MODULE 6

Part 1: Kantian Ethics- An Introduction

Considered the most significant philosopher during his time,

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) a German thinker, wrote two major
books entitled “The Foundation of Metaphysical of Morals, and
“The Critique of Practical Reason, in which he argued that
Categorical Imperative (CI) is considered the fundamental
principle that underlies moral reasoning.

As an ethicist, he starts philosophizing using three questions such as:

1) What do I know,
2) What should I do?
3) What am I allowed to hope?

Kant argued that when it comes to morality, simple virtues such as courage,
intelligence, can be used for good or for evil. For this reason, the virtues praised by the
Greeks were not a satisfactory way to distinguish good and bad. According to him,
virtues are nice traits to have, but they are not enough. His ethical theory of moral
judgment not only focuses on reason alone, but it should be coupled with ethical action.
Morality provides people with a framework of rational rules that guide and prevent
certain actions and are independent of personal intentions and desires. Here are Kant's
examples of arguments: "If I give a homeless person a dollar because I want to help
them, my action is good". "If I give them a dollar because they are making a weird noise
and I want them to shut up, the action is not good". A good action, Kant says, is one
where you do it with the intention of doing a good thing, which he calls it goodwill.
Topic 2: Good Will and Moral Duty

A. What is Good Will?

Kant argued that in order to intend a good action, a rational agent (person) must
possess the goodwill to do the action. This is considered an important action when
dealing with a morally "good" individual. Kant went on to say that possessing goodwill is
one thing, but the reason to do a "good" action or "ought to", is the result of a sense of
obligation. More so, a person of good will is one who acts from a sense of duty at all
times even in the face of difficulty.

Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the highest good summum
bonum. He argued that happiness alone can be corrupting or worthless when not
combined with goodwill. For Kant, the goodness of action can not be determined by the
consequences or results of the action, instead, he decided that the intention behind an
action is the measure of whether an action is good or bad.

B. Duty

For Kant, “duty” is something that is different from what we usually think it means. He
further reiterates that it is not doing something because it’s your duty to follow certain
external rules or orders, but it is by doing something from duty which is the right way to
act only when that duty is towards your own internal moral law that you have figured out
by applying careful thinking and logic.

For example, there are some who are naturally nicer than others, but according to Kant,
we should not trust our natural inclinations as motivations for actions because they
were unreliable and passive. If we take the time to figure out what the moral laws are
(see later the categorical imperative), then we can follow the law from duty in a way that
is reliable, consistent, and immutable. Thus, for Kant, an authentic moral act is one that
is done because we understand it to be our obligation, a command, an imperative.

C. What is an Inclination?

Inclination refers to how an agents thinking and actions are driven by his desire.
According to Dimmock, et.al. (2017) that we might think then that humans are moral
beings not because we have certain desires but precisely because we are rational,
which means that we have the ability to stand back and consider what we are doing and
why- and this where Kant starts his ethical work.

Topic 3: Kant's Categorical Imperative

Categorical Imperative

An imperative is a command of reason which can be classified as hypothetical and

categorical. A hypothetical Imperative is something of a command that is designed to
attain specific goals. Here are some examples of Kant's Hypothetical Imperatives:

1) If you want to stay healthy, eat healthy foods, and exercise regularly.

2) If you don't want to go to jail, obey all laws.

3) A woman who wants to spend a vacation in Mexico, buys a plane ticket. Buying the
plane ticket is a means to her end of vacationing in Mexico.
According to Kant, it is a hypothetical imperative if it "justifies and action as a means of
achieving something else that one will. Hypothetical Imperative simply means an action
based on desires.

But Kant finds his first principle inadequate, and so, his Categorical Imperative was
born. The categorical imperative is a principle that every rational person must accept,
which he also believed and called the supreme principle of morality. In this instance,
Kant argued that rational agents

The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature. Kant's first formulation of the CI states
that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it become a universal law” (G 4:421). If your maxim passes all four
steps, only then is acting on it morally permissible.

Topic 4: Kants' on Maxims and Universalizabilty

Universality: Kant thought that the main characteristic of moral principles is that we
think they are “universable” so to speak. If we think that something is right, we think that
everyone should do it (at least if they are in a similar situation, although he thought
there were principles that were valid independent of the situation). When I say, thou
shall not kill, I am saying it is wrong to kill and no one should kill. If I say that it is ok to
kill in self-defense I am saying that it is ok for everyone to kill in self-defense. Claims of
right and wrong have this characteristic of universality. Moral law is by its nature
universal for Kant.

Maxims: Maxims are rules that guide our actions. For instance, I can have as a rule
“Never lie to your friends” or “Always respect your parents” or “Always look out for
yourself first” or “Never break a promise.” These are maxims we use when we think we
are acting morally. For Kant, an action is right depending on the maxim that motivates it.
In order to know if they are the maxim that motivates action is a good maxim, we need
to know if they can become a moral universal law, we need to put them through a test.
The test to know if a moral maxim is a universal moral law is very simple: a maxim that
can be universalized without contradiction is a universally good maxim (we will see what
he means more clearly in the section about the hypothetical imperative).

Kant advocates an approach to ethics in which we perform actions that conform

universal rules.

· An act is not right because it leads to good consequences or because I feel inclined to
act in a certain way.

· The will is good when and only when it acts out of pure respect for moral law (which is
what is rational for everyone to do)We must treat all rational beings as ends rather than
means.
· Our conduct must fall under principles that can be advocated for all humanity,
categorically, and without exceptions.

Part 2: Kant's Right Theory

What is Kant's Rights Theory?

In law, Immanuel Kant proposes the principle of rights. He said that the government
must approach the making of enforcement of laws with the right intentions in respect to
the end goals of the society that it governs. ("Rights Theory", n.d.)

The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order for a society to be efficacious,
“government must approach the making and enforcement of laws with the right
intentions in respect to the end goals of the society that it governs. Members of society
agree to give up some freedoms for the protection enjoyed by organized society, but
governments cannot infringe upon the rights that citizens have been promised”. (“Rights
Theory”, n.d.) .

When applied to war, rights theory states that in order for a war to be deemed
morally justifiable, the intention of entering into war ought to be right in relation to
human rights. Kant’s principle of rights theory thus teaches that it is not merely the
outcome of actions that is significant but also the reasoning behind them, because if the
intent is evil, then the outcome, in all likelihood, is bad as well.

Legal vs. Moral Rights

What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily
legal in a particular country. These principles prove, among other things, that being
moral and being legal may be practically related but not one and the same.

The emphasis on rights in the legal theory distinguishes us, each with his own
subjective claims, his own property, and his own purposes. We can all have the same
duties, but we cannot all have rights in the same objects. Duties unite us in a moral
community of ends; rights divide in the concrete community of laws.

What many found so ethically objectionable about apartheid South Africa was its denial
to the majority of that country’s inhabitants of many fundamental moral rights, such as
the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of color and rights to political
participation. This specific line of opposition and protest could only be pursued because
of a belief in the existence and validity of moral rights, with or without recognition of a
legal system.

It must be clear, therefore, that human rights cannot be reduced to, or exclusively
identified with legal rights. In fact, some human rights are best identified as moral
rights. Human rights are meant to apply to all human beings universally, regardless of
whether or not they have attained legal recognition by all countries everywhere.
On the other hand, Kant's legal theory derives from the assumption that concrete
individuals, each acting out subjective choices, enter into civil society in order to secure
their rightful claims, as Kant puts it, to "mine and thine." 42 Morality elicits our identity as
beings endowed with univocal reason; the law acknowledges our concrete particularity
and seeks to harmonize our divergent purposes.

Legal rights denote all the rights found within existing legal codes. As such, they
enjoy the recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to their existence can be
resolved by just locating the pertinent legal instrument or piece of legislation.

Legal considerations exist at the scale of society as a whole.

Laws are the most general of all the constraints on behavior. They emerge from
whatever the governance processes are in the society that promulgates them, and they
reflect the values or interests of the most powerful members of the society.

Lawbreakers typically risk punishment but are not always punished. Because
punishment inflicts costs on both the punished and the punishers, law enforcement
requires members of the society who are willing (or are compelled to) bear the costs of
enforcement.

There can be instances of moral, ethical, and legal considerations that are in conflict
with one another. Traffic laws provide several good examples because the complex
process of negotiating between moral, ethical, and legal obligations can have counter-
intuitive and surprising results that are not resolved by law. Police officers who enforce
traffic laws sometimes will explore the conflicts between these different scales of
behavioral judgment, and exercise discretion in enforcement that makes allowances for
moral or ethical intentions. But Kant's theory was also criticised by his co-philosophers.

Topic6: Kantian Ethics: An Analysis

An Analysis of Kantian Ethics

Many found Kant’s ethical system sensible and plausible. In fact, when we try to prove
that one’s particular action is unethical and ask him, “What if everybody behaved as you
do?”, we are actually advocating Kant’s ‘universalizability’ formulation of the categorical
imperative.

However, we may argue that the reason why Kant’s ethics is appealing is that it is
just another way of stating the golden rule., “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you” and its pr4oscriptive counterpart. Notice that the most famous formulations of
Kant’s categorical imperative, especially the end-in-itself version, instruct us to respect
others because that is how we treat ourselves.

In proposing that we must always do our duties no matter what the circumstances
are, Kant’s view is deemed by some as a rule-bound moral philosophy that puts a
premium on rules rather than on humans. We may suggest that human obligations say
keeping promises, telling the truth, and repaying debts, should be really kept, but
provided that no other overriding factors exist. Ethical rules, some propose, is better
construed as generalizations rather than as categorical commands without any
exception.

Another shortcoming of Kant’s ethics is its lack of solution to instances when there is a
conflict of duties. Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then another person
asks him about it. He cannot tell the truth without breaking his promise. But Kantian
ethics inflexibly demands that he ought to do both always and in all circumstances,
which, in this case, is logically impossible.

As regards motive and consequences, Kant definitely favors the former as having
moral worth. Regardless of consequences, an act is moral if the motive was to act from
good will and out of respect for duty. With good intentions, a medical doctor who
operated on a sick person and accidentally killed him in the process is not considered
immoral. We may call him incompetent, careless, lousy, and the like but not unethical.

MODULE 7

Utilitarianism Explained

Utilitarianism is a consequential theory, which is a subclass of teleological moral theory.

A teleological ethical system, as we discussed in the previous lessons labels an act to
be right or wrong based on the goal or purpose of the act.

The determination of what one should do is based,

not on the nature of the act, unlike Kantian ethics,
but on the consequences of the act, hence,
consequential.
This runs in the completely opposite direction as
absolutists, claiming that some actions are wrong in
their very nature and must never be done no matter
the situation and results. On the other hand,
consequentialists suppose there is no kind of activity
that may not be justified by its effects.

Utilitarianism claims that the right action is one that

maximizes overall happiness. The principle of utility can be applied to either specific
actions (act-utilitarianism) or general rules (rule-utilitarianism).

Act Utilitarianism

This is the principle that claims an act is right if it is one

that brings the best results and or the least amount of bad
results.
 In Act Utilitarianism, the principle of utility is applied directly to every alternative act in a
situation where they're more than one choice. Though it may sound promising, strong
criticism against this principle is that knowing the consequences of every act is difficult
and uncertain.

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule-Utilitarianism uses the utility to

decide whether rules are valid or not.
The consequences of the
implementation of such rules are what
is measured to say if the following of a
rule gives the most benefit. Criticisms
against this view are that it is possible
to implement unjust rules according to
the principle of Rule-Utilitarianianism.
What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism?

Unlike Kantian ethics, Utilitarianism proposes the idea that an action is good as long as
it gives a person the greatest happiness, otherwise, It is wrong if an action results from
unhappiness. But just like other ethical theories, Utilitarianism has its weaknesses too.
Look closely at the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism provided below.

Strengths Weaknesses

1. Act Utilitarianism is pragmatic 1. Utilitarianism seeks to predict

which focuses on the consequences of action, which is impossible.
of an action

2. It answers problem 2. It creates an unrealistic

perspective

3. An individual can decide on his own 3. Immeasurable

Finally. utilitarianism suggests that we can decide what is morally right or morally wrong
by finding out which of our possible future actions will promote goodness in our lives
and the lives of other people in general. (2017, Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher).

Topic 2: Origin & Nature of the Theory

The two British philosophers themselves- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John
Stuart Mill (1808-73) were considered the main proponents of the moral theory called
Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham began philosophizing the utilitarian doctrine but it was
John Stuart Mill who later organized and systemized Bentham’s principle of
utilitarianism by modifications.

On Bentham’s Utilitarianism

According to Bentham, the principle of utility states that an action is

right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number
of beneficiaries.
It is not the natural law, rights, and contracts that serve as the
basis in evaluating the morality of acts and decisions, but the
principle of utility. He observes further that people act for their own
interest, as people are naturally seekers of pleasure and pain
avoiders. For him, nothing is intrinsically good, but pleasure. In its simplest terms, act
utilitarianism focuses on the effect of individual actions.

Quantitative Utilitarian Calculation

This method has seven criteria that allow the calculation of pleasure.

1. Intensity

2. Duration

3. Certainty

4. Remoteness

5. Fruitfulness

6. Purity

7. Extent

With these measures, Utilitarianism defines the morality of an act or decision by

calculating the sum of pleasure it caused or will cause and the amount of pain to be
inflicted.

On Mill’s Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill, being the most famous proponent of Utilitarianism

proposed that the "greatest happiness principle" that says- the
greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right or
wrong. His utilitarian principles have common ground with that of
Bentham in the sense that he agrees that the measurement of the
rightness or wrongness of an act is the greatest pleasure of the greatest number of
those who will benefit from it.
However, he differs from the utilitarian principles of Bentham as Mill rejects the purely
quantitative treatment of the principle of utility. He also introduces the so-called
“secondary principles”.

Higher and Lower Pleasures

Mill addressed the criticism that Utilitarianism only defines man in terms of pain and
pleasure, he argues that while a happy life is a life of pleasure, such pleasure is not
limited to only sensual pleasure.

He points out that there are actually lower pleasures such as

physical pleasure which animals can also experience. This kind
of pleasure includes those from eating food etc. By higher
pleasures, Mill explains these are pleasure that only human
beings can experience, such as the pleasures of appreciating
good music, seeing works of arts, and even solving a
mathematical problem

Secondary Principles

Mill believes that experiences from our past, teach us which

kind of acts and decisions produces the greatest happiness,
and which do not. This stems from the fact that it would be
difficult to always calculate the pleasure and pain that may be
the consequences of acts.

Secondary principles, from the word itself, are considered practical rules which give the
moral agents knowledge and tendencies of actions when there has no better
information available. But it does not mean, however, that actions are justified by these
practical rules, instead, they are the consequences that are manifested in the past
experiences that make them true or valid.

Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by means of
increasing the number of good things, such as pleasures and happiness, and
decreasing the amount of pain and unhappiness.

Topic 3: An Analysis of Utilitarianism

Analyzing Utilitarianism
While Kant proposes that an act is justified by one’s reason to perform his duty,
Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarian principles counter with the claim that actions are
evaluated through their ends.

Utilitarianism appears to be attractive, anchoring the basis of pleasure and pain.

Utilitarianism teaches us that there are allowances for actions that may be justified by
the consequences. However, we should also keep in mind that it is not easy to predict
and make sure of the consequences. This theory requires us to make calculations for
our acts, which, in reality, we wouldn’t have any time for.

Another problem with Utilitarianism is its impracticability, wherein the principle states
that the total number of beneficiaries of the outcomes must first be determined before
an act is considered right or wrong. This is highly impossible, especially for acts that
have long-term effects. Complications may also arise from giving moral importance
exclusively to consequences of actions. It may indicate that an act is right just because
it brings advantage even if it stems from an evil motive.

Figure _With Utilitarianism, wrongs acts may

seem to be justified with advantageous results.

Another problem that one might see in

Utilitarianism is its calculations of benefits and
harms that come from one's action. According
to some arguments, that is difficult, If is
impossible to measure certain values and
benefits. For example, how do we measure
say, the value of time, the value of life, or
human dignity?

In conclusion, If our moral decisions are to take into account considerations of justice,
then apparently utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle guiding our decisions. It can,
however, play a role in these decisions.

Topic 4: Business Fascination with Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism and Business

Utilitarianism is the most broadly understood and frequently applied ethical theory when
it comes to business. In business, utilitarianism is applied in the sense that actions and
decisions are tended to be made for more money, an increase in profit, and for the
benefit of the company as a whole.

A businessman could make the conclusion that the greatest good would amount to the
highest amount of profitability and the greatest contribution of such business to society.
Also, business management may relate to utilitarian principles in the sense that
business executives recognize the fact that there are times not all stakeholders may
benefit from a particular decision. Thus, giving emphasis that such principle and
business, lies on the net utility of a consequence.

MODULE 8
Part 1: Rawls' Justice as Fairness Principle
Let us begin by knowing the ethicists behind the ethical
principle known as Justice and Fairness. His name
is John Rawls. He is an American political
philosopher in the 20th century who rejects utilitarianism
and offers a number of arguments against such a theory.
His theory came into play during the time where political
unrest and raging wars between nations happen. His
theory of political liberalism explores the legitimate use of
political power in a democracy and envisions how civic unity might endure despite the
diversity of world views that free institutions allow. His writings on the law of peoples set
out a liberal foreign policy that aims to create a permanently peaceful and tolerant
international order.According to Rawls, Utilitarianism does not solve the problem of
slavery for it does not respect fundamental rights and liberties.
What is "Justice as Fairness"?

In the "justice as fairness" principle, Rawls proposed his theory of justice suggesting a
society of free citizens and shall hold equal rights. It further explains the principles of
justice as the basic structure of the society that regulates social cooperation which can
be entered into a form of government.

Rawls proposed a conception of justice which he calls it “justice as fairness”. Rawls

argued that the reconciliation of liberty and equality which is shaped his two principles
of justice. Justice and Fairness principle proposes that all the people in the society
should have equal rights especially those who are considered the "least advantaged".
1. The first principle known as the Liberty principle is a social justice principle that
explains equal basic liberties — each citizen has a right to the most extensive system of
equal basic personal and political liberties compatible with a similar system of liberties
for others. One common example of this principle is the US Bill of Rights that includes
freedom of speech and due process of law. In addition to this basic liberties are some of
the human rights such as 1) Freedom to travel, 2) Right to own private property,
corporations, or workers to own private property.

Rawl’s first principle, on the other hand, has its limitations when it comes to liberties
such as the “right to inherit wealth, due to the fact that this right does not fall under the
things that are considered “basic”. He reiterates, however, that while individuals may be
morally equal in the real world, each of them has different views that will lead to social
and economic inequalities. More so, this principle also has a demanding norm of
political equality which condemns inequalities in opportunities for political influence.
Thus, citizens with the motivation and ability to play an active political role should not be
disadvantaged by a lack of personal wealth.

2. The Second Principle is a theory also known as the Difference Principle suggests
about the so-called social contract should guarantee that everyone has an equal
opportunity to prosper. In other words, if there are any social or economic differences in
the social contract, others should help those who are the worst off. And, any
advantages in the contract should be available to everyone. The difference principle
also explained that society could not avoid inequalities among its people which seems
to be an ideal principle of social justice. According to him, all differences in wealth and
income should work for the good of the least favored or the skilled workers at that. In
short, Rawls’ ranked his principles to his supposed order of priority.

The Thought Experiment Principle

The "thought experiment" also known as the "veil of ignorance" is a component of the
"social contract" theory which allows agents to test ideas of fairness.

It is said that all people are biased by their situations, so how can they agree on a
“social contract” to govern how the world should work? To answer such a problem,
Rawls “thought experiment, also known as the “veil of ignorance” came into play. In
his book "Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that we sit behind a veil of ignorance that
keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By
being ignorant of our circumstances, we can objectively consider how societies should
operate. Rawls experimented by setting imaginary participants (people) who then select
their own society, thus would be resolved by focusing mostly on what most people in
most societies want. He further argued that rational beings would pick four things which
he called primary goods namely:

1. wealth and income

2. opportunities for advancement
 3. rights and liberties
4. self-respect

Rawls’ argued that the participants would have to decide on how a society should go
about the fair distribution of these primary goods among its people.

Topic 2: Distributive Justice

Distributive Justice
This concept is concerned with the nature of a socially just allocation of goods and
services in a society. Rawls posits that if incidental inequalities in outcomes do not
arise, that is when the principle of Distributive justice comes in. Distributive justice
includes the available quantities of goods and the process by which goods are
distributed to the society’s members.

People usually turn to the distributive norms of their group to determine whether
distributive justice has occurred. This norm focuses on the standard behavior that is
required, desired, or designated as normal within a specific group. Distributive justice
then is said to have occurred if reward and cost are allocated according to the
designated distributive norms of the group. The following are the common types of
distributive norms ("Distributive Justice", n.d.):

1. Equity - this explains the member’s outcomes will be based on their inputs. This
means that if you invested a large amount of input, that is time, money, and energy, you
will also receive more than the group that has contributed very little.

2. Equality - means that regardless of your inputs, all groups should be given an equal
share of the reward.

3. Power - refers to those with more authority, status should receive more than those
who belong to the lower rank.

4. Need - those in greatest needs should be provided with the resources needed in
order to meet those needs.

5. Responsibility - purports that members of the group who have the most must share
their resources with those who have less.

Topic #5: Other related Views on Distributive Justice

1. Egalitarian. This is a set of closely related socio-economic-political theories that

without exemption, proposes that all members in a society ought to have an equal
amount of resources
2. Capitalist/ Laissez-faire capitalist view explains that when people, businesses, and
corporations perform based on their individuals’ interest for their own benefit. For Rawls,
laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust because it reflects an unequal distribution of
wealth and income concentrated in the hands of a few people which in turn, deprives
some of the citizen’s means essential to compete fairly for desired benefits and
positions.

3. Socialist - is a system where the government controls the production of goods and
services. A better version of this is democratic socialism also called “welfare
democracy” which means that the system incorporates free-market principles in
producing goods and services. Countries that practice this theory are some European
countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

There are three central topics about which one encounters some fresh ideas from
Rawls. One topic is the application of Rawls's conception of justice, especially the
economic standards. This theory suggests about the capitalist welfare state, in which it
does not meet his criteria for a just society, and a property-owning democracy, which
does. Rawls goes into some detail about the sort of taxation that a property-owning
democracy might use to realize fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
Rawls maintains that certain inheritance, income, or consumption taxes may be used,
but that a head tax (requiring the talented to compensate the untalented, regardless of
whether the talented receive gifts, earn a salary, or purchase goods)

Topic 3: An Evaluation of Rawl's Principle

Justice as Fairness principle has also its flaws and weaknesses. For example, Rawl's
Difference principle which has something to do with the idea that the greatest benefit
must go to the least advantaged, to some is controversial. It is just unacceptable and
unjust to get from rich people what they have and redistribute it for the benefit of the
less fortunate.

Here are some of the observable criticism of Rawls' Principles:

1. Does not allow ample tolerance for various religious and intensely held beliefs.
2. The idea about "the greatest benefit must go to the least advantaged" is deemed to
be controversial and unacceptable to other critics.
3. Free market critics argue that it is unjust to get from wealthy people what they have
and redistribute it for the benefit of the less fortunate.

Another problem with Rawls’s international theory, it has its limited ambitions. Officials
of democratic societies can do little more than hope that decent societies will become
internally more tolerant and democratic. Once the duty to assist burdened peoples is
satisfied, there are no further requirements on international economic distributions: for
Rawls, international economic inequalities are of no political concern as such.
Moreover, individuals around the world may suffer greatly from bad luck, and they may
be haunted by spiritual emptiness. These are not concerns reached by a Rawlsian
foreign policy.

Another weakness in Rawls's theory is that it is also utopian-meaning it is "too good to

be true" where his vision seems to be perfect because people are inevitably selfish or
amoral.” (1651, 58). Affirming the possibility of a just and peaceful future can inoculate
us against a cynicism that undermines the decency, reciprocity, and reasonableness
that exist now and that may grow from now on.

Moreover, John Rawls admitted that his theory for having a just society is very idealistic.

Part 2: State and Citizenship Responsibility

State and Citizens Responsibility

This topic includes taxation which means that the state and its citizens must accomplish
their responsibilities to each other. First, let us know the meaning of taxation.

Taxation is a means by which states and governments finance their expenditures

basically for their constituents, thereby imposing charges on them. Government
expenditures fundamentally involve social welfare programs for its citizens.

Inclusive growth - is an economic growth that creates opportunities for all segments of
societies and distributes the dividends of increased prosperity both in monetary and
non-monetary terms fairly in its society (“Inclusive growth, n.d.).

Concerning inclusive growth, there have constant allegations on capitalism that its
growth is not tricked down to all. Some economists thus argued that democratic
socialism, not capitalism, could result in inclusive growth.

MODULE 9
Part 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics

Almost every day we experience globalization. It can be in the form of global movement
of people. Which may include some family members living permanently abroad. If your
family business is into manufacturing of goods, it may mean circulation of mechanical
goods and software. Or do you have a parent or sibling who is an overseas Filipino
worker? Who regularly sends money for the upkeep of your family. In this case,
globalization may also mean the global circulation of money. When you spend time to
communicate and share with parents, friends and relatives through social media sites,
globalization too is about the flow of culture. Finally, when you read a news article that
the Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program or 4Ps was actually a ‘conditional cash transfer
scheme’ concept borrowed from the practices of governments in some parts of the
American and African countries. Indeed, globalization is also about political ideas that
has come to move around. These are just some of the things that we know of.
 And indeed, many will agree to say that globalization has turned separate
communities interacting infrequently into a virtually one multi-faceted community. In
whatever aspect, politically, economically, and culturally, communities or appropriately
known as nation-states across the world now function on a fundamentally shared space.

The transnational relations created by multinational companies and groups due to

globalizing forces like technology changes that allow free communication and travel
amongst people opened new forms of social bonds and responsibilities. It is because of
this, it has blurred the distinction between global and local communities. Actions and
events in one locality may bring forth transnational and transgenerational impacts. It is
due to this that moral reflection on our responsibilities and obligations in a globalized
era become most significant.

Part 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics

3.1. Pluralism
One ethical challenge attributable to globalization is the rise
of an ideology known as ‘pluralism’. As a philosophical
doctrine, it generally refers to the theory that there is more
than one basic substance or principle, whether it be the
constitution of the universe, of the mind and body, the
sources of truth, or the basis of morality. On the other
hand, moral pluralism or otherwise known as ‘ethical or
value pluralism,’ refers to the idea that there can be
conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect. It is more of a meta-ethical
theory which analyzes the moral aspects in situations. The first to popularize this
objective-value-pluralism is Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), a Russian-British social and
political theorist, philosopher and historian. Although the idea of conflict in certain basic
values were prominent in the thought of German philosopher and sociologist Max
Weber (1864-1920).
It seems that moral pluralists are ‘acceptive’ when faced with competing perspective.
Issues are analyzed from different moral points of view before any decision and action
is taken. At times, they find many moral issues as extremely complicated. Meaning,
there is no single philosophical approach that will always give all the answers needed.

Let us say for example, ‘the night is young and you just entered a narrow road, as
you walk, you saw from a distance a man lying at the other side of the road covered in
blood. You were about to approach him when you saw a shadow of another person
hiding in a nearby alley near where the injured person is. You then pause in your
footsteps and mentally decided on what to do next’. In a situation like this, a moral
pluralist would argue that to help the injured man may mean danger to the life of the
rescuer. And that there is no definitive way to decide which is the better course of moral
action. Indeed, moral pluralism concludes that, sometimes it is difficult to make a choice
between competing values.
 Therefore, moral pluralism occupy a sensible middle ground between “there is
only one right answer” as moral absolutism would say, and “there is no wrong answer”
as would be the claim in moral relativism.

The charm of pluralism is in the acceptance of complexity and conflict which is part
of our moral experience. That our moral choices are not simple additive puzzles, but are
incommensurability’s and discontinuities in value comparisons, where value remainders
(or residues) when choices are made, and complexities in appropriate responses to
value.

Although it may appear cool and sensible, but it has its own flaws. Moral pluralism is
ethically untenable since it gives no moral standard, and offers no moral power. It
behooves on us to either conclude that, a) there is no real solution to ethical dilemmas,
or b) all possible answers are acceptable as long as they have underlying fundamental
values. Another fact is that, values are commensurable since they can be compared by
their varying contributions for the human good. The ends of freedom, equality,
efficiency, creativity and the like, are by itself not ends, but are valued for their
consequences. Therefore, moral pluralists claim that the problem of conflicting values is
insolvable, is not essentially true.

Moreover, moral pluralists contention that we can adhere to any values we wish to, is
to say that, we can adopt any behavior we prefer. These two are intrinsically linked.
Some say that the popularity of pluralism and relativism in this global era is relatively
associated by the substantial moral collapse of today. And if moral pluralism in belief
and in morals are intrinsically connected to each other, then its outcome is simply a
disaster. How then are we to react to situations like, murder and gang rape performed
by Satanist’ practitioners? Of the Sawi tribe in Indonesia where savage cannibalism and
ruthless killings, and treachery are treated as the highest form of virtue? To follow moral
pluralists claim, then we are inclined to believe that all these spring from mere insights
into same ultimate reality.

As explained by AE McGrath of Wheaton College:

“Moral pluralism can never control or even rival our natural sloth and greed. The
terrorists groups (have) morality (which) is determined by their political goals. If you
believe in your cause as the most important thing on earth, you will bomb, maim, and kill
in order to achieve that goal. And the casualties? These are regrettable but inevitable.
Many ancient religions included the idea of human sacrifice: if these still existed, would
this practice be tolerated? Certainly not.” (McGrath, n.d.)

No matter how appealing it may be to liberal minded people, still, it cannot be denied
that moral pluralism has a darker side for it carries certain negative social effects.
Part 1: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics

3.2. Globalization
According to British sociologist Anthony Giddens, it
refers to the ‘intensification of worldwide relationships
which link distant localities in such a way that local
happenings are shaped by events occurring many
miles away and vice versa.’ It may also mean as the
world wide integration of government policies,
cultures, social movements, and financial markets
through trade and the exchange of ideas. However
may we define globalization, central to it is the idea of
‘trans-nationalization’ of the connections taking place in the today’s world.
Globalization has emphasized increased occurrences in trans-border or
transnational relations. In fact, it has restructured our social space or geography from
one that is mainly territorial to one that is increasingly transnational. For example,
individuals usually interact and affiliate with others who share their same space that is,
village, town, municipality or country. Now, there is a massive growth of interactions and
affiliations either across or outside of these boundaries of today’s globalization. In effect,
it has brought escalation in global relations.

Some researchers contend that globalization begun after World War II. But it’s
acceleration was seen in the mid 1980’s. There are two factors to which this can be
attributed, namely 1) technological advances, and 2) liberalization of trade and capital
markets. The first one effectively reduced the cost of transportation, communication and
computation to the degree that it has become economically viable for a firm to place
different phases of production in various countries. As for the second one, more
governments are in to allowing foreign competition or influence. Import tariffs and
nontariff obstacles like import quotas, legal prohibition, and export restraints known to
protect local economies have been gradually declined by their own governments.
International institutions founded after WWII, such as the World Bank, International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – which
was succeeded in 1995 by the World Trade Organization played a crucial role in
endorsing free trade in place of protectionism applied by governments to protect local
economies.

Let’s look at some of the significant economic problems posed by globalization.

Uses up finite resources more quickly The entry of China in the WTO in
2001, has seen its rapid rise in coal
use. Besides the fact that the use of
coal has increased considerably.
increases world carbon dioxide emissions The world may expect an increase
 in carbon dioxide emissions if
countries continue their rapid use of
coals, and other fossil fuels
Virtually impossible for regulators in one Individual actions of countries to
country to foresee the worldwide reduce emissions may prove to
implications of their actions encourage other to ramp up world
trade, manufacturing in coal
producing areas, thus increase
emissions more
Acts to increase world prices Globalization has pushed demand
for oil in a rapid state. However, the
problem is world supply of oil is
virtually flat, and may lend to
increase its prices more in the
future.
Transfers consumption of limited oil supply Developing countries are better able
from developed countries to developing to use higher-priced oil. Growing
countries shift in manufacturing to less
developed countries relatively
increased workers who can afford to
buy a motorcycle or car.
Transfers jobs to developed countries to Developed countries must now
less developed countries compete with countries of low cost
structures.
Transfers investment spending from For investors, it is a choice of which
developed countries to less developed country will give the most
countries competitive advantage for
businesses.
Led US balance of trade deficits and other US dollar as ‘reserve currency’ of
imbalances the world, attracts other countries to
buy U.S. debts, which necessarily
encourage America to overspend on
aspects of globalization and control
of oil prices. A mismatch in
government income and spending
accrues.
Tends to move taxation away from Companies has the ability to move
corporations, and into individual citizens to locations where the tax rate is
lowest. But not so in the case of
individuals. A depressed economy
can put pressure on individuals to
shoulder government costs.
Sets up a currency of ‘race to bottom’ Countries vie for export advantage
by dropping the value of its
currency, and is largely due to the
 competitive nature of world
economy. Low wages, more
pollution, use of cheap fuels, and by
debase of currency thru quantitative
easing or printing money, with the
goal to produce inflation and lower
the value of currency relative to
other foreign currencies, to maintain
competitive edge.
Encourages dependence on other countries Since goods may be obtained
for essential goods and services cheaply elsewhere. It becomes easy
to depend on its importations, and
for countries to specialize on things
like financial services or high priced
medical care/service, which are not
oil dependent. But this is good only
if import system remain intact and
uninterrupted.
Ties countries together – a system where Countries now are interdependent,
the collapse of a country ripples to other so much so, an over-utilization of
states resources of one, may cause
financial dislocation pull of other
countries as well

At this point, we now peer into the challenges and/or implications of globalization in
relation to morality, business ethics, and for creating a global universal ethic or values.

Globalization in relation to morality, forefront is the ‘radical inequality or

disparity’ between the few rich and the many poor individuals. Neoliberal globalization
have caused the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, leaving the majority in
poverty. Globalization has become a process driven by progressive capitalist countries
to perpetuate their economic and political domination. This is evident in countries where
the laissez-faire capitalism is practiced, and which tend to deepen inequalities within
and between nations. However, this is ethically condemnable from both the
consequentialist and deontological point of view. Consequentialists argue that
globalization fail to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. Meanwhile,
deontologists particularly adherents to Kantian ethics, argue that globalization is
condemnable due to exploited populations treated as means to an end, rather than as
an end to themselves. Second is that states are in effect losing their sovereignty.
Financially distraught states go to organizations like the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) for loan assistance. In
exchange for this, these organizations take virtual control over their (states) traditional
governmental functions. This scenario is a morally condemnable intrusiveness of
international economic organizations, primarily the lack of accountability to the people
that may be openly affected by their policies which tend to impose agonizing conditions
on indebted governments. Lastly, the growing environmental problem if not addressed
collectively by states, pose global economic collapse that carry a threat of human
extinction. Significantly included are issues on greenhouse effect that generate global
climate change known as global warming; ozone layer depletion which extinguishes the
protective blanket that shields the world’s population from unsafe ultra violet rays being
discharged from the sun; global biosphere which has seen rapid reduction in the
diversity of ecosystems, in the number of species of life, and in the variety of genes that
circulate within individual species; population explosion where it threatens to surpass
the earth’s carrying capacity, thus eventually bust the biosphere. Towards this end,
global environmental considerations form the need for international environmental
ethics which is an aspect of global ethics.

Globalization in relation to business ethics. As countries become interdependent

where there is now free movement within and out of territorial boundaries, of goods and
services, issues on ethical business practices has arisen as well. Business ethics is a
form of applied ethics that examines moral principles concerning business environment
which involves issues on corporate practices, policies, business behaviors, and the
conducts and relationships of individuals in the organizations. Various ethical issues like
child labor, duplication of products, money laundering, environment issues, business
malpractices, cybercrimes, sexual harassment in work places, intellectual property and
patent thefts are some of the pressing issues relatable to it. Indeed, it has become
imperative for companies to incorporate both business and environmental ethics as part
of their strategic programs and alliances. Also, it mandates top management to
establish clear policies that will encourage ethical behavior. All these are intended to
attract competent employees, create a conducive organizational climate, good profits
and promote healthy competition in the international globalized business world.

Globalization in relation to creating a global ethic or universal values. Social

scientists and philosophers agree that the time has come for the world to develop a
‘global ethic’, that is a universally accepted principles that could provide foundation for
regulating global interactions. Central to have a cohesive society, and in order to
achieve global justice and peace, is a set of shared ethical values and standards that
can create at a global level – peace and harmony. This is possible by looking into the
basic and fundamental principles and/or values that hold every society. Fundamental
principles and/or values like truth, justice, love, compassion, a universal spirit of
fraternity, a solidary altruistic spirit, a decided and generous will, and the will to live in
peace. Developing universally acceptable global principles that is, global ethics for
administering transnational interactions through cultural dialogue is possible, with a view
to making material wealth go hand in hand with moral and spiritual wealth.

Part 2: Key Concepts in Ethics: Millennials and Filennials

Millennials, also known as ‘Generation Y’ or the

‘Net Generation,’ are the generational cohort
directly following Generation X. Generational
cohorts are groups of people who were born about
the same time, or during a specific time period, possess similar characteristics and
behaviors, and are different from members of other age groups. According to Pew
Research Center, generational cut-off points are not exact science. There are no exact
dates when this cohort starts and ends. Researchers and demographers commonly
use the late ‘70s to early ‘80s as starting birth years, and the mid-‘90s to early 2000 as
ending birth years.

There are five (5) generations that make up our society which specifies birth years for
each generation. The Center for Generational Kinetics presents it as follows:

GENERATIONAL COHORT BIRTH YEARS

Gen Z, iGen, or Centennials 1996 and later
Millenials or Gen Y 1977 to 1995
Generation X 1965 to 1976
Baby Boomers: Born 1946 to 1964 1946 to 1964
Traditionalists or Silent Generation: 1945 and before
Born 1945 and before

Millennials are consequently the children of baby boomers and older Gen Xers.

Filennials is a term used to denote the Filipino

Millennials.
Filennials’ or Millennials’ generation is
commonly characterized by an increased use of
and familiarity with communications, media, and digital technologies. Their dependence
on Google or Wikipedia, which provide them plenty of various worldviews, is
remarkable. No less than in our country, millennials’ upbringing has been said to be
marked by an increase in liberal approach to politics, economics, and morality, though
this claim is disputed.

There are seven basic traits attributed to Millennials, namely ‘special,

sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving’. However,
the idea of ‘team-oriented’ is questioned, based on a study, which show that millennials
exhibit a sense of entitlement and narcissism amongst them, as compared to preceding
generations when they were in their teens and twenties. Thus, it is of no surprise that
some psychologists ascribe Millennials as part of what is called “Generation Me”,
instead of “Generation We”. Perhaps, it can even be added that this attitudinal behavior
of millennials may be related to a time, when they came of age, the entertainment
industry started to be significantly influenced by the Internet. Nonetheless, despite the
most ethnically and racially varied compared to older generations, millennials are seen
to be the most educated.

Part 2: Key Concepts in Ethics: Millennials and Filennials

4.1. Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity

In the United Kingdom, a 2013 poll found that Millennials were more open-minded
than their parents on controversial topics. In 2013, a Pew Research Poll found that 84%
of Generation Y members favored legalizing the use of marijuana. In 2014, the same
research center issued a report revealing that Millennials in adulthood are detached
from institutions and networked with friends. Some authors describe Millennials’
approach to social change “as pragmatic idealism” with deep desire to make the world a
better place, combined with an understanding that doing so requires building new
institutions while working inside and outside existing institutions”.

Millennials are also labeled as the ‘Boomerang Generation’ or ‘Peter Pan

Generation,’ because of their perceived tendency for delaying some rites of passage
into adulthood for longer periods than most generations before them and for living with
their parents for longer periods than previous generations.

Generation Y members are very upbeat and more open to change than older
generations. Based on a survey by the Pew Research Center in 2008, Millennials are
“the most likely of any generation to self-identify as liberals and are also more
supportive of progressive domestic social agenda than older generations.”

Concerning beliefs on ethical issues, most millennials of every religion, race, and
ethnicity support access to affordable contraception according to a study. “And 56
percent of people ages 18 to 35 say that in some situations, choosing to have abortion
“is the most responsible decision that a woman can make.”

A sampling of other findings reveal the following:

 a. One-quarter of millennials say that marriage has become old-fashioned and
out of date, while 71 percent disagree.

b. A four-way split on “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels has been found amongst
millennials. While 25 percent say they are exclusively “pro-life” and 27 percent say
they’re “pro-choice,” 22 percent rebuff both labels and nearly 27 percent say that both
labels describe them equally well.

c. Seven percent of millennials identify either as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or

transgender.

Part 2: Key Concepts in Ethics: Millennials and Filennials

4.2. Work Ethics

Although it is common knowledge that millennials are children of either baby
boomers or older Gen Xers, it may probably interest you to know, if these two
generational cohorts, share similar work traits and attitudes. Let’s see a short
comparison below between these two.

Workplace Boomers & Gen EXers Millennials

attitude
Positive hardworking, idealistic, tech-savvy, appreciative of
committed to harmony, diversity, and skilled in
entrepreneurial, flexible, self- multitasking.
reliant, and comfortable with
technology
Negative self-centered with sense of lack basic literacy
entitlement, workaholics, self- fundamentals, short attention
motivated, don’t appreciate spans, not loyal to
feedback organization, demand
immediate feedback &
recognition, integrate
technology in workplace, may
seek employers & multiple
careers, and work dress is
whatever feels comfortable.

On the other hand, a study on generational analysis of millennials illustrate

a relatively high percentages of them consider certain behaviors in the workplace to be
ethical, which includes:

Workplace behaviors considered among millennials to be ethical %

Taking a copy of work software home for personal use 13%
Using social networks to find out the company’ competitors 37%
“Friending” a client or customer on a social network 36%
Uploading personal photos on a company network 26%
Keeping copies of confidential documents 22%
Working less to compensate for cuts in benefits or pay 18%
Buying personal items using a company credit card 15%
Blogging or tweeting negatively about a company 14%

Part 2: Key Concepts in Ethics: Millennials and Filennials

4.3. Individualism
Millennials have been painted as the self-entitled
and selfie-snapping generation. Considered as a class of
self-centered and self-absorbed 20-somethings. But
there some who defend them by explaining that they are
just individuals who have more time to be
themselves. This translates to their individualism having
a self-focused time in life. Not to mean as selfishness, but rather have fewer social rules
and obligations, and more freedom to be self-directed. They typically exhibit high
individualistic characteristics of independence and self-reliance. Because of this, as
they spend time to find themselves in their 20s, a delay in settling down is
consequential. Thus, society’s stigma on being single has evaporated, leaving young
people enough time to explore and eventually find themselves.
However, millennials’ individualism affect their moral outlook. It is said that their
generation views morality as personal and subjective, based on feeling, and therefore,
nontransferable to others. Particularly, to them, morality is a personal matter. Aside from
this, their being individualistically and materialistically motivated, has seen a decline in
their moral values, due to the culture of rampant narcissism. Some say that this
veritable epidemic is due to the misplaced overconfidence shown to Millennials by their
parents that now led them into what we call the ‘self-esteem generation’.

In describing Millennials’ ethics, it is however essential to note that new technologies

generate new moral problems, and the Millennials are, to a greater degree than any
prior generation, defined by the technology in which they are embedded. The ethical
questions that face them may be qualitatively different than those encountered by
earlier generations.

Part 2: Key Concepts in Ethics: Millennials and Filennials

4.4. Conflict with Parents

As you already know, millennials are generally the children
of the baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. Elsewhere we
have learned the differences in work attitude and behavior
between parents (baby Boomers and older Gen Xers) on the one hand, and children
(millennials) on the other. Here, we shall see if there are relationship issues between
these two. A common observation is that they are often in conflict with each other. For
one thing, Millennials are seen by Baby Boomers as somewhat greedy, self-absorbed,
and wasteful. One reason for the cause of conflict is the difference in mentality. Baby
boomer’s life principle are to: attain a good education, get a well-playing full-time job,
find a stable partner, purchase a house and a car, and have a child or children. And
millennials who fail in any of this, reflects on their dignity and is perceived by boomer’s
to in moral fiber.
As previously explained, millennials are perceived to have a tendency for delaying
some rites of passage into adulthood, consequently, live with their parents for long
periods of time. They are thus blamed for not living up to Baby Boomers’ (especially
their respective parents’) ideals. Millennials are seen as denying the lifestyles of their
parents.

The Pew Research Center made public opinion surveys and demographic data
which reveal some of the major differences between Baby Boomers and Millennials:

Millennials differ in relation to being Statistical analysis

More progressive on social issues Baby Boomers oppose gay marriage
by a thin margin, while a solid majority
(68%) of millennials support this form
of marriage. An equal number of them
support the legalization of marijuana.
Hesitant to identify themselves with a Half of US millennials say they are
political party independents, 27% confessed
Democrats and 17% as Republicans.
Some 70% approved of President
Obama when he first elected in the
highest office
Less wealthy First generation U.S. history to come
into adulthood in worse economic
shape than their parents.
Unemployment rate is higher than it
was for their parents at the same age,
and with higher student debt.
Reluctant to get married When millennials get married, they’re
likely to marry someone of a different
race. From 3% to 15% now marry
interracially. Asians, Hispanics,
African Americans and Whites
millennials say that intermarriage is a
good thing for society.
Prone to live more at home than their 22% of U.S. households presently
parents did at the same age have two or more adult generations
living under the same roof, a level not
seen since the end of World War II.

This may be considered a symptom of

a generation gap which is normal,
since it is hard to wage a war
between generations when you live
under the same roof.

Part 2: Key Concepts in Ethics: Millennials and Filennials

4.5. Secularism and Humanism

We already know that Millennials, their generation, view
themselves as individualistic, where their perception of
morality is feeling based and untransferable to others.
Thus, to them morality is a personal matter. Does this
relatively mean that millennials are less openly
religious than their older generation counterparts?
It has been said that, about one in four Millennials are
unaffiliated with any religion, which is much more than the older generations when they
were ages of Millennials. And when it comes to dealing with morality, Millennials tend to
likely advocate secularism and humanism.

Secularism is basically a non-theistic belief system, or a worldview, which does not

acknowledge supernatural or divine views of reality. As such, it includes atheism,
agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, scientism, Darwinism, and other ideologies that
reject all spiritual explanations of the world.

On the other hand, Humanism is a system of

thought which gives emphasis to the value of human
beings and favors man’s thought over faith or
religious doctrine. Originally, the term refers to
Renaissance cultural and intellectual movement
featuring the rediscovery of the arts and philosophies
of ancient Greeks and Romans. The word
“humanistic” is derived from the olden Italian term
‘umanista’ which pertains to a teacher or scholar of
classical Greek and Latin literature.
Although humanism does not necessarily imply non-theism, before 1800, it began to
be known as, beliefs centered on humanity without attention to any concepts of the
supernatural. To them, the universe is a natural phenomenon, that this earthly life is the
only life we have, and in the absence of an afterlife and of any pre-determined purpose
to the universe, we can act, to give meaning to our respective lives, by seeking
happiness in this life, and helping others to do the same.

As an ethical perspective, humanism is a belief centered on human-based morality.

By rejecting any supernatural authority, it stands to reason that we can live ethical and
fulfilling lives by putting human well-being interests, and happiness at the heart of our
moral decision making. Nowadays, humanism has become essentially synonymous
with secularism.

Advocates of secular humanism affirm some notions of human nature, that is,
human experience, human need, and human reason - as its moral and ethical
foundations.

Human experience as moral basis. Secular humanist explains that moral rules are
derived from human experience. You need not be religious in order to realize that you
can live in peace and in harmony with others. Through experience, you learn that,
though you may want to assault , you do not want to be assaulted; you may be tempted
to steal, yet you do not want to be stolen from; you may be enticed to kill, yet you do
not want to be murdered. Necessarily, a rule emerged: “Let no one do these things that
we can live in peace and realize the human good we need.” Secular humanists aver
that there is every reason people have come up with these rules without having to be
told by God that these are legitimate moral laws.

Human need and reason. Secular humanists admit that Ethics is conventional, but it
has a natural basis. For them, its natural basis is not the so-called natural law, nor
some law written in man’s heart or in Scriptures. The natural basis of ethics is - human
need and human reason.

To prove their point, they refer to things we hate: we hate to bleed, be wounded, be
killed, and be stolen from. Laws are then made, using our reason, by considering these
things. Thus, it is submitted that the natural basis of morality are the universal human
needs for security, safety, love, and by extension, the need to secure our families, and
teach our children to fulfill their poPtentials.

Consequently, the rational for reasonable moral rules is because of the

aforementioned needs. Hence, they claim that we do not need rules from God - all we
need is to be human, to have the needs we have, and to have some human intelligence
or reason.