egoism. James Rachels (2002) explains that Ethical
Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of self-interest accounts for all of one’s moral
obligations. Sometimes one’s interests may happen to coincide with the interests of
others—in that by helping oneself, one will coincidentally help them, too. The benefit to
others is not what makes an action right, however. An action is right only insofar as it is to
one’s own ‘advantage.’ According to ethical egoism, however, we have no duties to
others; in fact, each person ought to pursue his or her own selfish interests exclusively. A
person ought to do what really is in his or her best interests, over the long run. According
to Ayn Rand (1905-1982), altruism leads to a denial of the value of the individual (and his
projects and goods). Rand argues that if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first
concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Each person has one life to live,
but altruism rejects the value of the individual, whereas ethical egoism views the
individual’s life as having supreme value, then ethical egoism is the moral philosophy we
ought to accept.

Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory that contends that we act

morally when we act in a way that promises our own best long-term interests. Ethics is
concerned on personal needs which are relatively different from any other persons.

2. Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.

3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are

more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different
groups of people. But like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of
each other. They also yield to different conclusions.

Utilitarianism developed in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. Its main
proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). The
philosophy of utilitarianism is anchored on the doctrine that “the only motives of human
actions are pleasure and pain, the former prompting us to perform an act, the latter
compelling us to avoid an action.” A utilitarian’s only motive of action is pain and
pleasure, “seek good and avoid pain.” There are two kinds of utilitarianism. First, act
utilitarianism is the position that an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness
for the most people. Second, rule utilitarianism is the ethical position that we should act
so that the rule governing our actions produce the greatest happiness for the most
people.

Motto of Utilitarianism: “Greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.”

JEREMY BENTHAM: For Bentham, a person is selfish and acts to fulfil his/her
happiness. Man acts to gain pleasure or to avoid pain. Man is selfish and will not act unless
to procure his own pleasure. Pleasure is equated with happiness and the first principle of
ethics is the right and desirable goal of human action as happiness, that is, pleasure and
avoidance of pain. It, therefore, follows that the rightness or wrongness of an action has
to be judged by its consequences and by the ability of the act to produce pleasure or
remove pain. An action that produces a mixture of pleasure and pain has to be judged
according to the quantity of pleasure or pain. Whichever is greater will determine moral
character of the action. He calls the property of any act that produces pleasure or
happiness “utility”, hence, utilitarianism. In developing his calculus, Bentham distinguishes
act utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of

utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that we tally
the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case
basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known
as act-utilitarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain
which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences
that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is
known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects.

First criticism, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time

on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that
produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities
doesn’t seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of
torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions
outweighed the dis-benefit.

A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems.

According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences
of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act
utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism
offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as “stealing is wrong.” Adopting
a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than unfavorable
consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-
utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action,
such as stealing a neighbor’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft.
In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces
favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-
oriented.

Second criticism, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences

are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it
ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful.
For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always
pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves
tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as
pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves
tallying any consequence that fulfils our preferences.

Hedonism is a philosophy on pleasure. “Hedone” in Greek means “pleasure” as the

norm of action. There are two proponents of hedonism namely, Aristippus and Epicurus: For
Aristippus, happiness is based on sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasure as motive of life – short
term pleasure; motto: “drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die.” For Epicurus, happiness
is based on rational pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is longer in effect such as tranquility of the
soul like friendship and education. In sum, an act is neither theoretical, legalistic nor
experimental; instead, it is only valuable with practical and pleasure value. The
counterargument: Practical ethics leads to hedonistic tendencies, relativistic, no universality
and can be ambiguous or even antinomian; it lacks rational discernment.

Bentham is credited with founding the doctrine of utilitarianism. In brief, Bentham

argued that “action is right if it will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.” He believed that by calculating pleasures and pains, one can tell which action
is right and which is wrong. In concrete, Bentham’s principle of utility translates itself into
what he called a “felicific calculus,” that is, a “happiness calculator, or counter” which
is a way of balancing the pros and cons of an envisaged act. Pleasure and pain then is
reducible to quantifiable units and the morally good act is the net effect or outcome of
maximum pleasure minus minimum pain.

The emphasis of J. Bentham is the Quantity of Pleasure which are quantified as

follows using the Modified Pleasure Calculus. There are Seven Variables of Pleasure
Calculus: 1) Intensity: How intense is the Pleasure and Pain? 2) Duration: How does
Pleasure and Pain last? 3) Certainty: What is the probability of Pleasure and Pain to occur?
4) Propinquity: How far off in the future is Pleasure and Pain? 5) Fecundity: What is the
probability that Pleasure and Pain will lead to another Pleasure and Pain? 6) Purity: How
sure is Pleasure or Pain truly experienced? And 7) Extent: How many persons are affected
by Pleasure and Pain?

For instance, wealth is proved or quantified by having a huge amount of money.

Intelligence is proved or quantified by highest correct answers in an exam. A product is
quantified by the largest amount one can get or accumulate. A quantitative research is
proved to be valid by analysing data through numbers.
Application of the felicific calculus.

For example, if one is invited to attend a dance party and birthday party that will
happen on the same day at the same time, then one may use the felicific calculus to
measure the pleasure and pain from the two alternatives of action. The intensity element will
ask the variability of the stronger pleasure and the lesser pain one may derive from attending
a dance party or a birthday party. Maybe the pleasure that is taken in the birthday party is
more intense because the foods prepared by the celebrant, are more delicious; but one
should also take into account the side effects of fatty foods into one’s blood pressure. In
duration, it asks the length of time of pleasure or pain one may derive from the two
alternatives. Maybe, the dance party will have a longer pleasure because it may end in a
longer time. But one should also take into account the length of pain one may experience
in a dance party because it is possible that nobody will dance with him/her until the end of
the program.

In certainty or the “sureness” of pleasure, it asks the probability of the occurrence

of pleasure and pain because it is not always a good option to choose from uncertainty.
The element of propinquity deals with the circumstances of “nearness” and “remoteness”
of pleasure and pain to be achieved. This can be illustrated with the case of an
employee who is granted a one-month vacation leave on the following fiscal year with
the full benefits and complete allowances from the company. If the employee accepts
the offer, what month will he/she spends his/her vacation? What month will he/she
select? The rule of propinquity demands that the opportunity should be taken in the
nearest time possible because one may not have the access of pleasure as he/she
pleases when other circumstances will occur. Hence, the first month of the year should
be selected. This is also true in applying a job. Also, to be considered is fecundity, or the
capacity to engender further pleasure; and purity, or the relative absence of any
admixture of painful counter effects. Finally, extent, or the number of people affected is
considered. Extent brings into balance the happiness of other people involved, hence,
the more, the merrier.

Further, if more than one of the elements are involved in an action, all the other
amounts of pleasure and pain must be accounted for. One is therefore reminded that
even a seemingly innocuous act might turn out to have “systemic” effects (to the
environment, or to conditions elsewhere, etc.).

JOHN STUART MILL: Mill defended the Bentham’s doctrine of “Greatest happiness
for greatest number of people.” He accepted the greatest happiness principle of
Bentham and agreed with him that man seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and that
happiness is the goal of human life, which is identified with pleasure. JS Mill adds a
qualitative dimension to Bentham’s purely quantitative one. Mill’s Greatest Happiness
Principle is still hedonistic, since it “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill
asserts that by ‘happiness’ is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by
‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the privation of pleasure.” But Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s
utilitarianism. Mill observes that “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to
recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable
than others. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have
experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral
obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”

Mill differentiates the pleasures of animals with those of humans; of those who are
intelligent with those who are ignorant: “…it is an unquestionable fact that those who are
equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do
give a marked preference to the manner of existence which employs the higher faculties
[….] Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals,
for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being
would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of
feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be
persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they
are with theirs.” Mill would assert that character formation is necessary in the cultivation
of high quality pleasures: “Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general
cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefitted by the
nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer
deduction from the benefit.” Moreover, subordinate rules are what we would normally
call “common sense morality”.

Mill identifies the main deficiency of people who are “not happy”: “Next to
selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental
cultivation. A cultivated mind…finds sources of inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds
it; in the object of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the
incidents of history, the ways of mankind past and present, and their prospects in the
future.” For Mill, therefore, the “greatest” in “greatest happiness principle” does not just
refer to the quantity of happiness (or pleasure) but also to a higher quality or kind of
happiness (or pleasure) that everyone affected, regardless of status, could experience
as the consequences of the action in question. Applied to the body politic, utilitarianism
and its objective of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” should be the goal
of all laws and the ultimate criterion of all institution. Thus, he maintained that pleasures
do not only differ “quantitatively” but also “qualitatively.”

The emphasis of J.S. Mill is the Quality of Pleasure and pleasure differs qualitatively.
His Motto is, “A good man would rather be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied.” “A person would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” And if the
fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the
question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” And aside from the
qualitative classification of pleasure, Mill stresses on the social character of happiness.
One has to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The end of
moral action is not merely one’s own happiness but the greatest amount of happiness
for all.

Quality is important in terms of durability, elegance, and longevity of anything

important. For instance, qualifying an intellectual capacity is based not on numbers but
on justification of intelligence through creativity and innovativeness. Qualifying a product
means the inherent value or worth of such product – a quality of time, of peace and of
tranquillity, of enjoyment. A qualitative research deals with analysis based on worth and
value of the experiences in proving validity. This depicts that an old man who has lived a
long life and enjoying music in old age, signifies happiness.

ELABORATE

Having read the discussions above and watched the suggested videos, differentiate
Act Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism

Rule Utilitarianism
EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

CASE ANALYSIS 1: Given the correct analysis and application of the frameworks, you
can gain 15 points for each of the two parts of this quiz.

Using Jeremy Bentham's step-by-step Felicific Calculus, justify following the

protocols on community quarantine (choose ONE only: staying inside the house,
wearing masks when outside, and maintaining social distancing). 15 points
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________.

Analizing Mill’s utilitarianism, how do you think he would react to the current
mode of education in our country, which is Distance Learning Education (DLE)? Justify
your analysis. 15 points
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________.

The following rubric shall be applied for scoring:

Understanding of the ethical framework –------------------------- 10
Shows correct analysis (7-10)
Shows slight error in analysis (4-6)
Several errors in the analysis are apparent (1-3)
Misinterpretation of concepts is clearly evident 0
Presence of supporting claims and/examples -------------------- 3
Spelling and grammar ----------------------------------------------------- 2
TOTAL Score: 15 points
MODULE 6: Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist

Module 6 focuses on the Deontological ethical framework in making moral decisions. It is

aimed at understanding Kantian ethical theory and its relevance to the present world,
and to use Kantian ethics in evaluating and making sound and reasonable decisions
concerning moral dilemma cases with the focus in mind of the concept of duty in the
theory of legalism.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 6, it is expected that you will be able to:
1. state the importance of sound and reasonable decisions in moral dilemmas;
2. identify the different kinds of Rights;
3. discuss the role of duty as the basis of good;
4. formulate maxims that can become a moral law;
5. cite instances where someone else’s maxim cannot rationally become a moral
law;
6. differentiate a hypothetical from the categorical imperative; and
7. illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of deontology as a moral framework.

ENGAGE

Which do you think should be given more weight when making moral decisions: the
consequences of the action or the intention of the person doing the act? Why?

EXPLORE

For additional knowledge on Kantian ethics, explore the following videos:

Short doodle presentation of Kant’s ethics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UhiRLuSlIU

Short discussion of Kant and Categorical Imperatives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw

Discussion of the comparison between Mill’s Utilitarianism and Kant’s

Categorical:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zg3mzfuCks
EXPLAIN

 Deontology
Deontology came from the Greek word “deon,” which means ‘duty’ or
responsibility. Deontological theories assert that the morality of an action depends on its
intrinsic nature, its motives, or its rules or principles and not on its consequences.

Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation.

These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty,
in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes
called non-consequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the
consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for
our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings.

 6.1. Immanuel Kant

An example of a deontological ethics is the Kantian ethics, giving more
preference on the performance of duty and intention of the act rather than its
consequences.

In his book, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant propounds that a

person who fruitfully resists the temptation of desire has willpower (willpower means a
combination of determination and self-discipline that enables somebody to do
something despite the difficulties involved) while the individual who gives in and acts to
satisfy the desire does not have willpower.

This concept of willpower brings to mind the following model of human action: The
agent begins with a group of beliefs and desires that are motives or reasons to
action. Motives to action are like forces that get the body into action. The agent,
however, must (or at least should) evaluate the desires to determine whether they should
or shouldn’t be satisfied. The agent’s reason acts as the evaluator. When reason acts as
evaluator, reason is also considered governor, because it is the last thing that determines
the will (will means the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things;
the use of the mind to make decisions about things; the determination to do something
or a desire or inclination to do something), which in turn determines action. Before a
particular desire can be acted on by the agent, the act of willing to attempt to satisfy
the desire must first exist. The agent needs to choose or decide to either act or not act
on the desire. Only then does the body act. Hence, we could imagine human action
schematically in the following manner:

Beliefs + desires → evaluation of reason → Act of will to

satisfy desire (decision) → Action to satisfy desire.

In any event that reason is not acting as evaluator, the model turns into something
like this:
 Beliefs + desires → Act of will to satisfy desire
(decision) → Action to satisfy desire.

Immanuel Kant acknowledged that desires often conflict. There are instances that
acting to satisfy one desire will ensure that we cannot satisfy another desire. Let us say for
example that you have the desire to go out with friends this coming Saturday to dance
and party. Satisfying now this desire would mean sacrificing your other desire to jump to
bed early and maximize the highly recommended hours of sleep of 7 to 8 hours a
day. Take again for example the given situation, you have the desire to play DOTA or to
have an FB with someone else you have been chatting lately over the net after your class
this afternoon; however, you also have the desire to read something about Immanuel
Kant’s life so that you will not be getting a failing score in your quiz in this subject next
meeting. In such instances where we have with us conflicting desires, we must decide
which desire to satisfy.

As rational individuals, it is expected on our part that we have to let our reason
decide between conflicting desires (but sometimes, as individuals with organic or earthly
bodies with organic or earthly desires and needs, we oftentimes find ourselves consumed
in satisfying our base desires. I am not saying this as an excuse but we should at least
know how to master our desires as rational individuals…I hope you still remember “the
mark of virtue” of Aristotle). No particular action will be done until our will has been
activated. Hence, our will is considered to be the master of our actions. According to
Immanuel Kant, if we are rational, then our will must not be the slave of our desires by
merely doing the request or command of our desires. Our will instead can cooperate
with our reason to master whatever desires we have.

The only thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a good will.
A good will alone is good in all circumstances and in that sense is an absolute
good or unconditioned good. The goodness of a good will is not derived from
the goodness of the results which it produces. A good will continues to have its
own uniqueness goodness even where, by some misfortune, it is unable to
produce the results at which it aims. As Kant would say in the Groundwork, “it
would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value
in itself” (see your reading for further emphasis on this poin t of Kant on the good
will and its result).

In going further with his discussion on the good will, Kant in

the Groundwork tried to discuss the function of reason. According to Kant,
reason has been imparted to us as a practical power─that is, as one which is to
have influence on the will; the true function of reason must be to produce a will
which is good, not as a means to some further end, but in itself….(see your reading
for further emphasis on this point of Kant on the function of reason). For Kant,
reason in action has for him two main functions, the first of which has to be
subordinated to the second. The first function is to secure the individual’s own
happiness (a conditioned good), while the second is to manifest a will that is good
in itself.
 However, despite these discussions made by Kant, a question comes to
mind─that is, if one thing that is good without qualifications is a good will, then
what makes will good and what makes it bad?

Kant was a supporter of what we have called common sense morality. He thought
that the moral views common to most people are pretty much correct. Therefore,
he would think that a person with a good will would not commit major moral
offenses such as murder or robbery, would not commit minor moral offenses such
as maliciously gossiping about people, and would help people in need.

Kant took these things for granted. But he recognized that a person might
have a good will and not to be able to actually do any of the things a g ood
person would do, or refrain from doing the things a good person would not do,
similarly, someone might do all the things that a good person would do and refrain
from doing all the things that a good person would not do, and yet not have a
good will. For example, someone may contribute to charity only because it’s in
his self-interest, perhaps a politician who believes that he will gain votes by
(publicly) contributing to charity. Kant does not think that his contributing money
shows that he has a good will.

What about performing actions that normally would be considered an

indication that someone lacks a good will? Suppose someone acts in a way that
is deeply offensive or insulting to someone else. Would that necessarily show that
he or she lacks a good will? No- not if he or she did not intent to offensive or
insulting.

Kant points out that we cannot tell whether someone has a good will by
looking only at what that person does or does not do, or only at the effects or
consequences of his actions. One’s intentions are the key to whether one has
good will. It is what one wants to accomplish – what one wills – that counts (for
the Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, it is the consequence of the act that
counts while for Immanuel Kant, it is not the consequence of the act that counts
but the intention of the person doing the act). A person has a good will if he or
she tries to do what is right and tries to avoid doing what is wrong. But the trying
must be a genuine trying a summoning of all one’s capacities to work hard toward
doing what is right and to refrain from doing what’s wrong (if by this time you now
have in mind this question of what is right and what is wrong, then such question
will be answered as we proceed with our discussion).

Kant says that the concept of duty contains the concepts of a good will but
it probably would be more accurate to say that the concept of a good will entails
the concept of duty (a duty is an obligation of behavior or conduct in relation to
others or even to God which has a stronger claim on a person than his/her self-
interest). One has a good will if one tries to do one’s duty. But Kant emphasized
that for a will to be truly good, it must try to do its duty from purely moral motive,
rather than from a self-interested movie. The purely moral motive is the desire to
do one’s duty out of respect for the moral law. A person with a good will respects
the moral law and tries to act dutifully because he or she desires to act in ways
that conform to what his/her duties are.

In introducing the concept of duty, Kant came up with 3 propositions about

morality rooted on duty:

(1) A human action is morally good, not because it is done from immediate
inclination─still less because it is done from self-interest─but because it is done for
the sake of duty (Consider the implication of this situation, what if for example in
this particular room at around 7 pm in the evening, I saw you desperately in need
for immediate medical attention but then the problem is I am not disposed this
time to help; likewise, I have a business deal to attend to at 7:15 pm to have this
4 million pesos account deal to be safely deposited to my account.);

(2) An action done from duty has moral worth, not from the results it attains
or seeks to attain, but from a formal principle or maxim─the principle of doing
one’s duty whatever that duty may be (This simply re -states the first proposition in
a more technical way. We have already seen that a good will cannot derive its
unconditioned goodness from the conditioned goodness of the results at which it
aims, and this is true also of the morally good actions in which a good will acting
for the sake of duty is manifested.);

(3) Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law (What is this
law? This law speaks a law which is valid for all rational beings as such
independently of their particular desires. This law is better understood with the
Categorical Imperative of Kant as a test of maxim by helping us evaluate whether
or not a maxim is possible to become a universal law.).

ACTIONS AND MAXIMS

Kant believed that people acts as they do for the reason (whether or not
they are immediately conscious of the reason or engage in deliberation before
acting). For example, suppose that Marc and Andrew each contribute PHP
100,000 to charity. According to Kant, each has a reason for his or her action.
Let’s assume that we know their reasons. Marc approves of the goals of the
charity and wants to help in accomplishing its goa ls. Andrew knows that the
names of large contributors will be publicized; he wants to impress his business
associates and customers, which he thinks will improve his business.

Kant believed that when people act for a reason, they’re following a
maxim – a kind of personal rule of action. Of course, people do not always
consciously formulate maximum and then deliberately follow them. Rather,
people often act as though they formulate and follow maxims. However, Kant
seemed to assume that we can discover what maxim will follow, even if we did
not consciously formulate and follow it. Given Marc and Andrew's reasons for
contributing to charity, we might express the maxims they were following as M1
(Marc’s Maxim) and M2 (Adrew’s maxim.)
 M1. I will contribute to charity when I approved of the Charity’s goal, and I
want to help it achieve its purpose.
M2. I will contribute to charity when I think that doing so will help improve
my business and I want to improve my business.

A maxim takes the form “I will do action X in circumstances C for purpose

P.” It is a personal principal of action, a kind of prescription of how a person will
act in certain circumstances to achieve what he or she wants. Thus, a maxim must
specify: (1) what I will do, (2) the concrete circumstances in which I will do it, and
(3) why I will do it.

According to Kant, an action done from duty has moral worth based only
on the maxim that the agent follows, which specified the action, the
circumstances and the motive. But surely an action cannot have moral worth if
the agent is following a bad maxim, such as “I will kill people whenever it is
advantageous to me.” Presumably an action has moral worth if and only if the
maxim being followed is a morally acceptable maxim. But what makes a maxim
morally acceptable or morally unacceptable?

Before turning to this question, however, let us reflect a bit more on the
maxims and behavior of Marc and Andrew. Did Marc or Andrew do anything
wrong in contributing to charity? If they were following mo rally unacceptable
maxims, then they were doing something wrong, but if they were following morally
acceptable maxims, they were not doing anything wrong. Whether they did
anything wrong, then it all depends on whether their maxims are morally
acceptable. Surely neither did anything wrong. However, Kant would say that
Andrew’s action lacked moral worth because the maxim he followed was purely
self-interested. (Lacking moral worth, their actions do not merit praise; but it does
not follow that because they lack moral worth, they merit condemnation instead)
so once again, we face the task of distinguishing between morally acceptable
and morally unacceptable maxims.

Thus, whether we are talking about the moral worth of actions or the
rightness and wrongness of actions, we need to distinguish between morally
acceptable and morally unacceptable maxims. We require a test of maxims that
will enable us to distinguish between those that are and those that are not morally
acceptable to act on.

Kant did not think that we need to invent a totally new test to determine
the rightness and wrongness of maxims. He believed that there is a test that most
ordinary people apply and that has been endorsed by most of the world’s major
religions, including Christianity. This test is the so-called Golden Rule: Treat people
the way you want to be treated. However, he did think that the Gold Rule needed
to be made more precise in order to be applied correctly. He called his
reformulation of the Golden Rule the Categorical Imperative. It’s
an imperative because it takes the form of a rule. It’s categorical because
it applies in all circumstances, regardless of an agents’ desires and because it
binds all rational agents.

5 FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

(1) The Formula of Universality or the Principle of Universal Law

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law."

(2) The Formula of the Law of Nature

"Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will as a universal law
of nature without contradiction."

(3) The Respect for People Formulation or the Principle of an End in Itself
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end."

(4) The Formula on Autonomy or the Principle of Freedom (Freedom of Will as Rational
Agents)
"So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through
its maxim."

(5) The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

"So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of
ends."

Can your maxim be universalized without contradiction?

Can your maxim show respect to yourself as a person and to other persons as
well?

If your answer is NO, then your maxim cannot become a moral law.
In the application of the rule on contradiction, you have to consider if in the process your
happiness or your own survival or existence or humanity's survival would be at stake
or compromised. At this point, it is important to point out that for Immanuel
Kant, committing suicide to escape the challenges and sufferings in life is not morally
acceptable because this maxim can never be universalized without contradiction aside
from the fact that committing suicide will not also show respect to oneself as a person
since the self is sacrificed to achieve an end which is to run away from those challenges
and sufferings.

Take note that in the kingdom or in the World of Ends, one has either a price or a
dignity or intrinsic value or unconditioned value. If it has a price, then something else can
be put in its place as equivalent. If it is exalted above all price and so admits of no
equivalent, then it has a dignity.

Autonomy or Freedom is the ground or the cornerstone of the dignity of human

nature and of every rational nature. Dignity must be viewed as the result of people who
are free and autonomous moral and rational agents mutually respecting each other.
Note: The discussion on Kant’s ethics is simply taken and/or copied from attorney’s blog,
Mark Gil J. Ramolete, (August 17, 2013). “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,” Law
and Philosophy. Accessed from
https://law-and-philosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/groundwork-of-metaphysic-of-
morals.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR147f5LzGM8KAjEhE8BE2BCP14_RbOyurXZI9pELejDcuTyJAPI
TtlaxYg

 6.2. Different Kinds of Rights

Rights Theory is duty-based approach to ethics. Most generally, a “right” is a
justified claim against another person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by
you. Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the
duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of P10 by Pedro, then
Pedro has a duty to pay me P10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The
most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher
John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm
anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given
to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored
by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more
specific rights from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and
religious expression.

There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are
natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are
universal insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in
the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or
handicap. Fourth, they are inalienable which means that “I cannot hand over my rights
to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery.”

a. Legal Rights

Legal Right is a conditioned parameter of human act. It is a mandate from law

legislated by those who are in authority for the sake of the common good. Legal right
emanates from the rightness of act based on the legislated law. Obedience to the law is
obedience to reason as the basis of law; and as such, everyone is respected on that
ability to follow the law. Legal rights are human rights that are derived from the moral
law.

To be legal means to follow what the law prescribes. To know the law is an
advantage to those who obey the law. When we disobey what the law prescribes, we
are penalized based from the parameter of what the law provides.

Rules of Human Conduct: Legal rights can also be observed through the use of
IRON Rule rather than SILVER Rule and Golden Rule.
 “All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do
you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets”. This saying has been given a
metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” And that appellation has given rise to
two other philosophical canons of human conduct, known as the “silver rule” and the
“iron rule.” Every rational individual, to a greater or lesser degree, will adopt one of
these maxims as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us reflect upon how
these schools of thought relate to human activity.

Iron Rule

It uses force or intimidation in imposing right or wrong. The Legalistic morality

determines right from wrong, based on a body of clearly stated and well-documented
body of laws. Laws provide a standard of behaviours which every member of a particular
state must observe. These laws are imposed by the government to its citizens. The
observances of laws are ensured through police power and military forces. The legalistic
theory of morality uses authority and force on imposing standards of right and wrong. This
explains why it is categorized under Authoritarian Ethics.

The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.” It is an
egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess! Advocates of the iron rule have been
legion throughout history. Cain, who murdered Abel because his evil works were in stark
contrast to his brother’s, and because he had the strength to do it, was the first
practitioner of this nefarious rule.

The Silver Rule

The silver rule has sometimes been described as “the golden rule in a negative
form.” It is the golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not
do to others.” In this mode it has found expression in the literature of many different
cultures. For example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule.
The latter condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what
generates anger in himself. The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to
yourself, do to no other.” Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish
egoism that withholds injury for personal reasons. In the apocryphal Book of Tobit there is
a passage in which Tobias says to his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man”.
Confucius (551-479 B.C.), a Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u
inquired of him: “Is there one word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?”
The teacher replied: “Yes. Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not unto others”
(Confucius, XV, p. 24).

The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis. They
forbid much; they enjoin nothing. The silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s
purse – because such is hateful to you. On the other hand, if one finds a purse containing
P2,000 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is mute. It, in effect, leaves you with the option,
“Finders keepers; losers weepers.”
b. Moral Rights

Moral Right is an attribute to a system of beliefs that help the individual define right
versus wrong, good versus bad. These values typically get their authority from something
outside the individual like a higher being or higher authority. Moral concepts, judgments
and practices may vary from one society to another. For instance, the morality behind
divorce and same sex marriages differ between the Philippines and the United States.
Morals also change over time within a given society as that society changes.

Morality right is more than the legal right prescribed for a person to follow. Instead.
It is what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society,
fairness, or specific virtues. This explains why ethics refers to those standards that impose
the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and
fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion,
and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right
to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are
adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-
founded reasons.

What is moral is not necessary legal. For instance, in the Filipino culture, sons and
daughters have the moral obligation to take care of their parents, which may not
necessarily oblige them legally to bring their parents to the Home for the Aged. A student
has the moral obligation to study his lessons without necessarily being obliged legally to
do it. On the other hand, he is not morally obliged to work without legally securing an
educational attainment or diploma.

William David ROSS:

A more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D. Ross, which
emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues
that our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of the universe." However, Ross's list
of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions: a)
Fidelity: the duty to keep promises; b) Reparation: the duty to compensate others when
we harm them; c) Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us; d) Justice: the duty to
recognize merit; e) Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others; f) Self-
improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence; and g) Non-maleficence:
the duty to not injure others

Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two
conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun and promise
to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door
and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the
duty of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of non-
maleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun. According
to Ross, “I will intuitively know which of these duties, is my actual duty, and which is my
apparent or prima facie duty?” In this case, my duty of non-maleficence emerges as my
actual duty so I should not return the gun.

ELABORATE

Construct MAXIMs either about issues on the Covid-19 pandemic or issues about
education. Whichever you will choose:
(A) make ONE maxim that can become a Moral Law, and
(B) another ONE maxim that cannot rationally become a Moral Law.
Elaborate a little on both of the maxims you will provide, i.e., why can (A) be a Moral
Law? Why can (B) not rationally become a Moral Law?

A. Maxim:__________________________________________________________________________
Elaboration:______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

B. Maxim:__________________________________________________________________________
Elaboration:______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

EVALUATE

*** Evaluation for module 6 is carried to the next module. Please refer to the Evaluation
section of Module 7.
MODULE 7: Ethical Framework: John Rawls on Justice as Fairness

Module 7 presents John Rawls’ concepts on Justice as Fairness as a framework in dealing

with moral issues. While there are many and different concepts of justice, this module
simply focuses on having a deeper understanding of Rawls’ moral philosophy. And most
importantly, the module aims to help students develop the ability to make moral
decisions that are grounded on reason and impartiality, as guided by the principle of
justice as fairness.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 7, it is expected that you should be able to:
1. Portray the background with which Rawls’ theory of Justice is based;
2. discuss the two principles inherent in the concept of “justice as fairness;”
3. justify the importance of undergoing the “veil of ignorance” when making policies
and moral decisions;
4. tell why the concept of justice as fairness is practical or not; and
5. recommend specific actions as solutions to certain specific problems currently
faced by our present government.

ENGAGE

Many Filipino citizens are dissatisfied with how our government officials respond to the
crises being faced by our country. Given the opportunity, if you were a government
official in our country nowadays, what would you be? Specifically, what position in the
government would you be having - the President, DOH Secretary, City Mayor,
Presidential Spokes Person or etc. etc. etc....

Given the “power” that you have (based from the government position you have
indicated), cite one specific problem or issue that the current government is facing and
then propose solution/s to such.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
EXPLORE

Explore videos on Rawls’ Theory of Justice:

A visual review of Rawls’ theory of justice in just 2 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-J8huxT8E

A discussion presentation of Rawls theory of justice in 16 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI

EXPLAIN

 7. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Rawls’ theory of justice starts from the claim of the Original Position, a thought
experiment in which the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of
the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a ’veil of ignorance’, which
would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her
ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, their conception of The Good. This forces
participants to select principles impartially and rationally. The guiding principle is “Justice
as Fairness”. He focused on distributive justice and attempted to reconcile the
competing claims of the values of freedom and equality.

Rawls’s principle of justice of welfare of liberalism states that “the distribution of benefits and burdens
in a society is just only 1) Each person has the most political liberty compatible with equal liberty for all, and 2) economic
inequalities are arranged so that a) everyone has an equal opportunity to qualify for all positions, and b) inequalities
produce benefits for the least advantage persons.”

In his concept of Veil of Ignorance, the individuals have to step back from real
circumstances and view the situation by forgetting about race, class, gender, and similar
factors so that fairness becomes the fundamental basis for justice. In negotiating social
agreements based on equality behind a veil of ignorance, risks are minimized and
weaker parties are protected.

Justice as Fairness aims to describe an arrangement of the major political

institutions of a liberal society the political constitution, and that with the legal system. It
is because justice as “the first virtue of social institutions.” In Rawls’ Thought Experiment,
he proposed to imagine humankind before society came into being – a natural state.
People then asked to create a society which decides how wealth and goods are to be
distributed. However, before they make any decisions they are placed behind a ‘veil of
ignorance,” which means they do not have any idea how successful they will be, or how
wealthy they will become. Life is a lottery!

There are two moral powers which include conception of justice and the
conception of good and there two Principles of Justices: Principle 1: each person has an
equal right to the same basic liberties that are compatible with similar liberties for all and
Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions; a) they are to
be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity and b) they are to provide the greatest benefit to the least advantaged
members of society.

Rawls’s difference principle is also primarily intended to govern a society’s economic institutions. Unlike the
political arena, where everyone must be equal, the economic arena must allow for some inequalities.” Inequalities are
necessary to serve as incentives for greater production. If greater economic rewards (income and wealth) are given to
those who work harder and who have greater abilities, they will be motivated to be more productive and all society will
benefit.”

In Rawls’ first principle, the basic liberties for all citizens includes: Political liberty
(right to vote and be eligible for public office); Freedom of speech and assembly; Liberty
of conscience and freedom of thought; Freedom regarding your own person; Right to
hold personal property; and Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as these are
understood under the rule of law.

According to John Rawls, the principles of justice that governs society must be
acceptable to everyone; otherwise, society will not be stable but subject to unrest. The
principle of equal liberty is meant to govern primarily society’s political institutions (its
constitution, government, courts, legislative system, and laws). It states that, “each
person participating in political practice or affected by it has an equal right to the most
incentive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.” It means that everyone must has as
many political rights and freedoms as possible as long as everyone has the same “equal”
political rights and freedoms. For instance, everyone must have the same voting rights,
the same legal rights, the same freedom of speech, the same freedom of conscience,
the same freedom of the press, and so on. In the political sphere, everyone must be equal
and everyone must be granted the maximum degree of freedom compatible with
everyone else having the same degree of freedom.

Rawls’s second principle involves holding positions of authority and offices of

command is clear enough. For example, there is no hereditary positions; No exclusions
based on gender, race, etc. and, no “tests” based on wealth or property. In this principle,
arranging social and economic inequities so that everyone benefits are less clear;
However, Rawls provides the framework for thinking about this – original position and veil
of ignorance.

Rawls’s principle of opportunities is supposed to govern a society’s economic

institutions. It states that the desirable jobs and positions should be open to anyone who
is qualified by his or her abilities. This means that jobs qualifications should be related to
the requirements of the job and should not discriminate by race or sex. It also means that
society should provide people with the training and education needed to qualify for
desirable jobs.

To sum, for Rawls, “I do not know if I will be a man or a woman. I do not know if I
will be given fair share, jobs, and fair pay. By way of veil of ignorance, we need to step
back from real circumstances and view the situation by forgetting about race, class,
gender, and similar factors. It is because by virtue of the original position, we all have no
idea about our future lives but we know that we are all equal. In this way, the first rule
should be to assign basic rights and duties so that social and economic inequalities are
just only if there is compensating benefits for everyone particularly the least advantage.
Thus, there is fairness only when society makes choices of rules that are agreed upon by
those that compose society itself.
2. Taxation in the Philippines vis-a -vis to Rawls’ principle of justice as fairness and the
progressive system of taxation

Tax law in the Philippines covers national and local taxes. National taxes refer to
national internal revenue taxes imposed and collected by the national government
through the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and local taxes refer to those imposed and
collected by the local government. The Tax Code of 1997, Revenue Issuances and BIR
Rulings pertaining to national taxes (vat, income tax, donor’s tax, capital gains tax, excise
tax, estate tax, etc) are posted at the BIR website (bir.gov.ph). Local taxation (like the
payment of cedula, amusement tax, real property tax, etc) is governed by the Local
Government Code.

Three (3) inherent powers of the sovereign state:

•police power - the power to protect citizens and provide safety and welfare of
society.
• eminent domain power - the power to take private property (with just
compensation) for public use.
• taxation power - the power to enforce contributions to support the government,
and other inherent powers of the state.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution sets limitations on the exercise of the power to tax.
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1)

“Equality in taxation”
• similar to progressive system of taxation.
• tax laws and their implementation must be fair, just, reasonable and proportionate
to one’s ability to pay.

Primary requisite of equity principle:

• a progressive tax rate shall be applied equally to all persons, firms, and
corporation, and transactions placed in similar classification and situation.
Progressive system of taxation
tax laws shall give emphasis on direct rather than indirect taxes or on the ability-to-pay
principle of taxation.

All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund
was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to
the general funds of the Government. (Article VI, Section 29, paragraph 3)

The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restriction as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the Government (Article VI, Section 28,
paragraph 2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object. (Article VI, Section 27, second paragraph)

The Supreme Court shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm
on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in x x x all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment,
or toll or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph)

Tax exemptions are limited to those granted by law. However, no law granting any
tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members
of the Congress. (Article VI, Section 28, par. 4). The Constitution expressly grants tax
exemption on certain entities/institutions such as (1) charitable institutions, churches,
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and nonprofit cemeteries and
all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable or educational purposes (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 3); (2) non-stock
non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational
purposes. (Article XVI, Section 4(3))

In addition to national taxes, the Constitution provides for local government taxation.
(Article X, Section 5) (Article X, Section 6) Parenthetically, the Local Government Code
provides that all local government units are granted general tax powers, as well as other
revenue-raising powers like the imposition of service fees and charges, in addition to
those specifically granted to each of the local government units. But no such taxes, fees
and charges shall be imposed without a public hearing having been held prior to the
enactment of the ordinance. The levy must not be unjust excessive, oppressive,
confiscatory or contrary to a declared national economic policy (Section 186 and 187)
Further, there are common limitations to the grant of the power to tax to the local
government, such that taxes like income tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. cannot be
imposed by the local government.
THEORY AND BASIS OF TAXATION
The power of taxation proceeds upon the theory that the existence of
government is a necessity; that it cannot continue without means to pay its expenses;
and that for these means, it has a right to compel all its citizens’ property within its limits
to contribute.

The basis of taxation is found in the reciprocal duties of protection and support
between the State and its inhabitants. In return for his contribution, the taxpayer received
benefits and protection from the government. This is the so called “Benefits received
principle”.

LIFEBLOOD DOCTRINE:
The lifeblood theory constitutes the theory of taxation, which provides that the existence
of government is a necessity; that government cannot continue without means to pay
its expenses; and that for these means it has a right to compel its citizens and property
within its limits to contribute.

BENEFITS RECEIVED PRINCIPLE:

This theory bases the power of the State to demand and receive taxes on the reciprocal
duties of support and protection. The citizen supports the State by paying the portion
from his property that is demanded in order that he may, by means thereof, be secured
in the enjoyment of the benefits of an organized society. Thus, the taxpayer cannot
question the validity of the tax law on the ground that payment of such tax will render
him impoverished, or lessen his financial or social standing, because the obligation to pay
taxes is involuntary and compulsory, in exchange for the protection and benefits one
receives from the government.

DOCTRINE OF SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP:

This doctrine is enunciated in CIR v. Algue, Inc. [158 SCRA 9], which states that “Taxes are
what we pay for civilized society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for
lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural
reluctance to surrender part of one’s hard-earned income to the taxing authorities, every
person who is able must contribute his share in the burden of running the government.
The government for its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible
benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their material and
moral values.”

Note: The discussion on the Taxation in the Philippines vis-à-vis Rawls’ Theory of Justice was solely
provided by Atty. Mark Gil J. Ramolete
ELABORATE

Do you think the “equal opportunity principle” and the “difference principle” of Rawls’
theory of justice are seen/applied in our country’s taxation system? If NO, why? If YES, in
what sense?

EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

CASE ANALYSIS 2:

The Social Amelioration Program (SAP) is a cash emergency subsidy program for Filipino
families whose lives were greatly affected by the implemented enhanced community
quarantine.

1. Applying John Rawls’ theory of justice in taxation, do you think that it is fair for some
taxpayers not to receive this “ayuda”? Expound your answer. 15 points

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________

2. Analysing Kant’s moral philosophy, do you think he would still advise you to pay
your taxes even if you are not receiving an “ayuda’? Would you or would you not
follow his advice? Elaborate your answers. 15 points
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Please be guided by the rubric for scoring:

Understanding of the philosopher’s concept -------------------- 10

Shows correct analysis of the situation (7-10)
Shows slight error in analysing (4-6)
Several errors in the analysis are apparent (1-3)
Misinterpretation of concepts is clearly evident 0
Presence of supporting claims and/examples -------------------- 3
Spelling and grammar ----------------------------------------------------- 2
TOTAL Score: 15 points

References:

Adkins, A.W.H. (1972). Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece from
Homer to the End of the Fifth Century. London: Chatto and Windus.

Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). Summa Theologiae: “On law, eternal law, and natural law.”
Vol. 28, edited by Thomas Gilby, pp5-97. Cambridge: Blackfriars in coordination
with New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). Summa Theologiae: I-IIae, q. 95, a.2, and q. 96, a. 4. Translated
by Manuel Velasquez, 2004.

Carlson, Erik. (1995). Consequentialism Reconsidered. Springer.

Crisp, Roger. (2006). Hedonism Reconsidered, Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, LXXIII (3): 619-645.

Crisp, Roger. (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Publish

London: Routledge.

Feldman, Fred (1997). Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frankena, W. (1963). Ethics. Foundations of Philosophy Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.
Glenn, Paul G. (1965). Ethics: A class manual in moral philosophy. USA: Herder Book Co.,
Missouri.
George, Robert P. (1995). Making men moral: Civil liberties and public morality. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: OUP.

Ibana, Ranier & Tugade, Angeli (Ed). (1998). Comments on moral philosophy. Quezon
City: The Philippine Commission on Higher Education.
Kaplan, J. D. (Ed.). (1958). The pocket Aristotle. New York: Washington Square Press.

Kant, Emmanuel. (1950). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. USA: Prentice-Hall

Inc.

Larimore T.B. (1843-1929) “The Iron, Silver, and Golden Rules.” Ethics as a philosophy.
(See Srygley, pp. 190-207).
Montemayor, Felix. (1994). Ethics: The philosophy of life. Manila: National Bookstore.

Mill, J.S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Edited by G. Sher. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company.
Mill, J.S. (2003). Utilitarianism and on Liberty: Including 'Essay on Bentham' and
Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Blackwell
Publishing.

Mulgan, Tim. (2002). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.

Oakley, J. (1996). "Varieties of Virtue Ethics", Ratio, vol. 9.

Petrick, Joseph A. and John F. Quinn. (1997) Management ethics: Integrity at work.
(California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pp. 89-91
Rachel, James (2004). What is morality: “Elements of moral philosophy” 4th Edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rawls, John. (1996). Reason at work: Reading in philosophy. “A theory of justice” pp.262-
267, edited by Steven M. Cahn and Goerge Sher. Forth Worth TX: Hardcourt
Brace College Publishers
Scheffler, Samuel. (1994). The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.

Singer, Peter Albert David. (1993). A Companion to Ethics. (Blackwell Companions to

Philosophy) Blackwell Publishing.

Smart, J.J.C., and Bernard Williams. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and

Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, James and Sosa, Ernest (eds.) (1969). Mill’s Utilitarianism: Text and Criticism,
Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

Timbreza, Florentino. (1993). Bioethics and moral decision. Manila: De La Salle University.

Trianosky, G.V. (1997). "What is Virtue Ethics All About?" in Statman D., Virtue Ethics.
Cambridge: Edinburgh University Press.

Velasquez, Manuel. (2004). Philosophy, a text with readings. “Ethics,” chapter 7. 9th
edition. Australia: Thomson Wadworth.

West, Henry R. (ed.) (2006). The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, Oxford:
Blackwell.

Electronic Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleological-ethics
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Teleological_ethics
https://www.balance.com/kimberly-amadeo-3305455 updated April 21, 2018
https://www.balance.com/law-of-supply-&-demand-defintion-xplained-example-
3305707
heir,heiress, jet-setter
Bringing Ethics into the Capitalist Model: Amartya Sen's Approach to ...
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/8233
prostratecategorizesurroundexert
https://www.wisdomquotes/quotes/robert-wrihgt.html
MODULE 8: Ethical Framework: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

Module 8 presents the Virtue Ethics of the famous “Father of Logic,” Aristotle. Diffferent
virtues are analysed here in details vis-à-vis the different vices. The importance of the use
of reason in attaining happiness is emphasized, and it shows that while habits are usually
deemed bad, there is one and the best habit that one could have: the habit of doing
what is good.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 8, it is expected that you will be able to:
1. trace the development of the concept of Eudaimonia as the highest good;
2. identify which are the virtues among the different vices;
3. determine the possible level of happiness that one can attain, given the end
that one is pursuing;
4. justify why man is considered as the “highest” animal; and
5. apply Aristotle’s “doctrine of the Mean” in different facets of life.

ENGAGE

With the global pandemic, we realize the courage that was shown by our front liners.
They are not only our health workers but also our military men and women, our
garbage collectors, our street sweepers, grocery personnel, drugstore personnel,
and our food vendors and delivery/errand persons, to name a few.
Do you think you have the virtue of courage? If yes, in what way? If no, why?

EXPLORE

Watch a summarized presentations of Aristotle and Virtue Theory here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLsUO6uK4M
EXPLAIN

MODULE 8 Readings
 Virtue Ethics
Meaning and Origin

The word virtue comes from the Latin root vir, for man. At first, virtue meant
manliness or valor, being parallel to the old expression “man of character”, but over time
it settled into the sense of moral excellence. Virtue can also mean excellence in general
while it can be construed also as the quality of being morally good. Virtue ethics is
classified as a teleological ethical principle. Teleological or teleology comes from the key
Greek word, telos, meaning an end or purpose proper to one’s nature. In other words,
attaining virtue is the telos or purpose proper to human nature, e.g. virtue is knowledge
in Socrates, and virtue of character and intellectual virtue in Aristotle.

Socrates, as represented in Plato's early dialogues, held that virtue is a sort of

knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good,
or eudaimonia, which is what all human desires and actions aim to achieve. Discussion
of what were known as the Four Cardinal Virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and
temperance) can be found in Plato's "Republic". He also claimed that the rational part
of the soul or mind must govern the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order to
lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia, the principal constituent of which is virtue.

The concept reached its highest elevation in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" in

the 4th Century B.C.E.. Aristotle held that eudaimonia is constituted, not by honor, wealth
or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life, what
might be described today as productive self-actualization. This rational activity, he
judged, should manifest as honesty, pride, friendliness, wittiness, rationality in judgment;
mutually beneficial friendships and scientific knowledge.

The Greek idea of the virtues was later incorporated into Scholastic Christian moral
theology, particularly by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologiae" of 1274 and his
"Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics". The Christian virtues were also based in
large part on the Seven Virtues from Aurelius Clemens Prudentius's epic poem (410 A.D.):
chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility. Practice of
these virtues was alleged to protect one against temptation from the Seven Deadly Sins
(lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride).

The term "virtue ethics" is a relatively recent one, essentially coined during the 20th
Century revival of the theory, and it originally defined itself by calling for a change from
the then dominant normative theories of Deontology (e.g. Immanuel Kant with
Categorical Imperatives) and Consequentialism (e.g. Jeremy Bentham on Utilitarianism).
 To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies mentioned above,
ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has
the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse killing
the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes. Deontologists, on the
other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a virtue
ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman
want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.

So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being.
And, it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical
dilemmas.

Character Building For A Good Life

Imagine a person who always knows what to say, can diffuse a tense situation,
deliver tough news gracefully, confident without being arrogant, courageous but not
reckless, generous but never prodigal. This is the type of person everybody wants to be
around with and to be like, someone who seems to have mastered the art of being a
person. This sounds like an impossible feat but Aristotle believed that while rare, these
people do exist. They are all what we should aspire to be: virtuous!

Virtue theory does not spend a lot of time telling you what to do, there is no
categorical imperative or principles utility, and no set of rules to follow in order to be a
good person, instead it’s all about an individual’s character. Aristotle and other virtue
theorists argued that if we can just focus on being good people, the right actions
naturally follow, and effortlessly; become a good person and you will do good things.

The theory reflects the ancient assumption that humans do have a fixed nature or
essence and that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature. Aristotle describe this
in terms of what he called proper functioning; everything has a function and a thing is
good to the extent that it fulfills its function and it is bad if it does not. This is easy to see in
the things around us like a chair whose function is to be sat upon for comfort and
convenience; a flower is expected to grow and reproduce and if it does not fulfill its
function then it is a bad flower. The same is true for humans, while we are also animals,
all the stuff that indicate proper functioning for an animal holds true for us as well- we
need to grow, be healthy and fertile. We are also a rational animal, and social animal,
so our function also involves using reason and getting along with our own species. Proper
functioning is not all about God’s plan but that nature built into us that desire to be
virtuous.

What does it mean to be virtuous? To claim that having virtue just means doing
the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount and to the right
person is vague. For Aristotle, there is no need to be specific, because if you are virtuous,
you know just what to do. You know how to handle yourself and how to get along with
others; you have a good judgment and you know what and when it is right. Aristotle
understood virtue as a set of robust character traits that once developed, will lead to
predictably good behavior. Virtue is the midpoint between two extremes, which are
called vices; it is the right amount, the sweet spot between the extreme of excess and
the extreme of deficiency, and this spot is known as the Golden Mean; it is also referred
to by some scholars as the Theory of Moderation, or Theory of the Middle. To demonstrate
the theory let’s take a look at some particular virtues starting with courage.

What is courage? Take a closer look at this situation: while on your way home you
see a person being mugged, what is the courageous action for you to take? Your
immediate reaction might be the in line with the acclaimed idea that “a courageous
person would run over there and stop the mugging because courage means putting
yourself in a harm’s way for a good cause”. A virtuous person in the Aristotelian sense
would first take a stock of the situation, size up the mugger and have a good reason to
believe that you could safely intervene, and that is probably the courageous choice.

So if you assessed the situation and you recognized that intervention is like to
mean that both you and the victim are in danger, the courageous thing to do is not to
intervene and call for help instead. According to Aristotle, courage is the midpoint
between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness – cowardice is the deficiency of
courage while recklessness is an excess of courage, and both are bad. Aristotle said that
“you definitely can have too much of a good thing”, so being courageous doesn’t mean
rushing headlong into danger, but rather “a courageous person will assess the situation,
they will know their own abilities, and they will take the right action in the particular
situation”. Furthermore, part of having courage is being able to recognize when, rather
than stepping in immediately, you need to find authority who can handle the situation
that is too big for you to tackle alone. Basically, courage is finding the right way to act.
Aristotle thought all virtues work like this: the right action is always a midpoint between
two extremes so there is no “all or nothing” in this theory including honesty. Accordingly,
honesty is the midpoint between the extremes of brutal honesty and failing to say things
that need to be said – it is knowing what needs to be put out there and what you should
keep quiet about. It also means knowing how to deliver hard truths gracefully, how to
break bad news gently, or to offer criticism in a way that it is constructive, rather that soul-
crushing.

To determine the midpoint of every action can become tedious, not to mention
the fact that the midpoint could vary from person to person as well as from one situation
to the other. How then can we possibly learn to be virtuous? According to Aristotle, virtue
is a skill, a way of living, and it is something that can only really be learned through
experience. Virtue is a kind of knowledge he called practical wisdom, or phronesis. It is
something that one can learn practically in the streets or while performing those multiple
concerns or chores in life like cooking, attending classes or even reading a book. A
character is developed through habituation - if you do a virtuous thing over and over
again, eventually it will become part of your character. Furthermore, learning to do the
right thing comes by way of finding those who are, in a way, already virtuous and
emulating them.

These people who already possess virtues are called moral exemplars, and
according to this theory, we are built with the ability to recognize them and with the
desire to emulate them, so you learn virtue by watching it and then doing it. In the
beginning it would be hard or you may feel phony because you are just copying
someone who is better than you of being a good person. But over time these actions will
become an ingrained part of your character and eventually it becomes that robust trait
that Aristotle is talking about. It will just manifest every time you need it, that’s when know
you have virtue and before you realize it, becomes effortless.
Why do we need to build our character, apply practical wisdom and emulate
moral exemplars? What motivates us to become the ‘good person’ that we can be?
Virtue theory evokes that we should become virtuous because if we are then we can
attain the pinnacle of humanity. It allows us to attain what is known as eudaimonia, a
Greek word which would mean “a life well lived” or “a good life”, while it can also mean
“human flourishing”. A life of eudaimonia is a life of striving. It’s a life of pushing oneself to
the limit and finding success. A eudaimonistic life is full of the happiness that comes from
achieving something really difficult, rather than just having it handed to you. But choosing
to live a eudaimonistic life means that you are never done improving, constantly setting
goals and working to develop new ways to achieve them. Choosing to live life in this way
also means you’ll face disappointments and failures. Eudaimonia does not mean a life of
cupcakes and rainbows, it does mean rather the good feeling of sinking into your bed
after an absolutely exhausting day in school or office – it is the satisfaction of knowing
that you accomplished a lot and then you pushed yourself to be the very best person
that you could be.

Summary

Virtue ethics is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-
based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice: honing
our strengths while working on our weaknesses. By practicing being honest, brave, just,
generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character. According
to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced
with ethical challenges. (*** Lecture of Mr. Raul Leandro Villanueva)

 Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is regarded with the theories of Self-Realization. Theories of self- realization
represent the moral reflections of the ancient people more than two millennia years ago.
The common denominator of these theories is the idea that the moral good of the
individual consists in the development of one’s potentialities as perfectly as possible, and
thus fulfilling and realizing one’s nature. This fulfillment is achieved by actualizing man’s
possibilities, considering all important elements of human nature and including the
inherent social character of the human person. Virtue ethics considers that moral life
should be concerned with cultivating a virtuous character rather than following rules of
actions. In virtue ethics, a moral person is someone who displays the character traits of
honesty, courage, and integrity.

Virtue ethics was introduced by Socrates in his ‘know-thyself ‘principle which is a

lifetime project inculcating self-questioning, self-reflection and self-assessment. This
process of self-knowing implies that a person cannot cheat himself/herself since for
Socrates, ‘an unexamined life is not worth living.’ In life, one has to be wise by being
prudent, temperate, courageous and just. Wisdom sums up everything that a person
does. Plato’s moral philosophy (429 – 347 B.C.) introduced the view that things that exist
on this earth are merely imperfect copies or reflections of the ideal world. Ideas are
perfect, eternal, immutable and universal. Things we perceive through our senses in
space and time are but the temporary manifestations of the ideal, which is one,
indivisible, timeless and space-less. Thus, human dignity, integrity and virtues continue to
live even if the person already dies. In another sense, Platonic morality implies that ‘you
cannot put a good man down.’Virtues are unseen and indefinable yet they are
important, valuable and essential. So, we are to strive to attain completeness of the
Good, Beauty and Truth, and yet, we can never complete them absolutely.

Known as father of idealism, Plato grounded his ethical thought where morality
consists essentially in the constant imitation of the Good, the highest of all ideas. To be
moral, a human person ought to know the Good, to follow or do the Good, and ultimately
to possess the Good. In his allegory of the cave, the world is an imperfect copy of the
ideal world; thus, ideas are eternal, immortal and perfect and ignorance is the only evil
(absence of good). For this reason, one must educate oneself through virtues that are
eternal, immutable or immeasurable – good, beauty and truth.

1. Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.)

Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believes that the world that we perceive is the
real world. Human nature is as it actually is and not simply a copy or manifestation of the
idea, e.g., man. Man is a composite of body and soul, mind and matter, senses and
intellect. Man is, therefore, a rational being. While man has a nature in common with the
other animals, he is, however, above all of them because of his reason. As such, man
strives towards an end or goal in view. This is the Good. But what is the Good that man
seeks? To Aristotle, it is happiness. But what is man’s true happiness? To answer this
question, we must understand what man’s true end is. What is the proper function or
purpose of man?

If man is rational then the proper function of man is the act of reason. For Aristotle,
the end or function of man could only be the activity of reason brought to its fullest extent,
namely, the moral virtues viewed within the framework of a communal life of the “polis”
and the “act of contemplation.” Moral virtue is following the rule of moderation: taking
the middle between two extremes, excess and deficiency. Overeating as well as eating
too little is bad; eating moderately is good. To drink much alcohol results to hang-over
while not drinking alcohol can result to making the body imbalanced. To experience real
happiness, one needs to drink moderately.

To Aristotle, the act of contemplation is the best and most perfect virtue.
Contemplation is to engage in the highest, most perfect type of reflection, whereby man
can commune with the divine and eternal truths. It is the fulfilment of the highest potential
of man as a rational being. The twin ends of moral virtues and act of contemplation
enable man to attain happiness. Happiness or “eudaimonia” is the result of virtuous living,
the proper exercise of reason in all of man’s action and endeavors.
 It is truly important for persons to live as humans, thus must practice virtues such as
righteousness, honesty, integrity, moderation, goodness, truth and sincerity. On the other
hand, the possible counterargument is that virtue ethics is not always the best to resolve
ethical dilemmas. Issues are not resolved by being good alone nor being righteous alone.

Terms in Aristotelian Ethics

Akrasia - Usually translated as “incontinence,” this term connotes a lack of self-control.

A person exhibiting akrasia knows what good behavior consists of but lacks the self-
control not to give in to physical pleasures. The concept of akrasia is significant to
Aristotle, as he generally agrees with the Socratic claim that no one willingly does evil
and that all wrongdoing is a result of ignorance. If the incontinent person acts wrongly in
full knowledge of what is good, this poses a dilemma for Socratic ethics, which Book VII
of the Ethics attempts to answer.

Arete - Usually translated as “virtue,” this important term means something more akin
to “excellence.” For the Greeks, arete can be used to refer not only to a person’s moral
or intellectual virtues, but to any other kind of excellence, be it the fitness of an athlete
or even the sharpness of a knife. Generally speaking, a person, animal, or thing exhibits
arete when it is performing its function properly. That the Greeks use the term arete in
their discussions of ethics implies a strong sense that humans have a function just as knives
do, and that we become good by fulfilling this function.

Doctrine of the Mean - Aristotle’s doctrine, stated most explicitly in Book II, that
virtue is a mean state between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. This
doctrine is left necessarily vague, as Aristotle thinks that this mean varies from person to
person. Essentially, it consists of the observation that it is always possible to have too much
or too little of a good thing.

Energeia - This Greek word, which is the root of our word energy, is generally translated
as “activity.” However, it is not necessarily an activity in the sense that we might
understand it. For instance, Aristotle describes both happiness and contemplation as
activities. In calling happiness an energeia, Aristotle contrasts it with virtue, which he
considers to be a hexis, or disposition. That is, the virtues dispose us to behave in the
correct manner. Actually behaving according to the virtues, however, is not itself a virtue
but rather the energeia of happiness.

Ethos - We can see that this term is the root of our word ethics. However, it is more
accurately translated as “character,” which gives us an important insight to
understanding the Ethics. Aristotle is not so much concerned with moralizing as he is with
determining what constitutes an admirable character.

Eudaimonia - Normally translated as “happiness,” eudaimonia also carries

connotations of success and fulfillment. For the Greeks, happiness is not an inner,
emotional state, but the activity, or energeia, of a successful person. The Greeks did not
share our sharp distinction between the public and the private, so for them, happiness is
a public matter that can be evaluated just as accurately by an observer as by the person
being observed.

Hexis - Translated as “disposition,” hexis is the term Aristotle uses to qualify the virtues.
According to Aristotle, virtue is not something one actively does. Rather, virtue is a
disposition to behave in the right way.

Phronesis - Often translated as “prudence,” this term is perhaps better, but more
cumbersomely, translated as “practical wisdom.” Phronesis is an important intellectual
virtue that allows us to reason properly about practical matters. Phronesis consists in no
small part of an appropriate application of the practical syllogism.

Psyche - The root of our word psychology, psyche is generally translated as “soul,”
though it carries none of the spiritual connotations of the Christian use of that word.
Psyche is that unobservable property that distinguishes living things from non-living things.
The human psyche consists of three major parts: the nutritive part, which it shares with
both plants and animals; the appetitive part, which it shares with only animals; and the
rational part, which is distinctively human.

Telos - This important term can be translated variously as “end,” “goal,” or “purpose”
but specific for the Greeks, telos is the purpose proper to ones nature. According to
Aristotle, we have a telos as humans, which it is our goal to fulfill. This telos is based on our
uniquely human capacity for rational thought. Aristotle’s view of humans having a telos
based in our rationality leads directly to his conclusion in Book X that contemplation is the
highest human good.

Virtues and Vices

SPHERE OF ACTION OF FEELING EXCESS MEAN DEFICIENCY

Fear and Confidence Rashness Courage Cowardice
Pleasure and Pain Licentiousness Temperance Insensibility
Getting and Spending (minor) Prodigality Liberality Illiberality
Getting and Spending (major) Vulgarity Magnificence Pettiness
Honor and Dishonor (minor) Ambition Proper Ambition Unambitiousness
Honor and Dishonor (major) Vanity Magnanimity Pusillanimity
Anger Irascibility Patience Lack of Spirit
Self-expression Boastfulness Truthfulness Understatement
Conversation Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
Social Conduct Obsequiousness or Friendliness Cantankerousness
Flattery
Shame Shyness Modesty Shamelessness
 Indignation Envy Righteous Malicious
indignation enjoyment

Themes, Ideas & Arguments

Virtue and Happiness
The word happiness in the Ethics is a translation of the Greek term eudaimonia, which
carries connotations of success and fulfillment. For Aristotle, this happiness is our highest
goal. However, Aristotle does not say that we should aim at happiness, but rather that
we do aim at happiness. His goal in the Ethics is not to tell us that we ought to live happy,
successful lives, but to tell us what this life consists of. Most people think of happiness as
physical pleasure or honor, but this is because they have an imperfect view of the good
life.
The conception people have of happiness frequently does not line up with true
happiness because people are generally deficient in virtue. Virtue is a disposition to
behave in the right manner, which is inculcated from a young age. A person with the
virtue of courage, for instance, will not only show confidence in the face of fear, but will
think of this courage as a good thing. Behaving courageously will make the virtuous
person happy and will be one part of living a generally good life. By contrast, a person
who has been poorly brought up and exhibits the vice of cowardice will find happiness
in the avoidance of danger and thus will have an imperfect view of the good life.
Moral Education
A question of high importance in any investigation of ethics is how we can teach people
to be good. Aristotle is quite clear that he does not think virtue can be taught in a
classroom or by means of argument. His Ethics, then, is not designed to make people
good, but rather to explain what is good, why it is good, and how we might set about
building societies and institutions that might inculcate this goodness.
According to Aristotle, virtue is something learned through constant practice that begins
at a young age. We might understand his outlook better if we recognize the meaning of
the word arete, which is rendered as “virtue” in most English translations. This term more
generally means “excellence,” so a good horseman can exhibit arete in horsemanship
without necessarily implying any sort of moral worth in the horseman. It should be obvious
to anyone that excellence in horsemanship cannot be learned simply by reading about
horsemanship and hearing reasoned arguments for how best to handle a horse.
Becoming a good horseman requires steady practice: one learns to handle a horse by
spending a lot of time riding horses.
For Aristotle, there is no essential distinction between the kind of excellence that marks a
good horseman and the kind of excellence that marks a good person generally. Both
kinds of excellence require practice first and theoretical study second, so the teaching
of virtue can be only of secondary importance after the actual practice of it.
The Doctrine of the Mean
One of the most famous aspects of the Ethics is Aristotle’s doctrine that virtue exists as a
mean state between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, the
virtuous mean of courage stands between the vices of rashness and cowardice, which
represent excess and deficiency respectively.
For Aristotle, this is not a precise formulation. Saying that courage is a mean between
rashness and cowardice does not mean that courage stands exactly in between these
two extremes, nor does it mean that courage is the same for all people. Aristotle
repeatedly reminds us in the Ethics that there are no general laws or exact formulations
in the practical sciences. Rather, we need to approach matters case by case, informed
by inculcated virtue and a fair dose of practical wisdom.

Aristotle’s claim that virtue can be learned only through constant practice implies that
there are no set rules we can learn and then obey. Instead, virtue consists of learning
through experience of what is the mean path, relative to ourselves, between the vices
we may be liable to stumble into.
The Unity of the Virtues
For Aristotle, virtue is an all-or-nothing affair. We cannot pick and choose our virtues: we
cannot decide that we will be courageous and temperate but choose not to be
magnificent. Nor can we call people properly virtuous if they fail to exhibit all of the
virtues.
Though Aristotle lists a number of virtues, he sees them all as coming from the same
source. A virtuous person is someone who is naturally disposed to exhibit all the virtues,
and a naturally virtuous disposition exhibits all the virtues equally.
Our word ethics descends from the Greek word ethos, which means more properly
“character.” Aristotle’s concern in the Ethics, then, is what constitutes a good character.
All the virtues spring from a unified character, so no good person can exhibit some virtues
without exhibiting them all.
The Importance of Friendship
Aristotle devotes two of the ten books of the Ethics to discussing friendship in all its forms.
This is hardly a digression from the main line of argument. Happiness, according to
Aristotle, is a public affair, not a private one, so with whom we share this happiness is of
great significance.
The city-states of ancient Greece were tightly knit communities. In the Politics, Aristotle
argues that we cannot fully realize our human nature outside the bounds of a Greek city-
state. The bonds that tie citizens together are so important that it would be unthinkable
to suggest that true happiness can be found in the life of a hermit.
The Life of Contemplation
In Book X, Aristotle ultimately concludes that contemplation is the highest human activity.
This is largely a consequence of his teleological view of nature, according to which the
telos, or goal, of human life is the exercise of our rational powers. In discussing the various
intellectual virtues, Aristotle extols wisdom as the highest, since it deals only with
unchanging, universal truths and rests on a synthesis of scientific investigation and the
intuitive understanding of the first principles of nature. The activity of wisdom is
contemplation, so contemplation must be the highest activity of human life.

ELABORATE

What is happiness? Are virtuous people, such as your hero, happier than vicious
people? Are you happier when you are being virtuous? How does being vicious affect
you?

EVALUATE

*** Evaluation for this module is integrated in the next module. Please refer to the
“Evaluate” section of Module 9.
MODULE 9: Ethical Framework: Thomas Aquinas’Natural Law

Module 9 tackles the moral philosophy of one of the greatest philosopher-theologian in

the middle ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas. In this module, we will trace the influence of
Aristotle in Thomas’ philosophy and point out what is “new” in it. As you come to
understand Saint Thomas’ concepts on morality and his method in knowing what is good,
it is hoped that you will come to appreciate him as one who taught us that divine union
with God is not simply a matter of faith, but also a matter of using the gift of reason.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 9, it is expected that you will be able to:
1. trace the connections between the Eternal Law and Natural Law;
2. compare and contrast Aristotle and Saint Thomas’ concept of happiness and
goodness;
3. differentiate the cardinal virtues from the theological virtues; and
4. argue for the possibility or impossibility of “synderesis.”

ENGAGE

You know that you are failing in one of your subjects. Is it better to cheat during exam
than to fail in that subject?

EXPLORE

Watch the following short videos for additional knowledge on Saint Thomas’ moral
philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJvoFf2wCBU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpVfd6oCF5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo
EXPLAIN

 9. Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD)

Acclaimed as the greatest theologian of mankind and well known as angelic

doctor, Thomas Aquinas teaches us that moral life is guided by God through our
conscience, known as “the little voice of God” in us. Through our conscience, we are
directed towards happiness which ultimately to attain perfection with God. Through our
conscience, we are naturally called to do good and avoid evil, which he calls synderesis.
This natural tendency to do good and avoid doing wrong is God’s will for man because
God is already present in the life of man. Through wise use of human freedom and
intelligence which is given as gifts of God, man is lead to enjoy the fullness of life by
following an ethical life. This conscience resides in the human heart where God speaks
within a person. Thomas Aquinas believes that every person is given by God an angel to
protect him/her in order to follow God’s will by doing good and avoiding evil; and from
this view, he was given a title “Angelic Doctor” because of his concept of angels guiding
us towards God.

In philosophy which employs the natural powers of human reason alone in its
investigations, Aquinas followed fundamentally the teachings of his great predecessor,
Aristotle, whom he honored with the exclusive title, “The Philosopher”. However, St.
Thomas saw farther and beyond the vision of Aristotle who relied only on the natural
powers of human reason and experience in his search for truth. Like Aristotle, Aquinas
proclaimed that supremacy of reason in man, and maintained that man can know the
truth with certainty by the use of his reason. Yet Aquinas stressed that there are some
truths which cannot be known by human reason alone but can be known only with the
aid of the light of divine revelation. Yet, the two truths, i.e., those known through reason
and divine revelation can never contradict each other, because they emanate from the
same source; God who is TRUTH itself.

To illustrate, let us take up the concept of God by Aristotle. Man can know and
validly prove God’s existence by reasoning, as shown in the conclusions of Aristotle’s
arguments to prove the existence of God. For Aristotle, god is: Prime Mover, First Cause,
Perfect Good, Final Cause and Good of all Things. St. Thomas Aquinas upheld these
arguments as valid and true, and in fact adopted these proofs in his Quinque Viae (Five
Ways) to prove God’s existence. Yet, he saw their limitations: they do not reveal the
nature of God as we know Him from the Bible and Christian Teaching – as a Personal
God, our loving Father, Redeemer and Benefactor to whom we pray. The same limitation
in knowledge is obtained in Aristotle’s philosophy of man, particularly on the ultimate
destiny of man. For instance, while there are hints of the immortality of the soul of man in
his writings, Aristotle never proved the immortality of the soul as this lies beyond the
comprehension of human reason.

Man has the natural inclination to be happy, but more than Aristotle, Thomas
Aquinas adhere that man seeks ultimate happiness in God, the Greatest Good (Summum
Bonum). Thus, faith and reason go together in seeking the truth of God. We can come to
know God through our conscience, the “little voice of God in us.” Obedience to Natural
Law is rational participation in the Eternal Law of God. Humans follow their conscience in
caring for themselves and for their fellow humans. Thus, the nuns, priests and monks may
guard their virginity without going against the Natural Law.

Here are partial lists of virtue ethics that a person can live for (Rachels, 176):

benevolence fairness patience

civility friendliness prudence
compassion generosity reasonableness
conscientiousness honesty self-discipline
cooperativeness industriousness self-reliance
courage justice tactfulness
courteousness loyalty thoughtfulness
dependability moderation tolerance

These character traits foster the development of a human person, fitting for the
person to have. It is always believed that virtues cannot be bought by any means
because they are carried through life, they cannot be bought by money but they can
be taught to children, and through constant practice, they can be learned and
developed overtime. They are inherent in a person. It is noticeable that a person is good
by his actions, words, and ways of doing things, and relating to people.

For Thomas Aquinas, we need to follow the law which is “a rule or body of rules
that tells individuals what they may and may not do.” Nevertheless, man has the gift of
reason and freedom to obey that which is good and just. The law is legislated by those
given authority for the sake of the common good; thus, the law is a human positive law
because it is crafted by the human mind. The human positive law is derived from the
eternal law, which according to Thomas Aquinas, “is God’s decree for the governance
of the universe.” The eternal law, however, is reflective of the natural law, which is a
“pattern of necessary and universal regularity and universal moral imperatives, a
description of what ought to happen in all human relationships.”

For Thomas Aquinas, natural law is the order of nature and like Aristotle, he taught
that the purpose of human life is happiness and that the goodness or badness of an
action would depend on this relation to that purpose. To follow the human nature which
is to be rational, the person should use his/her conscience as “little voice of God” “to do
good and to avoid evil” which he calls synderisis. It is human nature to understand so
s/he can believe (Filipino: Sundin ng tao ang konsensiya o ang kanyang kagandahang-
loob para sa kanyang ikaliligaya na kasama ang Diyos).

As human beings, it is not our nature to go against what nature provides. We do

not need to go against it but be satisfied with what it gives us. It is because “the natural
law, in its universal character, can in no way be blotted out from men’s hearts.” Epictetus
has said it, “Do not seek the good in external things; seek the good in yourselves: if you
do not, you will not find it.”

ELABORATE

“Can I still be good or capable of doing what is good even if I do not believe in
God?” Assuming you were Saint Thomas, what would your answer be?
Elaborate.
EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

QUIZ 5: There are 15 items in this quiz with one point score for each correct answer. Enircle
the letter of your answer.

1. It is where individual’s Virtue ethics focuses upon.

A. Action B. Mind C. Experience D. Character

2. Which is not a theological virtue?

A. Faith B. Charity C. Courage D. Hope

3. What are the two extremes that virtues are generally the average of?
A. Deficient and Proficient C. Deficient and Excessive
B. Proficient and Excessive D. Omniscient and Proficient

4. Which one among the virtues affords the benefit gift of wisdom?
A. Charity B. Courage C. Temperance D. Justice

5. What are morally virtuous actions depend on?

A. Values of government C. Values of society
B. Values of individuals D. Values of the school system

6. Which one is false?

A. Actions must be done with knowledge of the virtue which is embodied
B. Actions must be the person’s free choice to do them
C. Actions must be done no matter how you feel
D. Actions must be done willingly because they are known to be right

7. According to Aristotle, the end goal for human is _____ ?

A. Wealth B. Happiness C. Power D. Honor

8. Someone does an action because they have to do it in displaying virtue ethics.

A. True B. False C. May be D. It depends
9. For Saint Thomas, God speaks to us through _______.
A. the telephone B. our dreams C. our conscience D. the bible

10. Which of the following is a contribution of virtue ethics?

A. Encourages the cultivation of human excellence.
B. People of good character can do bad.
C. Virtue is of a very personal nature.
D. People of bad character can do good.

11. For Thomas Aquinas, we can know the truth about God thru _______ .
A. Faith alone C. Faith and Reason
B. B. Reason alone D. none among the choices

12. Which is not a Cardinal Virtue?

A. Patience B. Prudence C. Temperance D. Courage

13. Virtue ethics was created by which philosopher?

A. Aristotle B. Socrates C. Plato D. Kant

14. What virtue lies in between shyness and shamelessness?

A. Friendliness B. Modesty C. Patience D. Magnanimity

15. For Aristotle, “Excellence is a Habit.”

A. True B. False C. May be C. It depends
MODULE 10: Ethics through thick and thin, Globalization and Religion

Module 10 is the last module for this course, GE 108 [Ethics]. As a contemporary student
of philosophy, we will be looking at the new challenges to ethics as brought about by
globalization. Likewise, we will venture on the challenges of pluralism and
fundamentalism in our search for universal value. The question on what could possibly be
the role of religion in ethics and its response to the challenges of fillinials, are also
considered in this module.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Module 10, it is expected that you will be able to:
1. explain the main characteristics of globalization, pluralism, and
fundamentalism;
2. enumerate the challenges posed by pluralism and fundamentalism in our
quest for universal value; and
3. assess the significance of religion and ethics as a course in our search for
meaning in the chaotic global world.

ENGAGE

Cite one specific problem associated with globalization that is greatly affecting
you right now and then reflect on how you should or could cope with it using any
of the ethical principles presented in the earlier modules.
EXPLORE

Watch the short video presentation on Globalization here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0nFD19eT8

Read N. Ramanuja’s article on the “Challenges in Global Ethics” and

Kazuisa Fujimoto’s article entitled, “Globalization and Ethics for the future.”

EXPLAIN

MODULE 10 Readings

 Challenges in Global Ethics (N. Ramanuja)

Challenges of pluralism and fundamentalism: search for universal value
We believe, the global ethics emanates from the Individual to the family, the society,
community, country and the world. All the transactional events like business are a part of
the Samyak or total concept of global ethics. There is a beautiful sloka on human
interaction in Mahābhārata’s Shānti-Parva 167:9 where Vidura tells Yudhisthira:

By self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as
you treat yourself. This thought is reflected again in Bible Luke 6:31 “Do for other people
everything you want them to do for you. Treat others the same way you want them to
treat you.”

The need
In my opinion this maxim ‘Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto
you’ forms the basis for emergence of ethics. According to Prof. Richard T De George,
University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas, “the focus of
ethics discussion has moved from theological and religious matters to ecological issues,
social problems and more recently social responsibility and business ethics.”

Chanakya in the chapter 7 of Chanakya Niti says so of profits in business:

One must be satisfied with whatever he has as wife, wealth, and income. Still, one must
never get satisfied with the knowledge and acts of charity.
Earlier, businessmen feared that any ethical conduct or adopting of moral philosophies
would lead to sacrifice of efficiency and productivity; and the competitiveness in the
market place would fade away. Lately, this misconception about the business ethics has
changed, as businesses believe that being ethical and moral would provide loyal
customers and greater acceptance in the society. Today, more and more businesses are
accepting ‘business ethics’ as a part of business conduct.

Cast doubt on many things that we believed or knew until now. We have read that
eminent philosophers like Milton Friedman were of the view that the aim of the business
is to earn profits by utilizing the resources and engaging in open and free competition,
without deception or fraud. But does this happen?

This process generates uncertainty, imbalances and conflicts both socially (by
confronting sectors which adopt different attitudes and views regarding change) and
personally. And this worry has been exacerbated by the economic and financial crisis
which, among other global problems, has revealed ethical deficiencies in the actions of
many institutions, and has again placed values at the forefront of people’s demands, as
a guide for dealing with uncertainty and as a factor of stability in facing up to the crises
and conflict. There is a need shared values and ethics; they are vital for the proper
functioning of the economic, political and social network and, therefore, for the well-
being and development of the potential of every world citizen.

Challenges of ethics in a Globalised World

The advancement of technology dissolved international boundaries and opened the
cultures to a whole new arena, enabling globalization of businesses. Globalization,
ushered in during the decade of 1990s, is an empowering entity. It interconnects the
world, supports economic development, provides information availability and has been
a catalyst in emergence of a ‘Global Village’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ spelt out by
our ancient sages.

Globalization, brought in new ideas about the business and also

ethics with the widening of the consumers and the supply chain.
But globalization, brings forth a multiplicity of new queries for the
management, for which it had to provide an ethical response.
Although businesses increasingly are becoming global,
businessmen began to realize that it was certainly not more
uniform across the markets.

Global ethics as a foundation for businesses in their world-wide

operations began to emerge. However, the case “how to transact ethically?” is not as
clear, as it is desired, when various cultures and different levels of economic
development of countries are being experienced with.
Globalization as we see has brought in many ethical issues like
• Exploitation of workers
• Outsourced from countries which have no strong labour laws and also indulge in
unhealthy labor practices including child labor
• Exploitation of Tax Loopholes
• Indulging in unethical financial processes
• Dumping toxins
 • Unnecessary medical procedures.
In view of these, defining global ethics does become a challenge as this aspect has to
be dealt with considering various aspects like:
1. Technological imbalances
Scientific and technological progress is probably the phenomenon that is most decisively
shaping our age. But together with the enormous opportunities of this scientific and
technological revolution that we are experiencing, a large number of new and difficult
ethical questions is emerging. Here we have remember Elvin Stakman’s famous maxim:
“Science cannot wait until ethics catches up with it, and nobody should expect
scientists to think of everything for everybody.” This however is not totally valid. We need
a more constructive approach, along the lines of that of Heinz Pagels: “Science cannot
resolve moral conflicts but it can help to better formulate the debates on conflicts.”

Technology has contributed to the rise in inequality, but there are also some significant
ways in which technology could reduce this inequality. But the adaptation to the
computer technology which India witnessed in the decade of 1990s and 2000s and
later has proved that it is possible to cope up with proper foresight in adapting newer
technologies and keeping in pace the technology paradigms by incorporating
appropriate technology in the education system. However, the ethical paradox is – are
new technologies making local industries obsolete and people lose out on jobs?

2. Cultural differentiations existing in different countries

Due to the unprecedented access to cultures, a much wider audience than ever before
has a gateway to see, hear and experience phenomena that were never accessible
earlier. Misrepresentation, stereotyping and the risk of loss of cultural and intellectual
property rights are the consequences of unmonitored access.

There are a number of negative impacts globalization has had on cultural diversity,
including the influence multinational corporations have on promoting a consumer
culture, exploitation of workers and markets and influencing societal values. This
increased availability of commercial media and products can "drown out" local
cultural influences. It is also that e-learning technologies perpetuates colonization by
designing curriculum that is based on the dominant culture. Not having access to
technologies that are present in the classroom, combined with an education system
geared toward the dominant society can be a lethal combination for non-dominant
cultures. The present education, legal and power structures reflect western ideas and
philosophies.

Loss of individualism and group identity occur when globalization encourages a 'Western
ideal of individualism'. We have seen many instances of the negative influences on
culture in our country also.

But, this also has a positive side. Technology provides a medium where depiction of
images and thoughts can provide the means in which truism can be established. Global
media centres allow cultures a distinctive voice to promote awareness and provide
public knowledge and understanding of their stories and identities. It also allows for the
communication on issues that are important in preserving the culture and knowledge
acquisition of cultural ways - allowing them to retain their diversity. Technology can be
used to preserve language, customs and culture. Technology allows for self-
representation and preservation of personal and collective identity by providing
autonomy and empowerment.

3. Socio-economic considerations-Ethics to assist the community

Here I am reminded of the famous ‘Parable of the Sadhu’ which received the Harvard
Business Review’s Ethics Prize in 1983. Mr. Bowen McCoy, Managing Director of the
Morgan Stanley Company, relates his experience in the distant mountain of Nepal to
the short and long-term goals of American business. Here the trekkers were left with
unexpected ethical dilemma left them questioning their values--and the values of
business, which often places goal achievement ahead of other considerations such
issues on poverty.

Prof. Peter Albert David Singer, an Australian moral philosopher and Professor of Bioethics
at Princeton University, and the University of Melbourne, presents a brilliant survey of the
ethical problems of globalization and focuses on ethical issues concerning the
reduction of extreme poverty. He examines the reasons why developed countries and
their people should contribute more for this purpose and argues that the elimination of
poverty is a common benefit in which ethical requirements and the interests of the
people of the developed countries converge. But in reality is this happening? We are
seeing ideas of environmental pollution which would hinder progress in the developing
countries being thrust on them by the developed world. We see a very clear divide
between the developed and developing countries. As we notice, this calls for proper
policies to be put in place poverty alleviation initiatives, keeping pace with the
technical paradigms. If it is in our power to prevent something any adverse happening,
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. This
action seems non-controversial.
4. Education standards
Migration plays a very important role in the global society. Due to increasing poverty in
the developing countries and lack of opportunities, the migration of educated people
to developed countries has seen an increase. There are various opportunities provided
by the developed countries, which at times tend to be dangerous as well.

While education standards have gone up in the developing countries, to fill the gaps in
the developed world, the expenditure on providing higher education means higher
allocation of funds in the developing country. Governments of developing countries
need to take up this as a challenge and come out with strategies like Make in India to
retain talent.

There is also a positive side to this. We have seen many American/European universities
coming to India to establish collaborative institutions.
5. Religious beliefs
Indian sages during the time of Rigveda recognised the plurality in thought globally and
came out with the concept of
Aa no Bhadrah Kratavo yantu Vishvatah

Let knowledge come to us from all sides and

The Truth is one, the
learned perceive differently’. Globalization has now brought in a culture of pluralism,
meaning religions “with overlapping but distinctive ethics and interests” interact with
one another. Essentially, most of the world’s leading religious traditions—teach values
such as human dignity, equality, freedom, peace, and solidarity. Therefore, through
such religious values, globalization engenders greater religious tolerance in such areas
as politics, economics, and society.

Today, secularism and multiculturalism are converging. Putting somewhat less

enigmatically, the issues about the proper regime are becoming and more and more
interwoven with issues about the proper ways to deal with the growing diversity of these
societies. The main point of a secularist regime is to manage the religious and
metaphysical philosophical diversity of views fairly and democratically. This is a tough
issue in developing countries where religion plays a very important role in the societal
thinking. Despite these advantages, the resistance to the new paradigms in
developing countries pose challenges, especially where religion has an overpowering
influence on the society. There is also a fear that globalisation undermines the concept
of nationalism, with dominant migrant population.

6. Business considerations–Strategic Planning

Business is primarily a form of social cooperation— it is about people from various societies
working together to create value that no one of us could create on our own. It is about
creating chairs that allow the body to rest, vehicles and networks that enable us to
travel and communicate over great distances, a range of products and services as
broad as the human imagination. Keeping sustainability in mind, the Companies need
to limit its strategic initiatives to those meeting needs of consumers without depleting
resources needed by future generations. The view that “the business of business is
business, not ethics” is no longer acceptable. The companies need to change to a
culture that places profits and good performance ahead of ethical behaviour. It is
ethically dangerous for company personnel to assume that local ethical standards are
an adequate guide to ethical behaviour globally.

Right or wrong?
In the guidelines for businesses decision-makers, but there are still many “grey areas” not
covered by laws and regulations. Some organizations develop ethical guidelines for their
members. Here ethics involve standards about what is “right” and “wrong”. However, in
a global setting it is not as easy, as it seems, to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Actually, it is the social responsibility of a firm in the target market, which comes into
debate in this context.
Present Ethical Education
Business ethics being taught in Universities provides perspectives to students, in the sense,
how ethical practices would help in creating and running businesses without resorting to
fudging of accounts, balance sheet or numbers. Case studies of the firms which run their
businesses ethically, the struggles that they go through to get Government approvals,
delays caused in approvals for not paying bribes etc., would provide the students a
deeper insight into how to navigate through the pitfalls and how to run a business in a
sustainable and socially responsible manner. On the other hand, case studies of business
houses which resorted to unethical practices would provide them a picture of how such
firms climbed to unbelievable heights within a short period and a steep decline, as soon
as the outcomes of unethical practices get exposed. Once this exposure is given to the
students, it is ultimately left to the students to follow ethical or unethical practices.
Swaying from ethical to unethical or partially ethical or partially unethical is a result of not
only dedicated ethics class/ or embedded ethics teaching, but also by comparing their
peers or seniors, how they are climbing the career path and through what means.
Whether fast growth path or slow but fairly consistent and acceptable growth path - the
choice is left to them.

Scams and Crises

In an age of corporate scams, swindles and general malpractices – from the Enron,
Lehman Brothers’ case to that of the Reebok franchise in India which has been charged
with a multi-core misappropriation of goods and funds – ethical business practices might
at first sound like an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Across the world there is growing
scepticism about big business – particularly trans-national big business – and the way it
operates, supposedly with the bottom line of profit being it’s only moral lodestar and its
sole ethical imperative. Scams and crises are not new. In the Sanskrit there is a saying
“VYAPARAM DROHA CHINTANAM” means Business is all about Cheating? Even our
ancestors were of the aware that the businesses could also be means of unethical
conduct and its only purport is to make profit and oneself rich! In the recent times, the
business arena, generally had a more positive view of commerce. But two waves of
scandals—Enron in 2001 and the global financial crisis in 2008, followed by many scams
around the world— have decimated such a trust universally. As a result, globally, people
are more ambivalent about business than they were in the 1990s, and many students
entering business school today are eager to revive the focus on virtue. An interesting
feature is that a survey by the Aspen Institute showed an increase between 2002 and
2007 in MBA students’ desires to have their careers make a contribution to society. The
survey also found a decline in the belief that a company's primary responsibility is to
maximize shareholder value.

There are three main reasons why ethics has to play a key role in business:
• It is crucial that ethics have a considerable influence if we want an efficient, smoothly
operating economy. Ethics helps the market to its best.
• The government and the legal system cannot resolve certain key problems of business
and protect the society while ethics can. Ethics can only resolve futuristic issues. That
company’s social responsibility should extend beyond what the regulations require.
Ethical activity is value in itself, for its own sake, because it enhances the quality of lives
and the work we do.
The issue of teaching ethics is an old one. Almost 2500 years ago, the philosopher
Socrates debated the question with his fellow Athenians and his position was clear: Ethics
consists of knowing what we ought to do, and such knowledge can be taught. Most
psychologists today would agree with Socrates. Studies indicate that a person's behavior
is influenced by his or her moral perception and moral judgments. It is in the light this that
the Corporate Boards need to spend more time on the reporting of non-financial issues
such a strategic performance drivers, value to customer, quality improvement rates,
stakeholder concerns, corporate culture measurement and environmental issues.

Ethical leadership
Leaders who lead ethically are role models, communicating the importance of ethical
standards, holding their employees accountable to those standards, and -- crucially --
designing environments in which others work and live. Moral leadership in a company is
of critical importance, especially in this century society where government regulations,
the public and consumer watch groups demand it and widespread media reacts to a
company that fails to deliver on it. Small businesses must pay special attention to
maintaining moral expectations of communities they serve, making moral leadership and
guidance key.

In an experience as CEO of a large public sector with global operations, it has been
observed that ethical leadership can cause a host of positive outcomes, and to reduce
the risk of many negative outcomes. Leadership is indeed the most important lever in an
ethical system designed to support ethical conduct.

Conclusion
According to Professor Thomas Piper, one of the architects of the business ethics program
at Harvard, “Our emphasis is on a three-lens model: an economic imperative; a
legal/regulatory imperative that connects to public policy concerns; and an ethical
imperative. We believe that each lens is very important; no one lens is sufficient.” This
approach depends upon healthy collaboration among faculty trained in a variety of
disciplines: law, ethics, marketing, organizational behavior, economics, strategy, and
general management.

The real journey begins when we actively engage, as live issues, the concepts of various
markets, economic models, human nature and environment, that are foundational to
prevailing beliefs about business. And for those who teach business ethics, it begins when
we stop fighting for legitimacy and start conducting business in positive ways, that our
knowledge empowers us to do.

I would like to conclude with this mantra of Isavasya Upanishad which highlights the need
for ushering in ethics and sustainability on this planet.
This entire universe is pervaded by God, for the reason that it is dependent upon
primordial nature, which in its turn is also pervaded by Him. Enjoy whatever is given to you
by Him, and do not seek wealth from any other source.

References:
1. THE GLOBALIZATION AND GLOBAL ETHICS: THE CASE OF LESS DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES Dr. ÖZNUR YÜKSEL Professor, Dean and GUVEN MURAT Associate
Professor Dr., Vice Dean Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Faculty of Caycuma
Economics and Administrative Sciences, Zonguldak, Turkey.
2. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/02/Ethics-in-
Business-and-Finance_ the-Great-Post-Crisis-
Challenge_FranciscoGonz%C3%A1lez.pdf
3. http://docslide.us/documents/be-and-csr.html
4. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/ issues/friedman-soc-resp-
business.html; The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits; by Milton
Friedman.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
6. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/16/religion-andglobalization-new-possibilities-
furthering-challenges/, Religion and Globalization: New Possibilities, Furthering
Challenges, Daniel Golebiewski, July 16, 2014
7. h t t p s : / / w w w . b b v a o p e n m i n d . c o m / w p
content/uploads/2013/02/Secularism-and-
Multiculturalism%C2%AC_Charles-Taylor2.pdf

8. http://www.slideshare.net/rupaleeslideshare/ ethics-12132965
9. Teaching business ethics in Universities - is it a waste of time? Theodora Issa Curtin
University in research gate.
10. Can you teach businessmen to be ethical? By Jonathan Haidt January 13, 2014 in
The washington Post.
11. Indian Philosophy and Business Ethics: A Review Chandrani Chattopadhyay.
12. Advances in Management & Applied Economics Journal, Vol.2, No.3, 2012, 111-
123 Scienpress Ltd., 2012.
13. http://ethicalsystems.org/content/leadership
http://www.changemag.org/archives/back%20issues/november-
december%202009/full-teaching-businessethics.html Teaching Business Ethics in the Age
of Madoff; by R. Edward Freeman, Lisa Stewart, and Brian Moriarty

 20 Globalization and Ethics for the Future by Kazuisa FUJIMOTO

Abstract
 This article approaches the notion of developing an ethics for the age of
globalization. Developing such an ethics necessitates revisiting the premises of
traditional ethics, which include three presuppositions: (1) Presentism, (2)
Anthropocentrism, and (3) Individualism (voluntarism). The ethical subject is
restricted to the agents and themes that appear in the present time and space,
leading to the position of human being as a privileged actor in ethics as well as to
Individualism (voluntarism). These traditional ethical paradigms were established at
an epoch when the power of technology was relatively small, and in today’s
globalized world, these paradigms must be redefined. We need to extend the
range of ethics according to the extension of the politico-market system and
technology, taking into account all absent agents and factors. This new approach
requires the expansion of the three ethical presuppositions: (1) from Presentism to
Futurism, (2) from the restrictive consideration for humanity to a general
consideration for all lives or all beings, and (3) from the individual subject to a
collective subject in terms of responsibility. Above all, it is imperative to take into
consideration the temporal dimension, the future generations of the world that are
not yet present, and those generations that may even never be present. Such an
ethics, which calculates the incalculable, has to leave open the possibility of
becoming for the world, in the world, and the very possibility of the world. True
“globalization” consists of such a “worldization,” that is, the movement, formation,
or becoming of the world to come. In order to allow this “wordlization” to fit into our
ethical framework, we must also expand the concept of “globalization,” redefining
it as not simply a political, economic movement but a movement of “englobing” all
beings and all lives, including future generations. Such an ethical globalization will
be a globalization of hope.

Globalization and Ethics

It has been a long time since globalization first provoked violent changes in the diverse
fields of politics, economy, society, and culture. This stream, principally derived from
economic globalization (the expansion of a capitalist economy and the formation of a
global market), has brought about a huge increase in the cross-border flows of peoples,
goods, materials, and information by lowering many of the barriers between nations.
Needless to say, we should not overlook in this context the role of the worldwide
information network (that is, information and media globalization).

From a philosophical viewpoint, this sort of globalization in the market, transportation,

information, etc., consists in a departure from the material, the physical, and the
natural, such as land, ground, soil, territory, region, country, history, community,
restricted society, traditional culture, race, blood, origin, etc. There is, thus,
“deindustrialization” (a drift to post-secondary industry) and a structural shift to tertiary
industries (the service industry) and the information industry in economically advanced
countries, and at the same time, an “international division of labor” that imposes
primary and secondary industries on “developing countries.” In this new global regime,
the relocation of material production to the “Third World” gives rise in advanced
countries to the illusion of emancipation from material constraints, an illusion confirmed
by advanced information technologies and the “media” (the media technology or
media industry) that pervades our everyday life.

It goes without saying that this globalization necessitates a great change (“Reform,”
“Renovation”) in political, economic, legal, and cultural systems, but this necessity also
extends to the fields of philosophy and thought. In particular, ethics needs to be
reconsidered entirely in what is a genuinely convulsive situation that overturns the
traditional ways of thinking and value systems. Ethics has a mission to think about such
issues as good and evil and how to lead a good life in order to point us in the right
direction. It is urgent that we reconstruct ethics, unless we want to throw it away as
obsolete and ineffectual. However, all of the traditional and established ethical systems
in human history have presuppositions that are absolutely incapable of coping with the
new circumstances presented by globalization. This premise is what we could call
Presentism. Without “deconstructing” this Presentism, there will be no possibility of
reconstructing an ethics for the future.

Presentism
What does it mean to say that previous ethics have been molded out of Presentism?
We refer here to a text of Hans Jonas. In his work The Imperative of Responsibility, he
points out that traditional ethics has been based on “simultaneousness,” “directness,”
and “reciprocality.” In traditional ethics, “the range of human action and therefore
responsibility was narrowly circumscribed.”⑴

All enjoinders and maxims of traditional ethics, materially different as they may be,
show this confinement to the immediate setting of the action. “Love thy neighbor as
thyself”; “Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you”; “Instruct your
child in the way of truth”; “Strive for excellence by developing and actualizing the
best potentialities of your being qua man”; “Subordinate your individual good to
the common good”; “Never treat your fellow man as a means only but always also
as an end in himself”̶and so on. Note that in all these maxims the agent and the
“other” of his action are sharers of a common present. It is those who are alive now
and in some relationship with me who have a claim on my conduct as it affects
them by deed or omission. The ethical universe is composed of contemporaries,
and its horizon to the future is confined by the foreseeable span of their lives.
Similarly confined is its horizon of place, within which the agent and the other meet
as neighbor, friend, or foe, as superior and subordinate, weaker and stronger, and in
all the other roles in which humans interact with one another. To this proximate
range of action all morality was geared.⑵

It means that previous ethics have been focused only on presence in the spatio-
temporal sense of the word. Traditional ethics is restricted to subjects as well as objects
in the range of presence, modelled after a face-to-face and contemporary
relationship: this is an ethics for and among present beings who exist in the here and
now, whether this being is subject or object. In short, this is an ethics of what is
countable, an ethics of countability. Of course, it is natural that we should look after or
respect those beings who are present before us as ethical subjects, or within the reach
of our actions and influences. This is an important ethical truth as valid today as ever.
However, the conditions of globalization, with its advanced technologies, demolish this
premise of the ethics of presence. The global market and its transport and information
networks reduce distances, removing peoples and products from their native places
and origins in order to circulate goods, materials, resources, knowledge, ideas, and
information. Hence the juxtaposition and mixture of foreign objects/subjects. In a world
that is connected by highly developed transport and information systems, all
heterogeneous, distant, absent beings have the potential to become neighbors, a part
of the “global village” constructed by this ubiquitous network. Thus, it becomes possible
for one individual’s small actions to have a significant effect for someone else living on
the other side of the globe. This has environmental consequences, for it also means that
industrial activities can have a tremendous effect far beyond their immediate location.

The generation of electricity by nuclear power is an obvious example. If a severe

nuclear accident, like those of Chernobyl and Fukushima, occurs in China, it will
cause widespread damage to neighboring countries, particularly those to the east,
including Japan and Korea. What is more, it will have serious aftereffects on the
environment for generations to come. Even if there is no accident, a nuclear power
plant cannot generate energy without radioactive waste, which means future
generations pay for our prosperity. Nuclear energy policy thus confronts us with an
ethical question beyond our immediate time and space̶ does the present
generation have the right to live in prosperity at the cost of others to come, who
are absent here and now? J.-P. Sartre said that the advent of nuclear weapons
made humanity into an entity that shared a common destiny. In order to face the
problem of nuclear power, we are required to expand the concept of ethics and
responsibility to an extent that previous ethical systems did not have to consider: an
ethics of responsibility for our species, humanity, and for the entire environment, for
the world itself.

Presentism, Anthropocentrism, Individualism

Here, let us point out three principal features of traditional ethics. We can refer to them
as Presentism, Anthropocentrism, and Individualism (or voluntarism). We have explained
the first of these already. It must have been impossible for past ethical systems to imagine
that one might have a responsibility for human beings living a thousand years later.
Anthropocentrism can be described as the restriction of ethics and responsibility to
human subjects and objects. As Jonas says, “ethics accordingly was of the here and now,
of occasions as they arise between men, of the recurrent, typical situations of private
and public life.”⑶ In a sense, it is reasonable or common sense to restrict ethical beings
to humans. It seems nonsensical to accuse anyone of using violence when they punch a
stone. What about animals, though? If one beats a dog or cat, a whale or dolphin, it
probably can be regarded as “violence” or animal abuse, but it may be difficult to use
terms like “abuse,” “ill-treatment,” and “murder” when describing the killing of a mosquito
or a cockroach. This shows that the ethical criterion for judging what agents have to be
respected consists in “proximity” (that is to say, degree of presence) to humankind.
Individual voluntarism refers to the idea that the traditional ethical agent was based on
the individual and its will. Jonas writes as follows in his criticism of Kant’s categorical
imperative:
Kant’s categorical imperative was addressed to the individual, and its criterion was
instantaneous. It enjoined each of us to consider what would happen if the maxim
of my present action were made, or at this moment already were, the principle of a
universal legislation; the self-consistency or inconsistency of such a hypothetical
universalization is made the test for my private choice.⑷ Upon reconsidering the
matter, it is this restriction of ethical agents to individuals and their wills that made it
possible to ignore ethical responsibility for acts of violence or outrages in wartime
committed in the name of the state or some other group. It was only in recent times
that crimes against humanity during wartime began to be denounced or judged in
the courtroom.

What was the cause of this limitation to the classic concept of ethics? According to
Jonas, when the conventional concept of ethics was developed, the power of human
action was not so great that it could destroy the world. When the force of scientific
technology exceeds the scale imagined by previous ethics, we have no choice but to
widen the scope of responsibility as new conditions might require. The measure of
responsibility must correspond with that of power.

It will be the burden of the present argument to show that these premises no longer
hold, and to reflect on the meaning of this fact for our moral condition. More
specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers
the nature of human action has changed, and, since ethics is concerned with
action, it should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change
in ethics as well: this not merely in the sense that new objects of action have added
to the case material on which received rules of conduct are to be applied, but in
the more radical sense that the qualitatively novel nature of certain of our actions
has opened up a whole new dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no
precedent in the standards and canons of traditional ethics. The novel powers I
have in mind are, of course, those of modern technology.⑸

In his Imperative of Responsibility, Jonas accuses Francis Bacon and his famous phrase
“scientia est potentia” of being the source of a human arrogance that provoked the
wholesale exploitation of the planet by technology for the purpose of expanding
human health, wealth, and individual or social possibilities. Bacon himself, however, was
not so naïve as to affirm such a human mastery, which justified treating and
transforming nature as required or desired. Or rather, such a notion was beyond the
reach of his imagination because, for him, humans could only act under conditions of
obedience to the laws of nature in order to have any practical effect on the external
world. Bacon’s understanding rested on the premise that it was impossible to manage,
rule, and govern nature by force or to act contrary to nature. We might posit the image
of an absolute, unwavering terra, a Great Mother who generously embraces her little
demon of a child, no matter what he does with technology, behind which might be an
overmastering confidence in the Creation and Acts of God. At least, the power of
technology was not so big that it could destroy the world. “All this has decisively
changed. Modern technology has introduced actions of such novel scale, objects, and
consequences that the framework of former ethics can no longer contain them.”⑹

New concepts of “Globalization” and “Ethics”

From now on, we must change or extend the concept of globalization. Globalization
does not mean only the economic and political movement of expansion all over the
world, but also the technological movement that tends to encompass all beings, all
lives, all generations, and all species. We must now call this all-inclusive movement or
tendency “globalization.” Above all, we need to recognize and emphasize its
diachronic dimension in relation to its synchronic dimension. Globalization should not be
reduced to a simple geographical concept of the world. More exactly, the planet’s
existence has to be considered or reflected as a continuum or a node, an extension
from the past into the future, that is to say, a process of eternal becoming. Living in and
reflecting on the present world cannot be done properly without this diachronic
dimension of the world, without, so to speak, this “worldization” (this becoming of the
world, world generation, world formation), another aspect (precisely, the other aspect)
of “globalization.” It reflects a certain “Genesis” without which we will lose our future
generations and the significance or worth of our present world.

From this point of view, a new ethics will require following extensive turns:

1. From Presentism to Futurism (consideration of the world to come)

2. Form restrictive consideration for Humanity to general consideration for all lives or
all beings
3. From individual subject to collective subject in responsibility
When scientific technology encompassed nuclear energy (nuclear power generation,
atomic bomb), humans possessed (or have been possessed by) a power huge enough
to destroy the planet. What is at stake is the very existence of all beings, the dilemma of
whether “to be or not to be,” in a very basic ontological sense, an elementary, physical
ontology far beyond a metaphysical ontology like Heidegger’s. Today, we find an
ontological question directly related to physics as well as ethics, as in Spinoza’s
philosophy. We are on the verge of the ontological possibility of the world. What we are
faced with is the possibility or rights of our future world, of future generations. Ultimately,
this means the possibility itself of possibility, the generation of generation. Being is
precisely the possibility of a world to come; in other words, the becoming of a world to
come. We living humans in the present world must be responsible for the generation of
our future generations, those who are not yet present. These generations do not exist in
present space and time, nor can they make any response to our inquiry or call, much
less have any right to do so. Of course, it is always possible that they will never ever
come into being. What is threatened today, however, is the impossibility of their coming
into being, the possibility itself of impossibility. Thus, even impossibility is on the verge of
extinction. It is our ethical duty to protect and hand over at least this possibility of
impossibility for generations to come. We are responsible for the beings who/which are
incapable of responding. We are responsible for leaving open the possibility itself for
future generations to respond to “us,” to other beings, to the world. Giving the
responsibility (the possibility of response) to those beings yet to come, to the becoming
(a present to the future, of the future, for the future) is a new ethics, an extended,
generic ethics. This is a kind of present, a donation of what we cannot have, what is
outside of our property (because this present is theirs, their possibility/responsibility, not
ours). Once, the existence of the world “had been a first and unquestionable given,
from which all idea of obligation in human conduct started out. Now it has itself
become an object of obligation; the obligation namely to ensure the very premise of all
obligation, that is, the foothold for a moral universe in the physical world the existence
of mere candidates for a moral order. This entails, among other things, the duty to
preserve this physical world in such a state that the conditions for that presence remain
intact; which in turn means protecting the world’s vulnerability from what could imperil
those very conditions.”⑺
Destruction of the natural environment, the use of atomic energy and radioactive waste,
gene manipulation and its impact on our human descendants and the ecosystem: these
phenomena and their consequences are difficult or principally impossible to know
perfectly and predict because of the long time span, the gathering of data, the threshold
of interpretation, etc. Now that the power and influence of technology might mean the
total destruction of the world, however, this difficulty allow for no excuse any longer
(“beyond expectation”). It would be irresponsible to use difficulty or impossibility as an
excuse to refuse questions and arguments about what technology should be and how it
should be used. On the basis of our understanding, knowledge, and information, an
ethics of technology must go further. Such work will be impossible on the basis of scientific,
technocratic, technicien logic alone. It needs collective arguments and responsible
systems that are beyond specialties. We have to think “together” as a multiple, yet single
being about what is desirable, what the world should be, and not only about what is
made possible by technology.

Ethics for all beings

The second key point for a new ethics is the expansion of ethical objects from humans
to all beings, all lives. Hans Jonas writes:

And what if the new kind of human action would mean that more than the interest
of man alone is to be considered that our duty extends farther, and the
anthropocentric confinement of former ethics no longer holds? It is at least not
senseless anymore to ask whether the condition of extra human nature, the
biosphere as a whole and in its parts, now subject to our power, has become a
 human trust and has something of a moral claim on us not only for our ulterior sake
but for its own and in its own right. If this were the case it would require quite some
rethinking in basic principles of ethics. It would mean to seek not only the human
good but also the good of things extra human, that is, to extend the recognition of
“ends in themselves” beyond the sphere of man and make the human good
include the care for them.⑻

Jonas’ argument here seems to limit the object of ethics to the “biosphere,” but he
affirms elsewhere the necessity of expanding ethical objects to all beings in the
environment. It is certain that Jonas made great progress in extending ethics, but it is
undeniable that he considers the human being to be a privileged, representative
ethical subject who bears full responsibility for all the beings because of the enormous
technological power humans possess. For this reason, there must be some concern that
anthropocentrism lingers on in his work. He seems to be aware of this problem himself.
He says

There is no need, however, to debate the relative claims of nature and man when it
comes to the survival of either, for in this ultimate issue their causes converge from
the human angle itself. Since, in fact, the two cannot be separated without making
a caricature of the human likeness since, rather, in the matter of preservation or
destruction the interest of man coincides, beyond all material needs, with that of life
as his worldly home in the most sublime sense of the word we can subsume both
duties as one under the heading “responsibility toward man” without falling into a
narrow anthropocentric view.⑼

We do not have the time to treat this delicate problem, here taking his words in the
banal sense that those who possess more power are obliged to take more responsibility.

If there is something left to be desired in Jonas’s argument, it is that we need to count

among the new ethical object/subjects that are “extrahuman” such entities as robots,
computers, cyborgs, and genetically modified humans, because from now on our
environment will include the ubiquitous computing network, whether or not equipped
with artificial intelligence, and robots, which (who) perform hard and dangerous tasks
impossible to humans, will be the important members of human society. We have to
regard as companions of our world beings about whom or about which it would not
make sense to ask whether they were natural or artificial, such as gene-manipulated
humans. In such a situation, where should we draw the boundary of ethics? Traditionally,
ethics has regarded conscious beings as its objects, but if it is possible to think that there
are “consciences” wherever there is the flow, exchange, and circulation of information,
we have to treat them as participants in an ethical relationship. Needless to say, we have
to recognize the risk of going too far in extending the ethical concept: everything would
be an ethical object. We cannot, however, avoid a constant redefinition of being, life,
conscience, etc., and without such a difficult problem, which in principle has no definitive
answer, there would not be any fundamental ethics nor any sustainable society.
For the incalculable and the becoming of the world
The third and last feature of a new ethics is “Why should we expand the concept of
ethical actor from the individual to the collective?” Because the technology in question
is beyond the reach of our individuality. This is a matter of system. Any technology
implies, in its essence, some impersonal elements. As individuals, we cannot control
today’s advanced technology, which becomes more and more expansive and
complicated. It no longer consists simply of an individual, or one simple company, or
one state, either in technological terms or in the mode of its production, diffusion, and
use. That is why advanced technology cannot be placed under the control of a single
agent. Because the mode of technology has been networked, so also must control,
intervention, restructuring, and actors be networked. The heterogeneous, multiple
actors must participate in a collective orientation of the technological ecosystem we
live in. This collective multidimensional intervention will create our mode of being
(presence) and our possibility (future). Although perfect self-determination is nothing
but an illusion, it would be suicidal to abandon ourselves to a perfect heteronomy or to
simply be conformist. Neither option would constitute an ethics for the future, which
seeks the best direction.

The collectivity that we call for will not be restricted to the human collectivity. It not only
contains things, animals, computers, and robots, but also beings to come, who (which)
do not yet exist. More primordially, beings to come who (which) never exist; that is, the
future itself, possibility itself. The ultimate actor in an ethics for the future is this power of
being always open to the future.

Is such an ethics too heavy a task? An excessive task? Faced with rapid changes in our
society, it is very hard or even impossible to foresee even just a few years ahead, to say
nothing of the future in one hundred years’ time. Is it necessary to take responsibility for
what is not foreseeable? For what is not countable? For what is impossible? It is an
abuse of ethics, isn’t it? This is not only the objection from utilitarianism, rationalism, or
conservatism, but also from the traditional ethics that condemned them. This is
precisely the bind of Presentism. If we recognize the importance or necessity of ethics,
we need to create an ethics that counts what is not countable. Because what an
econocentric and technocentric type of globalization tends to destroy is the being
itself of the world and that which is more the possibility itself of the being (or becoming)
of the world. The existence of the world and its possibility are not things that are
countable in their essence or in their “fact.” It is the “basis” of this uncountable
existence of the world that lends possibility to all the countables, politics, economy,
law, society, culture, etc. From this point of view, an ethics that calculates the
incalculable consists in an endeavor to make another calculation that makes possible
all other calculations, beyond calculations. Without such a heterogeneous calculation,
every technology or means, however sophisticated or advanced it may be, would be
nothing but a makeshift.
We must not take the problem of globalization for only an economic or geopolitical one
but extend it to another globalization; that of the ethics of being. That will be a true
globalization. A globalization to come. A globalization of hope, hope for the future.

NOTE
⑴ Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an Ethics for the
Technological Age, Translated by Hans Jonas in collaboration with David Herr, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984, p. 1.
⑵ Ibid., p. 5.
⑶ Ibid.
⑷ Ibid., p. 12.
⑸ Ibid., p. 1.
⑹ Ibid., p. 5.
⑺ Ibid., p. 10.
⑻ Ibid., p. 8.
Ibid., p. 136.

 21 Ethical Dilemmas of Globalization

April 8, 2012
By Dr. Sylvain Ehrenfeld

International Humanist and Ethical Union Representative to the United Nations

Member of the Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County

We are in the midst of an unprecedented transformation, even larger than the Industrial
Revolution. Because of technological changes our world is becoming more and more
interconnected.

The dynamic force of globalization will continue to change our perceptions, as it

reshapes our lives, the way we make a living and the way we relate. The changes are
economic, technological, cultural and political. Incidentally, Karl Marx, in the
Communist Manifesto predicted that the relentless search for markets will alter older
social structures. As he put it “all that is solid will melt”. Some say it is a runaway world. To
quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, commenting on the Industrial Revolution in his day, “things
are in the saddle and ride mankind”.

I will look at the economic impact of this story and the contentious issue of globalization
in trade and its effects on the poor as well as the rich. The gap between rich and poor
in the world is still very large. The bottom 2.5 billion, 40% of the world’s population live on
less than $2 a day and receive only 5% of the world’s income.

There are still too many people who die because they are too poor to live. Can trade
help? Aid and a fairer trading system are crucial. As we will see, it can be an enormous
help to poor countries. It can start them on the first steps of the ladder of progress.
Tremendous changes are also occurring in the richer countries. Let’s examine trade and
globalization.

Globalization, free trade and outsourcing are very controversial issues. They have been
much in the news but they have not been seriously discussed in the media.
Thinking on this subject falls basically into two camps. There are the gung-ho free
traders and the anti-globalists who strongly oppose international institutions like the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and particularly the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The anti-globalists come in two varieties. The protectionists, as for
example Pat Buchanan, are extreme conservatives who think American nationalism
suffers from the commands of the global economy. This approach is essentially
economic nationalism. They believe that international institutions undermine the
sovereignty of the nation and make the country more beholden to transnational
corporations. Buchanan opposes multiculturalism and immigration, claiming it leads to
a moral decline of the nation.

The opposite pole of anti-globalists are much more radical in their thinking. They oppose
the WTO, the World Trade Organization, claiming that it is undemocratic, and ignores
environmental problems and labor conditions such as child labor and workplace safety.
Finally they claim that globalization increases inequality and further impoverishes the
poor. The anti-globalist movement has grown in passion and strength. They have
staged numerous protests. The one in Seattle involved some violence, but mostly they
are peaceful. The one recently in Hong Kong however was not peaceful.
The pro-globalists claim that free trade creates wealth, and this increase trickles down
and improves the condition of the poor.

Firstly–what is globalization? It is the increasingly closer integration of countries and

peoples of the world brought about by the enormous reduction of transportation and
communication costs and the breakdown of barriers to the flow of goods, services,
capital and knowledge. Think of it as a tidal wave of change brought about by the
impact of new technologies. Television, the internet and other forms of rapid
communication have increased mobility and commercialization of ideas. Different
aspects of globalization include free movements of capital, trade, cultural and political
differences.

Along with these changes come many problems which cross national boundaries:
terrorism, disease, refugees, environmental problems, and rapid flow of capital. No
nation can be totally immune. In the past many people lived in small areas. Some
people never went further than 20 miles from their homes. Now if there is genocide in
Rwanda and Darfur, or a suicide bomber in Jerusalem, we see it on TV, We live more
and more in a global community, and are experiencing a global economic order.

Is globalization new? Not really. The scope and worldwide reach of our present
globalization is new. However, from 1860 to 1914 there was a significant globalization
trend which was also spurred by developments in transportation and communication. It
came about because of railroads, cars, telephone and telegraph.
World War I stopped this trend. Between the two world wars, there was much
protectionism. After World War II a major economic conference took place in Bretton
Woods, a sleepy New England town. It was there the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and GATT were created. GATT stands for General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. In 1995 this became the World Trade Organization (WTO).By 2002 it
accounted for 97% of world trade.

The ancient world was always aware of the enormous benefits of trade. Ships
constantly crossed the Mediterranean. The Silk Road between China and the Roman
Empire had an enormous effect on the enrichment of cultures as well as wealth.
Why is trade beneficial? If I have something you need and you have something I want–
if we bargain and come to a deal– we both benefit. Of course one of us may be in a
stronger bargaining position. Nevertheless we can both benefit.

Adam Smith, and later, Ricardo, British economists, made the case for the free
exchange of goods and services. This allows individuals to specialize in what they do
best, to everybody’s benefit. As an example– the tailor does not attempt to make his
own shoes but buys them from a shoemaker. In turn, the shoemaker doesn’t attempt to
make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The ideal was that no country should
produce anything it could import more cheaply from abroad. Countries should
concentrate on industries in which they are low cost producers or to use economic
language, they should produce where they have a relative advantage.
A classic example involved the Lancaster textile mills which exploited the climate of
northern England, and Portuguese vineyards which prospered in the southern sun. In the
presence of prohibitive tariffs of imports and exports which were prevalent at the time,
England would have been forced to make its own wine, and Portugal to manufacture
cloth. This is obviously a waste of resources. This concept is a powerful argument, and it
has worked up to a point. However it omits the effects of changing technologies. The
country with weaker bargaining power remains committed to its own industry and may
be unable to develop. This has occurred in Central and South America, which for years
traded only in a few crops and were totally dependent on the price of those crops.

There is much talk about free trade. We must remember that every free trade
agreement is a negotiated document. It involves all kinds of bargaining about different
products and tariffs. For example, for the North American Free Trade Agreement,
NAFTA, the results were uneven. US corn producers benefited, while textile workers have
not. Mexican farmers were devastated by US corn imports, and their textile workers lost
out. Part of the reason is textile products from China and US subsidies for agriculture. It is
estimated that the growth in Mexico and Latin America has benefited the upper 30%
but the bottom gained little. The great inequalities in Latin America and the lack of
gains in the world trading system have brought forth radical leaders in recent elections
as Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia. The irony of democratic elections.

There are many charges against the WTO. Here are three of the main criticisms.
1. WTO places economic considerations ahead of concern about labor conditions and
the environment.
2. WTO is undemocratic
3. WTO increases inequality and makes the rich richer and leaves the world’s poor
worse off.

WTO has a set of rules which all member states must accept. (There are about 30,000
pages of them.)If a dispute arises, and a complaint is made about unfair practices,
there is a dispute panel. If the complaint is upheld and the nation continues to act in
breach of the rules they are subjected to severe penalties–including tariffs against its
own goods and perhaps a fine of money compensation. These are secret panels of
trade organizations and lawyers.

Rulings are mostly based on the idea that a country can’t embargo a good because
they object to the process by which it is made. Only the quality or content is relevant.
This has become known as the “product” versus “process” principle. If a product is
made by child labor, in unsafe conditions, or is damaging to the environment, it cannot
be rejected. This makes it difficult for a country to impose environmental labor or health
standards. WTO rules prohibits countries from treating physically similar products
differently on the basis of how they are made. So– anti-globalists have a strong case.

However, free traders say WTO is ill equipped to rule on labor conditions and
environmental situations. These decisions are complex. They claim that this is neither
their role nor their mission. They are only concerned with trade. Rules concerning labor
laws and environmental conditions are the province of international labor conventions
of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and international environmental treaties.
Globalists say protesters should focus their pressure on countries to abide by
international laws. The final irony is that underdeveloped countries do not want to be
pressured to impose labor and environmental standards as it will make their products
more costly. They want and need the business. They also say that many people in the
west may regard low-paying jobs at Nike factories as exploitation but for many people
in the underdeveloped world factory work is far better than growing rice and risking
hunger. They also add that child labor is the only way a family may have as protection
from starvation. Obviously labor laws and environmental rules are hard to enforce. We
will say more about this later.

A charge against the WTO is that decisions there are usually made by consensus. Rule
by consensus can also be called rule by veto. It takes the opposition of only a single
member to stop an overwhelming majority from making changes. Developing countries
make up the majority of members of WTO. But not every country has the same
bargaining power. In practice the agenda is set in informal meeting of the major
trading powers: the US, the European Union, Japan, and Canada. Once these powers
have reached agreement these are presented at a formal meeting usually as a fair
accomplice. Not in the least democratic. Finally, dispute panels are not selected
democratically. Even if WTO decisions were taken by the majority of states that are
members it would not be really democratic since for example India, representing a
billion people would have the same number of votes-one- as Iceland which has
275,000,

A third charge and perhaps the most serious is that globalization makes the rich richer
and the poor poorer. It takes from the poor to the rich–Robin Hood in reverse.
Let us separate the issues into two parts. Firstly–has inequality increased? The UN reports
that gaps in income between the poorest and richest countries have continued to
widen. In 1960 the 20 percent of the worlds’ people in the richest countries had 30 times
the income of the poorest 20 per cent. In 1997, the gap has more than doubled– it is
now 74 percent. This widening of the gap is happening at a faster pace. The assets of
the 200 richest people are more than the combined income of 41 percent of the
world’s people. Just imagine that visually –the 200 people can fit into our local libraries’
auditorium.

The gap in income within countries has also widened. In the US, according to the US
Census Bureau, the top and bottom tiers are growing and the middle shrinking. The top
20% held 85% of the country’ wealth. An interesting illustration of this is the recent two
years of the holiday shopping season. Retailers that cater to lower and middle income
shoppers like Walmart, Sears and Kohl’s had disappointing results, even with the lower
prices. The higher end chains like Marcus and Nordstrom did well.

Obviously, income gaps have widened both within countries and between countries. A
recent UN study by ILO called for a fair globalization. They show that global trade
increases wealth but the trade benefits are uneven. Like most economic changes there
are winners and losers. What is a fair division of the growing pie? This raises ethical
questions.

Are the very poor worse off? The world’s population is currently a little over 6 billion.
About 1.2 billion live in absolute poverty (about 1$ per day) and many more even
below that. About 3 billion–that is nearly half the world’s population–have about $2 per
day. About 820 million lack adequate nutrition, more than 850 million are illiterate and
almost all lack access to basic sanitation. In rich countries less than one child in a
hundred dies before the age of five. In the poorest countries one child in five dies. Every
day three hundred thousand young children die from preventable causes. Life
expectancy in rich nations averages 77 years whereas in sub Sahara Africa, it is 48
years.

The number of absolute poor has decreased by 200 million. Most of the improvement
has been in China and India. In sub Sahara, Eastern Europe, and central Asia, poverty is
up. In Latin America and the Caribbean there has not been much change. So–to
disagree with both sides of the argument– globalists’ claim that the increase in wealth
has helped the poor–the trickle-down theory is certainly not true. The claim that poverty
has increased is also not true, although the level of misery that exists already could
hardly in any imagination be worse.

To sum up the anti-globalization charges– WTO does ignore labor rights and the
environment. It is most certainly not democratic. Finally the changes created by
globalization taking over the world, with increasing inequalities is ultimately a dangerous
situation.

What then, do we need? What we need to do is achieve some progress in halting the
dangerous increase in inequality world-wide and fair trade–not the so called free trade.
Trade can be a particular thorn in the flesh for poor countries. The developed world
spends over a billion dollars a day on farm subsidies and only one-seventh of that in
development aid. Much of that goes to rich country experts and sales of technology.
Rich countries’ subsidies for their farmers make it difficult for poor countries that rely on
exports to compete. Other subsidized products include textiles and cotton. The IMF
estimates that a repeal of the subsidies would improve global welfare by about 120
billion. If we put together interest on the debt owed by poor countries together with
trade barriers, more money flows from the poor countries to the rich, than the other
way.

A recent UN report states that rich countries trumpet the virtues of open markets and
free trade even as they put up barriers against goods from poor countries and spend
hundreds of billions that benefit large scale farmers .The recent Hong Kong meeting did
not change that. About outsourcing and outbasing -a hot issue. Because of
tremendous changes in technology, many more jobs can be outsourced. Some
examples are radiologists who examine x-rays, reservation agents, computer
programming, accounting, data base management, financial analysis, tax
preparation. Companies can comparatively easily move production to other parts of
the world.

With outsourcing and outbasing who gains and who loses? Some American gain:
consumers enjoy lower prices, and stockholders see profits rise. Some Americans lose:
workers whose jobs are displaced, the owners of firms whose contracts are transferred
to foreign suppliers.

Recently, Paul Samuelson the renowned economist and very much for free trade has
revised some of his ideas. He pointed out that free trade can hurt an advanced
country. When a poor, but ambitious nation, is trading with a wealthy advanced
economy free trade can undermine the wage level in the advanced economy. He
cites the example of China and the US. This explains why the US hourly wage,
discounted for inflation, has been stagnant for many years and has aggravated
inequality in the US. Monthly wages are 11% lower than in 1973 adjusted for inflation in
spite of rising productivity. A revealing statement by Wal-Mart’s chief executive, urging
Congress to raise the minimum wage: “our customers simply don’t have the money to
buy basic necessities between paychecks”, ironic coming from Wal-Mart.

Other gainers are employees abroad who get jobs. Still, as we said, other gainers are US
consumers who get cheaper goods, It is estimated that since the 90’s cheap imports
have saved US consumers around $600 billion and US manufacturers many billions in
cheaper parts and services for their products. We have a conflict here. Consumers are
saving money but at the expense of US jobs. Wal-Mart has set the standard by their
drive for cheap prices using imports from China. They give their workers low wages and
minimal benefits. To compete other companies are driven to do the same thing. We
are both consumers but also citizens, this presents us with a conflict. Another concern is
the growing trade deficit which may become a serious problem.

Overall is this good or bad? What criteria should we use to judge? Some economists talk
about a compensation principle. If the gainers can compensate the losers the
economy gains. Of course, the compensation is never made. It leads me to think that
the gainers have some moral obligation to the losers.

In any case the process seems unstoppable. We can however ease the bounce and
provide springs for a rough ride. Income support and retraining for workers outsourced
can help. This may not be effective for older and less educated workers. Another
suggestion is wage insurance which companies resist. For this we need governments
and international agencies with some moral clout and power. Other policies which
would help much are: public investment in education, universal affordable health care
and more federal financing for research in the sciences and engineering which has
declined in recent years. China and India are now graduating more engineers and
computer scientists than from all American and European universities.

A story to illustrate. Recently Toyota decided to put up a new assembly plant in Ontario
Canada. Why there and not in the US? One reason cited is the comparative quality of
the work force, compared to the south. Unionization may also be a factor.
Another reason was Canada’s National Health System. To support this consider the GM
claim that it pays $1525 in health care costs for each car that comes out of its assembly
line- more than it pays for its steel. Recently GM, like many other companies, has made
deals with unions to cut benefits, lay off workers and cut pensions. Even well off
companies like IBM are doing the same thing. Times are getting tough for working
people. I find it difficult to understand why companies do not support universal health
care as it makes them more competitive.

Globalization could be an engine for growth and great benefit to all groups if guided
with some attempt at fairness. I am reminded of the early stages of industrialization in
England, US and Europe. Working conditions were horrible. After much struggle laws
regulating worker safety, child labor, and the right to form unions were developed. The
question arises–how well can a global free market–an essentially unregulated market–
function in the absence of a global authority to set minimum standards on issues like
child labor, worker safety, union rights, and the environment? What we have now on
the international scene is early capitalism in the raw.

What to do?
All trade agreement should include minimum ILO (international labor organization)
standards. International conventions on these issues exist. They can be checked by
rapporteurs, a method now used in the human rights area. The WTO can enforce these
standards as they do now in trade disputes. If a country cannot afford to meet the
standards they should be helped. For the well-being of our society and the health of our
economy we need a universal health care system.

We should support the growing fair trade movement. They support more than 5 million
people in Africa and Latin America in socially responsible trade. We should buy these
products like fair trade coffee. It costs a little more but we are not only shoppers but
also citizens. Oxfam America has a campaign for fair trade. They have a website
providing much information (www.maketradefair.com) on how to get involved.
We are in the historic process of becoming one world. There are precedents in which
governments come to relinquish some of their sovereignty for the benefits of
cooperation. Regional organization already takes place in the form of WTO and the
European Union. Such groupings are likely to increase in the future because of the
necessity of avoiding the chaos and suffering of the vast disparities between the haves
and the have-nots, and perhaps the side effects of competition between the great
economic powers. Globalization can be a great boon. It is not globalization per se, but
the unfairness and damaging results from the way it is developing that is the moral and
humanitarian problem.

In the meantime, we need to hang on tight because there’s a rough ride ahead of us.

1. Ethical Issues in Globalization

We have to choose between a global market driven only by calculations of short-term
profit, and one which has a human face.” Kofi Annan

2. What is Globalization?
a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial
organization of social relations and transactions, expressed in transcontinental or
interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power.

3. Globalization Brings Four Types of Change

a stretching of social, political and economic activities across frontiers, regions and
continents. intensification of interconnectedness and flows of trade, investment,
finance, migration, culture, etc. a speeding up of global interactions and processes, the
diffusion of ideas, goods, information, capital and people. Deepening impact such that
the effects of distant events can be highly significant elsewhere and specific local
developments can come to have considerable global consequences.

4. Globalization, in short, can be thought of as the widening, intensifying, speeding up,

and growing impact of world-wide interconnectedness.

5. Some Big-Ticket Issues

Very personal: the meaning of work?
Organizational: who’s in charge, and of what? Supply chain ethics?
National: donations matter anymore?
Supranational: what does it mean that some areas are ‘developing’?
Global: systems change? Justice?

6. JOB DISPLACEMENT
U.S. – more jobs overall, but many industries in decline.
A shift in skills and education required for higher-paying jobs.
Loss of economic viability for many communities.
Increasing competition among polities for job-providing ventures.
7. JOB DISPLACEMENT In the developing world:
The opposite is true … more jobs and industry growth, rising wealth, etc….
BUT … there are major issues of human rights and environmental protection at stake.

8. SWEATSHOPS
“a shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under
unhealthy conditions.” --Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary

9. Sweatshop abuses Child labor, sometimes children as young as 5 or 6,

Piece rates instead of wages, requiring long hours to earn an income that does not
come close to raising the worker out of poverty,
Mandatory overtime, sometimes 24-hour shifts,
Dangerous, unhealthy workplaces; no protective equipment to guard against toxic
exposures,
Verbal intimidation, harassment, and bullying,

10. Sweatshop abuses, forced pregnancy tests and firing of pregnant women,
Physical and sexual abuse by supervisors, managers, and armed guards,
No breaks during the work day, even to go to the bathroom,
Lock-ins to prevent workers from stealing or leaving the factory, creating fire hazards,
Violent ends for those who try to organize unions.

11. Addressing Sweatshop Problems

Supplier codes of conduct specify how supplier relations are to be handled and what
suppliers must do in order to get and keep contracts with the company.
Factory monitoring, often by independent NGOs, to check for prevailing wage rates,
underage workers, workplace hazards, or human rights violations.

12. HEALTH THREATS

36.5 million workers worldwide infected with HIV/AIDS (ILO data).
Health care not widely available.
Disease is poorly understood and often subject to prejudice.
Sufferers can’t afford drugs.
Families can’t afford to lose their productive workers.

13. Other health threats: Dengue fever

Schistosomiasis caused by parasitic flatworms
Trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness
Typhoid fever
Malaria
Cholera
Dysentery,
Malnutrition
Measles
Tuberculosis
Yellow fever
Corona Virus Disease (recent)

14. Underlying problems: Lack of health care and related infrastructure

Very limited access to vaccines, anti- parasitics, and other pharmaceuticals
Lack of clean water

15. “RACE TO THE BOTTOM”

Global price pressures lead to search for lower regulatory standards as well as labor
costs.
This affects worker treatment and benefits, human rights, consumer & investor
protection, environmental protection.

16. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: “Eco Top Ten”

Agriculture – use of rural lands and development of sustainable farming;
pesticide/herbicide use; bioengineering and genetically modified organisms.
Atmosphere – climate change/global warming, acid rain, smog, ozone depletion.

17. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: “Eco Top Ten”

Biodiversity – “types of biodiversity and the plight of endangered species.”
Energy – the use of fossil fuels (oil, coal); the need to develop alternative energy
sources.
Forests – deforestation and regrowth; forest ecologies.

18. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: “Eco Top Ten”

Fresh water – changing patterns, desalination, declining supplies of fresh water.
Habitat loss – threats to species survival, causes, solutions.

19. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: “Eco Top Ten”

Industry – the environmental impacts of industrial globalization.
Marine – life
Ecology – threats to the seas and the living things therein.
Population – growth, pressure, geographic patterns.

20. Financial crashes tend to be immediate and the consequences are readily seen.
However, environmental disasters tend to develop over a longer period of time, and
the consequences are not so easy to discern.
Industries are not so eager to establish international environmental regulation, and the
temptations are great to find lowest-cost solutions to pesky developed-world
environmental problems.

21. WHAT CAN Globalization lead to?

22. BRIBERY & CORRUPTION
Transparency International (Ti) defines corruption as “the misuse of entrusted power for
private gain.”

23. “In the past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household paid a bribe in any
form?” (Yes answers)
Switzerland, Finland, Singapore, Sweden, 1%
USA, United Kingdom, Turkey, South Korea, Austria, Taiwan, France, Germany, Iceland,
the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, 2%
Canada, 3%
Israel, 4%
Albania, 66%
Morocco, 60%
Cameroon, 57%
Congo, 40%
Nigeria, 39%
Mexico, 28%
Ukraine, 23%
Kenya, Peru, Venezuela, 22%

24. Possible consequences of corruption:

Democratic elections
Government contracting
Victims of fraud
Overpayment
Lack of accountability
Supporting the incompetent

25 “We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and
practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world's people share the
benefits of globalization.”-- Kofi Annan

ELABORATE

What does Ramanuja say about the effects of globalization in terms of religious
beliefs? Do you agree with him or not?
EVALUATE

Name: _______________________________________

Course and Year: _____________________________ Date: __________________

EDITORIAL CARTOON: This serves as your unit completion project, without which your
grade will be marked as INC. Your score will be recorded and will become part of your
tentative final grade.

Create one EDITORIAL CARTOON showing either (a) the “reality” of the state of
education “nowadays” or (b) a virtue or virtues exhibited by people as a response to
the problems posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Make sure that your artwork integrates
at least one moral concept of any of the philosophers covered in modules about
ethical frameworks.

Additional instructions:
1) Construct a TITLE of your editorial cartoon by indicating what specific concept, and
whose concept is being portrayed in your editorial cartoon. For example:
Mill's concept of quality on selling products, or
Rawls’ concept of equal opportunity on work during the quarantine, or
St.Thomas' concept of conscience on not wearing face mask, or
Aristotle's concept of the virtue of courage on education

2) Observe how the sample titles are constructed in (1) and follow the format:
Name of philosopher + specific concept/philosophical idea + the sphere/field in life
where the concept is seen/applied.

3) Write the title of your work at the upper middle area of the paper.

4) Do your editorial cartoon in a clean white bond paper.

5) The editorial cartoon should be “hand-drawn,” not digital (not Photoshop or any
digital platform). Simply use pencils or ball pens and/or crayons.
6) Be guided by the criteria below for scoring:
Relevance to the Title ----------------------------------------------- 15
(drawing clearly shows/portrays the title)
Originality ---------------------------------------------------------------- 15
(drawing does not “look familiar”)
Creativity ----------------------------------------------------------------- 15
(symmetry of lines and colors in the overall image)
Visual Impact ------------------------------------------------------------- 5
(captures the attention of the person looking at the image)

TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 points

Prepared by:

VICTOR P. BACTOL, JR., J.D., PhD Political Science (Candid)

Professor

Reviewed by:

RYAN G. DESTURA, M.A.T.

Unit Head

Approved by:

GIL NICETAS B. VILLARINO, Ph.D.

Dean