The Ethical Perspectives Student

1|General Education Ethics
Table of Contents
Introduction: The Question of Ethics and the Fallibility of the Self ......................................................... 3
What is Ethics? ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 1: The Rise of Ethics and Morality ................................................................................................. 5
Everything was for Free: Conflict of Interest and the Tragedy of the Commons ..................................... 5
The Possibility of Fault: Knowing, Feeling and Acting ............................................................................. 9
The Requirement of Impartiality and Mediation................................................................................... 12
Notes on Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter II: Human Acts and Society .......................................................................................................... 21
Values, Norms and virtues .................................................................................................................... 22
CHARACTERISTIC OF MORAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................. 24
Influences that provides us with ethical or moral prescriptions and proscriptions ............................... 25
Culture .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter III: Frameworks of Ethics ......................................................................................................... 29
The Key Ethical Theories ....................................................................................................................... 30
Virtue Ethics .......................................................................................................................................... 30
ARISTOTLE 384-322 ............................................................................................................................... 32
Aristotle Takes on Ethics........................................................................................................................ 32
Moral and Intellectual Virtue ................................................................................................................ 34
Happiness ............................................................................................................................................. 34
Self-Deception and Fascination ............................................................................................................. 36
Happiness and the Person..................................................................................................................... 38
Natural Law ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Deontology ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Utilitarianism ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Theory of Justice ................................................................................................................................... 49
The Seven Steps of Moral Reasoning .................................................................................................... 49

Introduction: The Question of Ethics and the Fallibility of the
Self
“The story of one person is the story of everyone, and one man’s
quest is the quest of all of humanity.”1
You may wonder what is the point of understanding the different

ethical perspectives. As such, why were the proponents of GE-
Ethics included in their list of philosophers Aristotle, St.
Thomas, Kant, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls?
Is one’s religion or notion of right and wrong not enough to
address moral dilemmas and current issues? And if this is true,
how did they qualify each philosopher, wherein there are
different views on ethics? Was this because these philosophers
are well-known ethicists, or maybe because the proponents of
ethics specialized in them and failed to recognize the view of
other ethicists?
Such questions may bewilder us; one clear explanation we can
have at this juncture is the reality that it is impossible to
have a perfect system of thought that immediately gives us the
right decision and choice in a specific life event. We must
understand that human reality is always situated in the
framework of means and ends. Life is not constituted in a linear
reality between the I and the end. What is presented by human
existence to the self is a swarm of difficulties and an
incomplete harmony that makes our understanding of it a maze.
Thus, one has to traverse between the various means and ends
available to us. This includes the evaluation of various
realities and processes indirectly applied to ourselves as
selves.
What is Ethics?
“Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education
at all.” -Aristotle
The most important question that still
bewilders us has not yet been addressed:
What is ethics? One can define ethics as
the disciplined reflection on human
moral views and standards that lead
toward proper human action.

Consequently, this makes it different from morality, which
refers to individuals', societies', and groups' standards,
principles, beliefs, and attitudes. Another difference is that
ethics always pertain to evaluating our notion of good to
produce the greatest good. It does not rely only on what society
has prescribed, nor does it adhere to a set of established rules
and consider the merits of actions themselves, but on what
reason can illuminate. Thus giving us a justified and reasonable
course of action. For morality, as Khatibi and Khormaei noted,
changes through personal development, and this varies according
to human cognitive development. It develops through its relation
to the norms, values, and patterns of action within the social
contexts they are part of.2
In this regard, the key point of difference between ethics and
morality is that ethics recognizes that members of any social
community have a wide range of moral positions, and they have
different ways or means of reacting to and constructing a
personal notion of good based of their own social and cultural
settings. To attain goodness, therefore, necessitates an
unwavering effort to understand moral concepts and bring
together diverse views on what is morally good. Consequently, as
Leovino Garcia noted, among the two, ethics comes first. Ethics
is our guide towards the attainment of happiness and in a larger
context, it makes every human free, civilized, and human.
One can ask at this juncture, “Why do we need to study ethics?”.
There are various answers that we can draw from this question.
One can respond by simply saying that we take up ethics because
it is a requirement for a college degree. Indeed, as college
students may see it, ethics is a trivial subject, a minor
subject, and less important to college goals. The true value and
lesson of ethics lie in the future you want or aspire to have.
The seed of ethics has to be first sown before it can be ripped.
We must understand that in our everyday lives, we will
inevitably make decisions on moral issues. Thus, studying ethics
is about preparing oneself to be and when goodness is deeply
needed in a situation. Indeed, we can follow different moral
precepts that are already in us. But then again, there will be
instances where the things incorporated into our way of behaving
and responding to moral issues do not fit well with the problem.

Chapter 1: The Rise of Ethics and Morality
“Morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for
socially approved habits.” - Ruth Benedict, PATTERNS OF CULTURE (1934)
The question, then, is how can we clarify or illuminate

this distinction so that we do not end up in a vicious cycle of
definition? Our initial strategy is to examine human history and
how it gave rise to ethics and morality. In so doing, this
renews our interest in ethical standards and will help to
provide us with much-needed answers to the crises and anxiety of
our times.
Everything was for Free: Conflict of Interest and the Tragedy of
the Commons
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we
must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are
near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must
make him believe we are near.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
When God created the world,

everything was all for free.
Everyone is entitled to partake
to all the resources He has
given to human beings, and this
comes without any sort of fee.
The problem, however, is that
with everything being for free,
a tragedy follows that leads to
various conflicts and problems
in human relations.3 In fact,
overusing resources that are https://fritsahlefeldt.com/2012/10/16/the-real-
tragedy-of-the-commons-illustration/
shared, used, and enjoyed by
all will lead either to the
destruction or depletion of the resource as an effect of the
conflict of interest and the lack of rules governing the use of
resources.
Let us say, for example, that there are five people living
together in a certain area, and there is a fishpond that
supplies them with food. Assuming that the pond has ten (10)
fish and multiplies twice daily. If those people would only take

one (1) fish for themselves, the pond would never run out fishes
and would continue to supply them with fish. But, if one takes
more than one (1) fish for himself, his action will
significantly affect the flow of supply and demand.
Individuals do what is in their best interest and fail to
realize that their actions greatly impact human relationships.
In this case, their vested interest creates conflict with the
others, pushing them beyond the limits of survivability. As our
history has shown, the survival of the fittest stands as a
living testament to these conflicts, from the prehistoric period
that speaks of human beings always being on the move for
following herds of animals into empty lands to the Stone Age
where they discovered how to use stones to make tools and
weapons to the first farmers. Conflicts always shadow human
reality. Hence, to address these conflicts as they entered the
realm of civilization law-making and writing changed the
society.
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.”
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
As Jean-Jacque Rousseau noted, human beings have conflicting

interests that cause various conflicts and chaos in society. The
preservation of their own life is what stands above others. In
this case, the weak become oppressed and exploited. This is why
we find in history the reason why other tribes pillage or
plunder other tribes. They attacked one village after the other
due to the scarcity of resources and to address the problems of
hunger and survival.
On the other hand, people started to form groups and alliances
to compensate for their weaknesses. They started to use rules of
living to protect one another and maintain a harmonious society.
This event marks the birth of laws, which is why we see human
history moving from tribal period to civilization. Yet, as human
civilization progresses, there is still oppression and
exploitation that occurs. For example, as Rousseau noted, to
address the scarcity of resources, society needs the
privatization of property. Apparently, not everyone was given a
property. Others, therefore, steal from others to feed
themselves, while others sell themselves into slavery just to
make ends meet. In effect, the privatization of property also
leads to various crimes since people are still oriented towards
survivability and conflict of interest.

Another reality we can examine is Karl Marx's theory of
Capitalism, which presents class consciousness and struggle, the
problem of exploitation, inequality of people, surplus value,
and alienation in the 19th century. In Marx's theory, there is a
failure to recognize the other as human. The working class is
viewed as the lower class, and their work alienates them, which
indicates the failure of responsibility among the upper class.
Consequently, these sets of realities still manifest themselves
in the 21st century. Nevertheless, Marx noted, “Society does not
consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations,
the relations within which these individuals stand.4”
Another reality we can examine to show how ethics and morality
existed is the Great Holocaust. Here, the life of the human
being is not what is important but the view that the other is
superior. The creation of class status brings further chaos. We
see and judge people in terms of differences and not what is
universal to all humans, which is the right to life. As an
outcome of the war, various thinkers, like Paul Ricoeur, Emanuel
Levinas, Hannah Arendt, and so forth, renewed their interest in
ethics and the human condition to help the next generation
understand human relations and humanity. They argue that ethics
is about the character that must guide us in becoming human
beings. Indeed, ethics has a massive benefit in our practical
and everyday life. Through it, we free ourselves from prejudice
and dogmatism by making us aware of the various conditions of
human existence.
To further shed light on this, let us look at the existential
structure of human beings. Accordingly, it is composed of three
essential structures- that of thinking, feeling, and acting.
These structures are what make us capable of being human and, at
the same time, capable of attaining the humanity in us.
The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur critically

argues that no matter what happens, we will always
find ourselves “in a corporeal, historical
situation, because…we stand…neither at the
beginning not at the end but always according to
Ricoeur in the middle, in medias res.”5 Human beings
are beings are beings that are situated between the finite and
the infinite. He is between an angel and an animal, a mélange of
things that makes him human. This is why humans cannot learn

everything but cannot know nothing, which will always be the
case.
One can argue, therefore, how can we explain the faults that
define us as human beings? A direct answer to this question
seems impossible, for there are different factors that we have
to consider, such as the existence of evil. But there is one
clear path that can enlighten us regarding the fault in us. This
is through understanding fault under its geographical
definition. Fault refers to a rift, a break from one part to
another. In the case of human beings, this rift or break can be
found in their essential structures-thinking, feeling, and
acting.
As Ricoeur noted, the disproportionate relation of thinking,
feeling, and acting is what can lead us to fault. The
utilization of either one or two of these structures takes away
from us the humanity that belongs to us. We need to recognize
and actualize the fact that we human beings are intermediary
beings whose ontological existence primarily consists of
bringing mediation to all levels of reality. 6 Despite finding
ourselves under the disproportion inherent in our human reality.
The competing and conflicting desires, aspirations,
difficulties, crises, and challenges we encounter testify to our
freedom and capabilities as beings in the world.
Our realization of the
disproportionate relation of
the structure, as Ricoeur had
illustrated in Fallible Man,
is not an invitation to fault
or to be fragile and fallible
but to affirmation and
humanity. The future and the
project we project must make
the self realize itself as a
being in the world. Thus,
something must be done
between involvement and
resolution, and something
undetermined must be determined.
This presupposes that the attainment of happiness can be
accorded to the structures working harmoniously with one
another. For Ricoeur, each of them has its strengths and
weaknesses, where the strength of the other is what compensates

for the weakness of the other to make us attain happiness and
regain our humanity.
Let us further illuminate the fallibility of the self to witness

a unique progression that unfolds and distinguishes human
fallibility, finitude, disproportionality, and intermediacy as
separate realities of the human condition.
The Possibility of Fault: Knowing, Feeling and Acting
Happiness is not
the achievement of
an isolated act. It
concerns our entire
existence- the
affirmation of life
and our desire to
be. Accordingly, in
understanding
fallibility, the
term fault is what
gives the best
1
definition. In its
strongest sense, it
refers to a rift or
break within the three essential aspect of the self. A break
that does not let us attain the affirmation of our life and the
desire to be of the self.
Accordingly, thinking refers to our rational part; it gives
meaning to those things presented to us. It aims to objectify
and exteriorize the world it stands to present and represent.
Thus, making every view of…is a view on… The problem, however,
is that it detaches the object from the I. On the other hand,
feeling refers to our affective part; it gives us an inward
relation to the thing presented to us. It interiorizes our
encounter with the thing that manifests the intention of tensions
and drives (FM, 87). Thus, it personalizes reason since it
identifies the identity of existence and reason. However, as
clear as it may be, feeling is also vague at the same time.
Acting, which refers to our physiological part, is our operating
mechanism toward the thing. However, acting hardens us to a set
1 The recourse to fault is an attempt to justify the possibility of evil in human beings, since
evil cannot be explained in a purely eidetic process.

of systems that take away our experience of knowing and feeling
the presented thing. It creates automatic forms of response or
by the order of things. In effect, one can conclude that the
rise of fault and fallibility can be attributed to the
disproportionate relation of the three.
People often choose to use either one or two of the structures
as their tools for understanding the world they live in. As a
result, we either objectify others, seeing them as tools for our
goals, or subjectify them, seeing them in terms of hierarchized
affectivity; it only completes and perfects isolated, partial,
finite acts or processes. Thus, it is an anticipation of a
finite perfection that resides in the instant. Meanwhile, the
action takes away from us the very experience of either knowing
or feeling since it creates an automatic form of responses to
things.
In these cases, there is the possibility that the self would
fail to thrust forward, for the very thrust and force of
consciousness toward the future is affected. As Ricoeur noted,
this is the bondage that freedom imposes on itself as an effect
of the function of affective anticipation and latent valuation.
Through them, need transforms itself into demands. It becomes an
autonomous motive, and the self can pursue it for its own sake;
despite the absence of the object, pleasure still pleases the
self. It brings a pre-possession that anticipates satisfied
repose.
This shows that the attainment of
happiness, which ethics aims at, “An
can be attained through the unexamined
harmonious relation of the three life is not
structures. The eye of the mind and worth living”
the eye of the heart have to work - Socrates
simultaneously. This, therefore,
addresses why we need to include
the views of others and why is my
own notion of right and wrong, good
and evil not enough to address
moral dilemmas. Each perspective
has different insights on things and presents different
meanings.
Let us look at the case of Baby Theresa as an example, where we
find that opinions regarding her case are divided.
10 | G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n E t h i c s
Case #1: The Story of Baby Theresa
“Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public
as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. She has
anencephaly, which is one of the worst genetic disorders.2
The cerebrum and cerebellum, and the top of the skull are
missing. However, the brain stem is still there, which
makes the baby capable of breathing and possessing a
heartbeat. Most cases of anencephaly detected during
pregnancy are often aborted due to the complication of it.
Of those not aborted, there are only a few hundred that are
born alive each year, and they usually die within days.
What makes the story of Baby Theresa caught the eyes of the
people, is the unusual request of her parents to harvest
her organ while she is still alive. This is to donate them
to those infants who are greatly in need of other organs.
Nonetheless, Theresa’s organs were not taken because
Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor
has died. By the time Baby Theresa died nine days later, it
was too late—her organs had deteriorated too much to be
harvested and transplanted.”7
James Rachels noted in The Elements of Morality that different
arguments can be drawn from the case of Baby Theresa. There is
the argument of benefits, using people as a means, and the
wrongness of killing. Nonetheless, what is clear in this dilemma
is that each human being has his take on life. However, as the
Irish philosopher
George Berkeley once
said, “All men have
opinions, but few
think.” In this case,
the attitude of seeing
the world in terms of
what we want to see and
not what actually
occurs are different
realities. We must not
forget that we live in
a society that makes
our life to be connected with others, whether we like it or not.
One needs the other for him to live and create a harmonious
2 Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains.”
life. Thus, our egoistic view cannot suffice our needs and
demands to live with the other.
Besides, as Kahneman noted, as we navigate our lives, we usually
allow ourselves to be guided by impressions and feelings and our
confidence in our intuitive beliefs and preferences. We have to
be aware that people often evaluate our choices. 8 This reality,
therefore, demands that we need to broaden our perspective to
create a harmonious atmosphere. The individualistic perspective,
whose quality and content of its judgments can affect our
decisions and choices and our relation to our fellow human
beings.
The story of Baby Theresa invites us as ethical beings to think
like a physician. An ethicist must acquire a large set of
disease labels to diagnose a specific illness properly. By
looking at the possible antecedents and causes, an accurate
diagnosis may limit the damage that poor judgment and choice
causes. On the other hand, we must also recognize that moral
dilemmas are not simply stories created by the mind to make us
think. Instead, they are stories of people that resonate with
people from different cultures all around the world. Their
stories are told with the goal of helping us avoid committing
the same mistake they did and create a better world. Hence, by
understanding those stories and people's different approaches
toward them, we find the universe conspiring to help us address
the issue adequately.
Nonetheless, one has to seek the answer in the language of
enthusiasm, a search for something believed in and desired of
things accomplished with love and purpose. Humans are
susceptible to being fascinated by pictures and words and
forgetting our real purpose. Besides, not all reason may advance
to become good reason. There are bad arguments that require
better skill or moral thinking to discern the differences and
prejudices of views. What can we learn from all this? For
starters, we can underscore two main points: first, moral
judgment must be backed by good reason, and second, morality
requires mediation and impartial consideration.
The Requirement of Impartiality and Mediation
“Man is this plural and collective unity in which the unity of destination
and the differences of destinies are to be understood through each other.”
― Paul Ricoeur
As Rachel emphasized, each

individual’s interest is equally
important.9 This means that none
of the views is greater than the
other and, therefore, needs to
be recognized and respected. In
this case, Rachel argues that
impartiality is needed to
address moral dilemmas and draw
a proper action.
Ricoeur, on the other hand, emphasizes that since there is a
multiplicity of views, the role of mediation is therefore needed
in addressing the human condition. Mediation imposes the merging
of horizons for us to create a much better reason for action.
Both approaches, however, have a minimum requirement for being
ethical- which is the inclusion of the views of the different
aspects of life which are the domains of ethical assessment. As
Pojman and Fieser there are four domains that is assess by
ethics in a situation that of:10
1. Action- we assess the situation according to the act of
the agent which can be regarded either right or wrong. A
right action accordingly is a permissible act for the
agent to do. As Pojman and Feiser noted it may either be
an obligatory or optional act.
2. Consequence- we assess the situation according to the
consequence or outcome. Often referred as teleological
ethics.
3. Character- we assess the situation according to the
features of the agent.
4. Motive- we assess the situation according to the motive
of the people involved.
Apparently, one of the neglected aspects of human beings as they
progress and take the various questions of life is the role of
feelings.
As Ricoeur noted, there are ideal
objects of knowledge which are
independent to the knowing subject.
This is because the world is what
comes first before our understanding
of ourselves. We first receive the
manifestation of the world and then understand this
manifestation. However, our way of relating to its manifestation
requires the capability of feeling. Despite of drawing various
relation through our knowing aspect, what it presents to us is
still at distance from the self who actually receives and
determines it. This indicates that since feeling presents to us
a different knowledge and approach to things it has to be given
a special place in our understanding.
Ricoeur contends that if there is a privileged middle zone
between vitality and pure intellect, between the finitude of
desire and infinitude of reason and happiness “in” me and “in”
others, that serves as a testament to the conflict of desire and
intermediacy of man, it is feeling which elevates imagination
and pleasure by describing and illuminating fascination and
deception.11 As seen in his works, imagination and feeling are
closely linked and related to the actualization of freedom.12
Feeling, as Ricoeur emphasized, is different from emotions. The
latter culminates in desire, belonging to the order of the
involuntary. It does not contribute to any ends that do not make
themselves felt in needs and quasi-needs. The ends it provides
are already present before consciousness, whose efficacy is part
of the order of nascent movement.13 It presupposes a more or
less, as Savage noted, implicit motivation.
On the other hand, feeling
registers the affective nuances
of the thing that manifests a
relation to the world by
restoring our involvement with
it. It hierarchizes affectivity,
allowing us to submit pleasure
to the same critique applied to
the finite perspective. It,
therefore, evokes epoché to
reveal our manner of existing as
incarnate in the flesh.14 Thus,
as Ricoeur noted in his analysis
of “The Metaphorical Process as
Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling,” through feeling, there is
a constructive relation that is created for feeling, which
displays relations in a depicting mode. Thus, to have an insight
into resemblance is not simply thinking and seeing, but it also
invokes a feeling that projects a futuristic reality.15
Ricoeur further added that feelings show an interiorization that
implies a movement of intentional transcendence. It manifests
the implicit intention of tensions and drives fueled by need and
desire. In saying it is “felt,” Ricoeur claims that we
accentuate the reality that we are included in the process as a
knowing subject. This, therefore,
creates a second-order intentional
structure that announces, as Savage
noted, the meaning of wanting,
attaining, and enjoying something by
revealing the affective state of the
movement towards the satisfaction of a
need, wants, and desires.16 This
reality, as Ricoeur emphasized,
contributes to the split reference of
poetic discourse.17
This reality brings into view that if
one looks carefully at feeling in the
instantaneous grasping of
possibilities and essences. Feeling emphasizes that to imagine
is not to have a mental picture of something but to display
relations in a depicting mode. As imagination reveals the
process of interiorization, it calls the self to make his own
what has been put at a distance by objectivity. As Ricoeur
pointed out, this abolishes the distance between the knower and
the known without calling off the cognitive structure of thought
and the intentional distance it implies. Accordingly, this makes
feeling a complex kind of intentionality; not only that it
refers to an inner state, but it also interiorizes thought
itself.
In this event, feeling accompanies imagination in its function
of schematization and is not contrary to thought. Thus, it makes
the analysis a thought made ours. It accompanies and completes
imagination in understanding absence and image by returning what
was placed at a distance to the self. As imagination provides a
model by adding feeling to its function, it formulates, Ricoeur
noted, the reading of reality in a new way. It makes those
realities that cannot be expressed in ordinary language to be
harmonious with the self. Hence, under the implicit intention of
tensions and drives, this clarifies that pleasure is an
encounter in perception that points out and greets the moment
when the object has entered our bodily experiences, in which it
also places its seal of perfection.18
As Rachel noted, people's feelings can be very different.
Following Scheler, Dy noted, "All our knowledge of being and
being willing of anything are based on love. 19” There is the
development of ethical views that are developed based on
insights from the values that emotional intuition presents.
Values as Dy noted, are a particular class of ideal objects.20
Both Ricoeur and Scheler argue that feelings give us intentional
objects that make every value knowable and make every value to
be open and accessible to the self.
Notes on Chapter 1
1 Paulo Coelho, Introduction, The Alchemist Graphic Novel (London, England:
HarperCollins, 2010).
2
The meaning of the term ethics is often seen as synonymous with
the term morality. Nevertheless, various thinkers argue that
there is a fine line of distinction between the two that makes
them totally different.
3 Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” in Green Planet Blues (Sixth
Edition. | New York: Routledge, 2019. | Revised edition of Green planet
blues, [2015]: Routledge, 2019), 41–49.
4 Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy,
trans. Martin Nicolaus (London, England: Penguin Classics, 1993).

5 FN, 174
6 In Fallible Man, Ricoeur argues that human beings are beings that are
situated between two realities: the finite and the infinite. For him, we are
expected to meditate on things presented to us.
7 See James Rachel, Elements of Morality for futher clarification on the case
of baby Theresa.
8 Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Harlow, England: Penguin Books,
2012), 1-3.
9 Elements of Morality, 12
10
Louis P. Pojman and James Fieser, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 8th ed. (Wadsworth Publishing, 2016), 8.
11 Paul Ricoeur, Philosophical Anthropology, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Polity
Press, 2015), 14-16.

12 As Savage noted, the entire Philosophy of the Will
13 FN, 250-251.
14 For Ricoeur, this introduces the epoché of our bodily motions and reveals
how its power relates to pleasure and behavior. In feeling, we encounter the
finite pleasures and fulfillment of the wish for happiness, which also
reveals their directive aims. This is why for Ricoeur, feeling is the
privileged mode of revealing our “elan of our being…its pre- and hyper-
objective connections (FN, 86). Through feeling, the personal body reveals
itself as belonging to the subjectivity of the Cogito (FN, 251). Hence, for
Ricoeur, understanding an image or an experience remains incomplete if it
does not consider the place and role of feeling in the imaginative process.
Moreover, in his analysis of metaphor, Ricoeur argues that imagination and
feeling have always been closely linked in classical theories of metaphor.
However, if one would dig deeper to this relation, feeling is what accompany
and complete imagination in its function of schematization of the new
predicative congruence. This schematization, as Ricoeur noted, is an insight
into the mixture of "like" and "unlike" proper to similarity. Thus, the
instantaneous grasping of the new congruence is "felt" as well as "seen."
Paul Ricoeur, The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and
Feeling, 156.
15 The complex relation created towards the object of perception has the
ability to break the logical distance between the object and the self. For
Ricoeur, this occurs because what is presented by feeling is an act of
interiorization that creates a projection or motivation towards the objective
state of affairs that has been put in a distance by thought. In this case,
resemblance ultimately is nothing else than this rapprochement which reveals
a generic kinship between heterogeneous ideas. As Ricoeur explicitly stated,
quoting Strasser, feeling is a second order intentional structure.
16 Roger W.H. Savage, Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophical Anthropology as
Hermeneutics of Liberation Freedom, Justice, and the Power of Imagination,
(NY: Routledge, 2021), 55.
17 In his analysis of “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination and
Feeling”, Ricoeur noted that in understanding feeling, there is a natural

inclination to speak of it, which we must become cautious of. Accordingly,
when we speak of feeling, it is often appropriated to emotions and affections
conceived as (1) inwardly directed states of mind and (2) mental experiences
closely tied to bodily disturbances (fear, anger, pleasure, and pain).
See Paul Ricoeur, “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and
Feeling,” Critical Inquiry 5, no. 1 (1978): 143–59, Retrieved July 2017 from
https://doi.org/10.1086/447977.
18 FM, 93-99
19 Manuel B. Dy, Jr. Max Scheler's Ethics of Love and Solidarity, Philosophy
of Man: Selected Essays (Makati, Philippines: Goodwill Trading Co.Inc, 2004),

229-236.
20I. Schutz, “Max Scheler’s Epistemology and Ethics,” in Phaenomenologica
(Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1975), 145–78.
Chapter II: Human Acts and Society
Case #2: The Sinking Submarine

Mark is a marine research submarine crewperson traveling
underneath a large iceberg. An onboard explosion damaged the
ship and killed and injured several crewmembers. Additionally,
it has collapsed, the only access corridor between the upper and
lower parts of the ship.
The upper section, where Mark
and most of the others are
located, does not have enough
oxygen remaining for all of them
to survive until Mark has
reached the surface. Only one
remaining crewmember is located
in the lower section, where
there is enough oxygen. There is
an emergency access hatch
between the upper and lower sections of the ship. If released by
an emergency switch, it will fall to the deck and allow oxygen
to reach the area where Mark and the others are. However, the
hatch will crush the crewmember below, since he was knocked
unconscious and is lying beneath it. Mark and the rest of the
crew are almost out of air though, and they will all die if Mark
does not do this.
Human Acts
When we speak of moral actions, we refer to human actions alone.

Following Aristotle in Eudemian Ethics, ethics refers to those
actions that has a causal responsibility. Accordingly, human
beings alone amongst animal is the source of certain actions. He
is a master of which he said to be the source. Hence,
human acts are that of:
1. The voluntary acts of man.

2. Actions that are done with knowledge and consent.
3. Actions where we are conscious and under our control
where they can be imputed to us.
4. Actions where we are the source and master.
When we speak of voluntary acts, these are actions that we have
a total control. This means that our physiological functions
that occurs in our body are not human acts and does not have
moral significance. Some acts, however, depends on a specific
situation where they either allowed or prohibited by some laws
or circumstances. Actions that are done with knowledge and
consent (voluntary acts) indicates that we are the master of our
own actions and we are aware of the consequence it has. Prior to
any action to a given situation, we evaluate first what course
of action is the best for it. In this case, all actions that are
done according to our knowledge and consent are actions that can
be imputed to us as the source and master of that action. We are
responsible for that action and that action tells us what kind
of person are we.
Values, Norms and virtues
The most important parts of normative ethical theories are

values, norms and virtues. It is important to know the
distinction and relation of these three terms.
Values refer to what is good and worthy for an individuals or
social collectives. They characterize the development of values
is essential for the sustainability of life and its society,
both individuals and social collectives. Human values are values
that are fundamentally innate to human nature. However, as man
lives in a society it also encounters and adopts other sets of
values created by the society. Typically statements of values
entails the notion of approval, disapproval, and obligation:
good, bad, and ought. These are qualities which considers the
most admirable in a human being that can be summarize in the
notion character. (Character would be further elaborated in the
succeeding modules)
Values are individuals’ beliefs that motivates an individual to

act in a certain way to what he defines as good. They work as a
guide to human actions. Generally speaking, people are subjected
to follow values they are raised with as part of their culture.
In fact, one way of understanding others is to look upon their
cultural background that speaks of what is right for them. For
in every culture, societies, and civilization, people have a
sense of self, in that they know who they are, and some sense of
responsibility for their own actions.
• Moral values are matters/convictions that are worth striving

for in general. Examples include justice, happiness, charity and
such. A distinction can be made between intrinsic values and
instrumental values.
An intrinsic value is a value in itself: something that is worth
striving for.
An instrumental value is a value that only contributes to an
intrinsic value. They are instrumental as means to end. For
example, if you want to get money to help people, then getting
money is the instrumental value, while helping people is the
intrinsic value.
• Moral norms are rules that prescribe what actions are

required, permitted or forbidden. In fact, some norms are so
important and so prescriptive, that they have been turned into
laws. Norms can often be deduced from values. But whereas values
are ideals which people want to achieve; norms are the means to
realize these ideals.
• Moral virtues are character traits that make someone a good

person and allow him to lead a good life. Examples of virtues
are honesty, courage, loyalty, creativity, humor, and so on.
Virtues seem to be similar to values. But whereas values are
things you strive for, virtues are character properties that are
good to have. As Aristotle sees it a virtue is a trait of
character manifested in habitual action.3
The following are partial list of virtues:
3
James Rachels, 159
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
CHARACTERISTIC OF MORAL PRINCIPLES
One of the central features of morality is the moral principle.

As mentioned before moral principles are practical action
guides, but we must say more about the traits of such
principles. In this way, we can judge the action if it is good
or bad. We need to emphasize that goodness is not merely an
accepted beliefs and a conventional idea of good. Instead,
goodness emerged because we have a rational explanation.i
Although there is no universal agreement on the traits a moral
principle must have, there is a wide consensus about five
features: (1) prescriptive, (2) universal, (3) authoritative,
(4) publicity, and (5) it requires commitment and critical
reflection.ii
First it is prescriptive, with moral principles being
collectively created and agreed by people and society, they
advise and influence action. They prescribe a specific course of
action on a specific event. They are generally put forth as
commands or imperatives, such as “Do not kill,” “Do no
unnecessary harm,” and “Love your neighbor.” In this regard,
they share this trait with all normative discourse and is used
to appraise behavior, assign praise and blame, and produce
feelings of satisfaction or guilt. Second it is universal. Moral
principles apply to all people who are in a relevantly similar
situation and applicable to all evaluative judgments. Third it
is authoritative. Moral principles have predominant authority
and override other kinds of principles. They are not the only
principles, but they also take precedence over other
considerations including aesthetic, prudential, and legal ones.
There is a general moral duty to obey the law because the law
serves an overall moral purpose, and this overall purpose may
give us moral reasons to obey laws that may not be moral or
ideal. There may come a time, however, when the injustice of a
bad law is intolerable and hence calls for illegal but moral
defiance. Fourth it is public. Moral principles are shared
publicly to prescribe behavior and prevent moral turpitude.
Lastly, with the aforementioned traits, moral principle cannot
be regarded as simply practical in nature that is workable and
its rules must not lay a heavy burden on us when we follow them.
Instead, moral principles require a high level of commitment and
critical reflection. For other principles may not work despite
of having a significant bearing on an event. There is a need to
understand what would work well in a given event. It is
important to note, that despite of being prescriptive in nature
moral principles are also descriptive. They describe the nature
of an event and seeks to provide the best possible course of
action. Accordingly, most ethical systems take human limitations
into consideration.
Influences that provides us with ethical or moral

prescriptions and proscriptions
There are different influences that played a major role in the

formulation of our own notion of right and wrong, between good
and evil. Until a child begins started to mingle and associate
with others outside the four corners of his/her home. He/she is
likely to attain the notion of right and wrong first from the
people inside his home. These are his family members. Often the
values being passed down by their parents are values inherited
from their parents too or other influences such as the society.
In our case, as Filipinos we acquire the values of respect for
elders, hospitality, amor propio and many more from our parents
who are the source of values in our family.
However, if we assert that this answer tells the whole story of

our formulation of right and wrong. There is an obvious problem
that emerges instantaneously. Some parents act on their own
convictions and perspective of things. Where in some cases,
their perspective of things is considered aberrant in the
society they are currently with. For example, according to the
popular conception, when old-age strikes, rather than waiting
around as they dwindle toward death and eating food. The elderly
Eskimos are taken to the sea, and set adrift on a floating
iceberg facing their end, uncomfortable, and horrifyingly alone.
This is not the case for Filipinos. For us we have to take care
of our elders as a form of respect to them. If a woman is
pregnant and sees the reality that she cannot support her own
child; abortion is a right choice. In the Philippines, abortion
is crime and punishable by the law. What does this tell us?
Accordingly, our notion of what good is relies on our conception
of culture.
Culture
The mutually shared habitual actions by individuals that forms

customs, values and traditions constitute what is recognized as
CULTURE. This is a collective mentality that influences the
behavior of human beings in a society. It provides identity and
role to its members. To further clarify what culture is, the
notion of collective actions and habitual actions provides the
clarifications needed.
Often, we regard habits as patterns of behavior, which we fall
into or develop it on our own accord. These are course of
actions that we repetitively do because we find them appropriate
and easy, when a specific course of events occurs. In doing so,
it shape not only what we do and what we perceive; but also what
we want. Habits can be classified either good or bad habit. This
classification however, derives its validity from the society an
individual belongs to. For different societies have different
preferences and priorities on habits where they can be regarded
as good or bad. On the collective level, there are habits that
are mutually shared and recognize. This collective habit forms
our notions of cultural practices that discloses our social
behavioral patterns.
Culture is one of the unique aspects of a certain society. Its

materials (customs, beliefs, and traditions) develop human
behavior. It instills on its member the value of moral codes.
Individual and group identities therefore depend on their
belonging to particular cultures, morality demands that they be
specially loyal to those cultures.
Moreover, what
forms of behavior
are right or wrong
may vary from
generation to
generation. This
has been an
apparent reality
today. There are
children who does
not reflect most of
their parents’
moral views and behavior throughout their lives, others, even on
the most major of issues, knowingly move in divergent
directions. Probably as a result of understanding and acquiring
better notion of right and wrong or perhaps due retaliation.
Another cause is that there is a generation gap that strongly
affects our formulation of right and wrong. For example: Before,
paying once debt in the form of fix marriage or accumulating
properties by marrying (selling) your daughters to rich people
is good idea and accepted in the soceity. Slavery was good.
Women were the property of their husbands or fathers, so women’s
right were seen as an evil idea. But this is not the case today.
Second, as a child begins to mingle and associate with others,
he also acquires values from the society. In particular, the
people that surrounds him, the school, the church and law of the
land.
i
ii
Louis Pojman and James Feiser, Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2009,
7.
Chapter III: Frameworks of Ethics
According to Aristotle, only human beings can become ethical.
Ethics has four branches:

1. Descriptive Ethics is the investigation of moral standards
that describe moral praxis.
2. Normative Ethics refers to the systematic investigation of
moral standards that aims toward how human beings ought to
act. It clarifies how various principles should be
interpreted, understood, explained, and applied on moral
issues. There are three types of normative ethics.
a. Deontology- pertains to the system of ethics that accords

the good according to the moral, duties or obligations.
b. Teleological- pertains to the system of ethics that
accords the good according to outcome or results.
c. Virtue Ethics- pertains to the system of ethics that
accords the good through the development of good habits
of character.
3. Meta-ethics pertains to the study of the nature of ethical

terms, statements and judgments. It aims to explain and
analyze moral judgment's meaning, reference, and truth
values.
4. Applied Ethics pertains to the practical application of
ethics in various disciplines.
The Key Ethical Theories
As mentioned above, five important

theories will be used in this
subject. Our goal here is to clarify
the fine line of distinction between
the theories to see any systematic
advantage from one theory over the
other theories.
They will serve as our compass in
finding the good and right thing to do in
a situation.
Virtue Ethics
The main theme of this ethical theory is the

development of moral character
that aims toward human
flourishing. As Aristotle
pointed out, this theory
addresses the question
“What is the good of human
beings?” and this can be
answered by means of an
activity of the soul that
is in https://stock.adobe.com/ph/contributor/209495949/j conformity
with the virtues. In this case, when someone is asked what makes
az-online
someone a good person, the immediate answer is the virtues he
possesses, which, therefore, occupies the center stage in the
discussion. Hence, moral goodness depends on the submission of
the self to the virtues, and as Aristotle saw it, this
submission no longer needs a reason. In the sense that the
virtue that had trained human beings makes goodness become his
secondary nature.
However, as time passed, virtue ethics, despite being a dominant
player in morality, where various philosophers made it their
centerpiece in morality. It lost its role because of the coming
of a new set of ideas. The birth of Christianity, as Rachel
noted, created a new moral law that later on progressed towards
human reason rather than from God.i They specified a system of
rules where action can be seen as right. In this case, one can
ask why we must return to virtue ethics. According to Wood, we
study virtue ethics because it must still be recognized within
the philosophical and social community.ii Moral law is corrupted
and misguided because it rests on the incoherent notion of a law
with no lawgiver. People follow them because of obligation,
duty, and a limited sense of rightness. For example, as Rachel
stated:
“Ethical Egoism: Each person ought to do whatever will best
promote his or her own interests. The Social Contract
Theory: The right thing to do is to follow the rules that
rational, self-interested people would agree to follow for
their mutual benefit. Utilitarianism: One ought to do
whatever will lead to the most happiness. Kant’s theory:
Our duty is to follow rules that we could accept as
universal laws—that is, rules that we would be willing for
everyone to follow in all circumstances.”iii
Clearly, VE is centered on the agent, which makes it different
from the other theories. It takes the criteria of the action to
be centered around the character or features of the agent and
not on the outcome or act.iv To clarify this further, Aristotle
believes that the beginning of ethical thinking starts with
rules and then moves toward character development. The rules or
virtues that are regarded as knowledge and can be taught are
capable of developing character. In time, Aristotle believes
virtues or knowledge of the good becomes the secondary nature of
humans that defines us as human beings.
ARISTOTLE 384-322
“Virtue lies in our power, and so does vice;

because where it is in our power to act, it is
also in our power not to act.” - Aristotle,
Nichomachean Ethics
If there is one classical philosopher who
devoted himself to making virtue
knowledgeable, it was Aristotle who wrote two
(2) books on virtue and the good life
(Nichomachean Ethics and Ethica Eudaimonia).
Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in Stagira, Northern Greece. His
father, Nichomachus, served King Amyntus III of Macedonia as a
court physician. At the age of 17, Aristotle was sent to Athens
to study in Plato’s Academy. He had spent twenty years as a
student and teacher. After Plato's death, Aristotle left Athens
and studied wildlife in Ionia. Later on, he was appointed as the
tutor of the young Alexander the Great and continued his studies
that later on gave birth to various disciplines. Encouraged by
his student Alexander, he returned to Athens and set up the
Lyceum, a school that rivaled Plato’s. Here, he did most of his
writing and formalized his ideas, which resulted in different
philosophical disciplines: ethics, metaphysics, logic, and
epistemology. He died in 322 B.C., significantly affecting the
various disciplines we have today.v
Aristotle Takes on Ethics
“Three things can classify us as a happy person: self-deception,

self-ignorance or self-excellence.”
Similar to his predecessors, Aristotle sees virtue ethics under
the influence of virtues and the development of moral character
that aims toward happiness. It asks what kind of life is most
worth living, and the answer to this question, according to
classical philosophers, is happiness. One can ask at this
juncture what happiness means since its meaning differs from one
view to the other. Plato and Aristotle distinguish happiness
from pleasure (the Hedonistic view) by stating that happiness is
the kind of life we want to have and live, and this is achieved
if we know and fulfill our nature. For Plato, to attain
happiness is to achieve the harmony of the soul. This indicates
that the rational, appetitive, and spirited have to function
harmoniously. On the other hand, Aristotle's notion of the
attainment of happiness is quite different from that of his
mentor.
For Aristotle, when one speaks of virtue and happiness, one has
to consider his essence and role in society. Accordingly,
Aristotle's ethics is teleological in nature. This means that it
is oriented toward a goal of happiness through actualizing its
function that leads to human flourishing. This indicates that
the fulfillment of the functions of human beings consists of the
exercise of rationality in actions and the actualization of
virtues- living life in moderation that enables us to develop
moral dispositions. A result of virtues being connected to human
nature. As Aristotle pointed out, virtue refers to the function
of human beings and with our capability to reason and act from
reason where attain practical wisdom (phronesis). Virtues lead
us to the life of the mean, which, according to Aristotle, leads
to happiness, an effect of living a life of excellence. vi Virtues
are always situated between two extremes. They stand in the
middle between deficiency and excessiveness. Another aspect that
we must consider in VE is its relation to politics. In
Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle identified virtues as
characteristics that enable us to live well in communities and
as habitual actions that must be observed in the communities.vii
Hence, when we speak of virtues, these are the commendable
traits of a person that identify him as a human being. They are
the proper disposition of the self when his goodness and essence
is at question by an event. This clarifies that vices, which are
also identifiers of character, indicate the other way of life.
As Van Zyl noted, vices are also dispositions of the self and
they connote the negative aspect of life that prevents us from
attaining happiness. Nevertheless, it is through virtue and
vices that we make true judgments. It is through the other that
we find clarity in life.
One can ask at this juncture, how can we flesh out the
difference between virtue, vices and neutral traits. One clear
answer we can have is that virtue leads to good consequences,
while vices produces negative consequences. In addition, virtue
is always accompanied by reason and good will. For now, we can
initially summarize Aristotle’s ethics in this way.
1. Ethics consists of fulfilling the function of human beings.
2. Ethics is attributed to the virtues, which emphasize the
life of the mean.
3. Ethics also refers to human moral-political action.
Moral and Intellectual Virtue
It follows that there are two sets of virtues that each of us

must attain if we follow VE. Apparently, these are also the
requirements of happiness in Aristotle’s view. The intellectual
virtues enable us to attain knowledge, which can be acquired
through our parents and teachers. On the other hand, moral or
practical virtues are traits that enable us to live and act
well, however, they cannot be taught. Instead, one acquires them
by constantly practicing them.
Intellectual Virtue Moral Virtue
Open-mindedness Courage
Curiosity Kindness
Perseverance Honesty
Intellectual humility Prudence
imaginativeness Justice
Wisdom Fortitude
Prudence Temperance
For Aristotle, the attainment of virtue is to complete the
process of doing the right action.viii As Hursthouse noted,
“This is because your virtues (and your vices) are a matter
of what sort of adult you are and involve, most
particularly, your values – what you regard as worth
pursuing or preserving or doing and what you regard as not
so. Virtue is a reliable disposition because it is well
entrenched in its possessor that manifests its feeling and
reasoning. Here, feeling is a cognitive account of emotions
that are informed and educated by reason.”ix
Happiness
The term eudaimonia is often referred to as happiness or

flourishing. Here, we encounter an immediate problem, but what
does happiness really mean? We often think that once we satisfy
our desire, cravings, or thirst for things, this indicates
happiness. But if we discern our actual experience and ponder if
that experience is really a true form of happiness. Our answer
appears to change because of those events that follow after it.
For example, while on your way home after a very tiring day,
your stomach calls your attention, telling you it is hungry and
craving your favorite food. You start thinking of that food,
believing it will replenish your strength. Upon arriving at your
home, your mom had cooked your favorite food; you felt excited
and then rushed out to take a bite, and as a result, this made
you feel happy. However, after eating, you suddenly realize
there is a more important thing you must do, and then your mom
tells you to wash the dishes. Your good mood had suddenly
passed, changing everything that you felt. Another example we
can examine is when we buy the things we want. For example, when
we buy shoes or clothes in a mall. When we are in the state of
buying it, there is a saturated feeling that makes us realize
that we are happy and that we have finally gotten the things we
are longing for. However, when you arrive home, you suddenly
feel certain doubts, asking yourself, “Did I make the right
decision?” or when suddenly a bad event had occurred and you
needed that money right away.
This kind of happiness is what they call as subjective
happiness: when I feel happy then I must be happy; it is not
something I can be mistaken about. However, if we ponder
critically, this indicates that what we have just experienced is
a passing mood or feeling. Our satisfaction stimulates pleasure
at the center. This is the reason why Socrates always tells us
to reflect upon our experience to realize if we are going in the
right direction. We must realize that our affirmation of life
and the effort and desire to be of the self is always clouded by
a mystifying tendency to turn away from our true goal. In fact,
this is the real purpose of the Socratic Irony. This line of
questioning will lead to ever more general answers and will
eventually end to a clear notion of happiness.
In this case, following Plato and Aristotle, happiness does not
refer entirely to a subjective state. This kind of feeling does
not deviate from that of pleasure or a passing feeling. If
happiness consists only of pleasant feelings, what we experience
is only temporal and does not make us realize the end we seek.
As eudaimonists noted, when we speak of happiness, it must refer
to the attribute of persons that speaks of the overall goal of
human beings and always aims towards the good. In short, it
speaks of the worthy life for a human being that emphasizes its
functions and means towards excellence. As ancient eudaimonists
noted, happiness speaks of the telos of human beings.
One can argue that such an idea is perplexing and vague when one
thinks and ponder of what our “final end” truly is. Besides, as
Van Zyl noted following Julia Annas, true happiness creates a
distinction between the circumstances of a life and the living
of that life.x Our way of distinguishing them gives us an answer
that forms a distinct version of happiness. For example, if our
basis of happiness only lies upon the socio-demographic profile
which circumstances of life rely upon. We need to realize that
each of us has its own take on them, and there are factors that
are beyond our control in addressing the circumstances of life.
In this case, it is the living of that life that can give us the
best answer to happiness since it asks us how we need to engage
and deal with the circumstances of life. In so doing, this
illuminates that pleasure is too trivial to be seen as the most
important thing in life or the goal, as Annas noted, in which
life is organized.
Pleasure
Following Plato, eudaimonists reject the claim that the desire
for satisfaction is our ultimate end. As Plato noted in Gorgias,
“Those who seek happiness through fulfilling their desires are
constantly trying to fill leaky jars; satisfaction is never
unattainable, making them hopeless and unsatisfied. On the other
hand, Aristotle noted that happiness is a life lived following
the virtues. Hence, this makes it not only admirable but
attractive and beneficial. Thus, virtue is a character trait
that is needed to attain happiness. Those who possess and
exercise them are always entitled to happiness and can expect
things to go well for them. There is an inner harmony where his
desires are in harmony with his reason. This makes the possessor
of virtue different from a merely continent or self-controlled
(enkrastês).
Self-Deception and Fascination
The rise of self-deception and fascination are effects of the

consciousness that lies to itself and loses awareness of its
deception.xi As Ricoeur pointed out, this is because pleasure as
consciousness gathers up the remarkable formal properties of the
object; the specific desirable characteristic of the object
erects pleasure as an autonomous end.xii Thus, when the self
looks at the affectivity of the object aside from its material
aspect, it encounters values to whom the self is willing to
serve. In addition, pleasure signals the fusion of things and
emphasizes fortunate encounters, which attract the self. What is
presented by pleasure is an entity that is good as well as real.
Here, we find the notion of good as that which produces
pleasure.xiii Pleasure gives the representation, the flesh, and
even a kind of fullness of desire, which indicates that the
sense-affect, which is the object's affective matter, is nearby-
a pleasure to come. On the other hand, aside from the affective
material it brings into view, it also adds overtones of value to
the object. Through pleasure, imagination, and consciousness,
consider the “easy” means and elementary judgment of what is
good. In this case, pleasure indicates a need that is being
satisfied. It is born out of necessity and emanates from
objectivity, a prelude to profound joy. It is, in principle,
posterior to the tension of need that serves as the penultimate
phase of the cycle of need, whose last stage, as Ricoeur noted,
is of possession and enjoyment in which the object is absorbed
within us.xiv This specifies that it is not only the affective
material that imagination accentuates that allows pleasure to
enter the field of motivation but also the varieties of values
that can affect the thrust of imagination and self-
consciousness. It follows that it is in the affectivity where we
can find the surge of fascination.
As imagination gives the representation its full affective
nuances, means of attaining it, and implicit evaluation of
pleasure-to-be. The affective, its matter, and form that passes
across the intentional horizon of imagination can charm and
seduce the self.xv Consequently, the notion of good entails a
degree of intensity that can cause pleasure to be uprooted from
need and pursued for itself. If we further diagnose affectivity
with the promises of satisfaction and enjoyment under the value
of the good. There is a circular phenomenon of emotion by which
a value judgment incorporates a corporeal orchestration. By
being absorbed by the object, occupied, and captivated by
pleasure, the corporeal orchestration acquires importance and a
type of initiative resulting from the desirable, pleasurable
characteristic of the affective image that has a degree of
intensity.
Consequently, this can devour consciousness, making imagination
and consciousness powerless in understanding and changing the
object. Imagination and consciousness lose all their initiative
and authority in the process of producing images and action. As
consciousness becomes fascinated through the course of pleasure
separated from need, the thrust of consciousness resigns its
function. Hence, as Ricoeur noted, the more the corporeal
orchestration of emotion, the more the affective imagination
becomes aberrant.xvi In these cases, there is the possibility
that our consciousness toward the ultimate good would fail to
thrust forward, for the very thrust and force of consciousness
toward the future is affected. As Ricoeur noted, this is the
bondage that freedom imposes on itself as an effect of the
function of affective anticipation and latent valuation. Thus,
the pleasurable transforms itself into demands. It becomes an
autonomous motive, and the self can pursue it for its own sake;
despite the absence of the object, pleasure still pleases the
self. It brings a pre-possession that anticipates satisfied
repose.xvii
Happiness and the Person

“Pleasure is too trivial an item in life to be the most
important thing in it, or the goal around which life is
organized” – Julia Annas
As Aristotle pointed out, two kinds of people seek the meaning
of happiness. Indeed, it is nice to have feelings of pleasure,
but these feelings vanish when their object does. This is why
people would often create a distinction between happiness and
pleasure through their modes of being in the world.
Continent: Temperate:
Do what is right, but not Do what is right because they
necessarily because they want want to; the more holistic
to person
Refers to function Refers to excellence
Refers to mean The highest good of anything can be

achieved if that thing performs its
function in the most excellent manner.
This brings into view Aristotle’s formula of attaining

happiness.
Aristotle emphasized that good is what is pursued by everyone

and the bad is what is avoided. It follows that every activity
has its own end and for Aristotle this is the end or function of
one’s activity. In this case, Aristotle concluded that if
everything has an end there must be an ultimate which
characterizes human nature and where all other ends are
subsidiary to. Accordingly, this end is what Aristotle call as
happiness which means “complete and self-sufficient”. One can
ask how can we attain this happiness. Aristotle noted that the
highest good of anything can be achieved if that thing performs
its function in the most excellent manner. This indicates that
the function being referred to by Aristotle is the function of a
human being as a whole, with his activity being guided by the
virtues. This indicates that virtues cause its possessors to be
always aimed at the good and perform any activity in terms of
excellence. In other words, if one aims to achieved happiness,
he has to perform its function well guided by the virtue.
Accordingly, virtue is a state consisting a mean between the
extremes of deficiency and excess. The mean is defined by
reference to reason that makes it not excessive nor deficient.
This is Aristotle’s famous doctrine of the mean that makes
virtue capable of controlling happiness and is required for
happiness. In other words, happiness is the rational activity of
the soul in accordance with virtue and complete life. This
imposes, as Hursthouse noted that VE can come up with an account
of right action.xviii Indeed, as form of normative ethics VE help
us come up with an appropriate action in a particular situation
by allowing us to assess and evaluate the different virtues
applicable to the situation. It is true that it does not have a
concrete set of policy compared to that of Deontology and
Utilitarianism, the virtues are in fact pointing to what is
natural, necessary and expected to human beings who possess
rationality and a higher place in the scheme of life. It must be
admitted that VE tends to emphasize those that are general
principle. The virtues which are means between two extreme
action is an action itself that is required to us human beings
who pursue an end that emphasizes the notion of right time,
right place or circumstance, and right reason for doing.
Besides, it is generally expected to those who pursue true
happiness that the goodness they do is derived from an action
that yields towards true happiness. For virtue ethics is about
character development that count the function, intention, action
and consequences for this are the determining factor to call
someone to have a good character.
4
4
“Larval Subjects .: Image,” n.d., https://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/table-of-virtues-and-
vices.png.
THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)
“The highest perfection of human life consists

in the mind of man being detached from care,
for the sake of God.” - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS,
SUMMA CONTRA GENTILESxix
St. Thomas Aquinas was the most influential
thinker of the Middle Ages, for he successfully
synthesized Aristotle’s work with that of the
Scriptures. Born in 1225 in Roccasecca, Italy, to
a wealthy family, St. Thomas went against the
will of his family by choosing to live the
sacred order. During his early time, he studied
at the University of Naples, where the works of Aristotle’s
natural philosophy were taught. In fact, the Church at that time
did not recommend to the schools they established the study of
Aristotle, for they went against the teachings of the
xx
Scriptures. It is worth noting, at this juncture, that
Aristotle’s works are, in fact,
creating a disturbance in Aquinas's
time.xxi Aristotle’s philosophy,
which included logic, cosmology,
metaphysics, and ethics, created
significant questions about the
authority and idealism of the church
and God’s existence.xxii Hence, with
the power of his works and the
different cultures who sought a
better understanding of the world,
Aristotle became a dominant figure
in the 13th century.xxiii
Nevertheless, through Albert the
Great, St. Thomas was introduced to
the work of Aristotle, which served
as one of the foundations of his
thinking.
Against the will of his family, St.
Thomas later on joined the Dominican Order and devoted himself
to teaching, studying, and writing. In fact, one of the miracles
that are accorded to St. Thomas is the number of works he
published that served as the foundation for Christianity.
Aquinas's greatest achievement lies in his synthesis of
Aristotle’s works and the Scriptures. He had not only expanded
Aristotle’s works but brought them to illuminate God’s existence
and the teaching of the church.
Natural Law
Understanding the roots of Natural Law is a perplexing reality.

There are different views on how the ancients perceived and
often assimilated to myths, spirituality, and metaphysics, and
this accordingly varies from culture. Both East and West have
their own conception of it. In this regard, our focus on the
Natural Law will be strictly reserved on St. Thomas's view. It
is worth noting that St. Thomas, following the Judaeo-Christian
traditions, understood the natural law under the works of God or
divine supremacy. This brings into view that human beings whose
existence is accorded and related to divine supremacy. The end
of human beings is, therefore, related to the divine plan. To
further clarify this, let us examine how St. Thomas synthesized
Aristotle’s works and theology, which were the two dominant
perspectives at that time. In addition, we have to recognize
that Aquinas's presentation of ethics also represents his
interpretation of Aristotle.5
The dispersion of Aristotle’s works after his death created a
significant disturbance in the 13th century. As some have
observed, some of his followers only selected some of his works
as the foundation of their thoughts. Perhaps those are the only
ones available in their school/place, or they disregarded the
others since they don’t see them as valuable in their claim.
There are two significant realities that can be drawn from this;
first, with what is taught being only a specific part, the claim
will appear to be in disagreement with others, especially in
terms of how his view of science and logic works. Second, the
5
What Aquinas did to show how relevant Aristotle is to theology, he explained the passages through other
passages. This approach can be understood in two directions: 1. The process of writing at that time is not similar to
what we have today or in Aquinas’s time. Writing at that time was a new form of technology and has mutated
through time. In this case, we find various discrepancies and irregularities in Aristotle’s writing. 2. Aquinas's writing
can be considered as a form of a “defender's view.” This means it aims to answer the problem that Aristotle raises
where he failed to formulate a concrete response due to the limit of his time. In this regard, Aquinas’s notion of
Aristotle rests on assumptions about what was available to Aristotle in his time.
See Aquinas: Will, in From Socrates to the Reformation. The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study,
Volume 1 (Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2007), 434-436.
incompleteness of understanding of Aristotle’s work prompted the
distrust to the authority and role of the church.
Despite the recognized importance of Aristotle in understanding
human existence, it was only St. Thomas who attempted to mediate
his works with that of theology. Following Aristotle, Aquinas,
therefore, sees the role of reason in understanding law and
theology. Arguing that we have to attain “fides quaerens
intellectum (faith in search of understanding).”xxiv Theology is
science, a knowledge of facts through their causes and the
natures of beings in relation to God.xxv This claim discloses
three important ideas about his moral philosophy: 1. He aims to
show how Aristotelian morality commits us to. 2. Morality can be
defended through philosophical grounds. 3. Aristotelian morality
also satisfies the theological and moral demands of Christian
doctrine.6
Aquinas's Interpretation of Aristotle’s Notion of Causes
Aquinas's ethical theory appears to be a re-interpretation and
continuation of Aristotle's works since he places the ethical
conditions from the conditions of rational agents. One clear
example of this is the presence of the account of freedom,
happiness, and the virtues in Aquinas if we are to understand
rational agents and their actions. In short, morality and
rational agency for Aquinas are interdependent. As a rational
being, we have sufficient reason to accept and act on moral
theory. One can ask, in this case, if moral principles express
truths about rational agency, is it not that we have more than
one moral theory where goodness can be seen? And, if we take
only one of them as our sole source, then we are willing to
ignore the essential moral content of the other, leading,
therefore, to a biased analysis or action.xxvi
“Voluntas nominat rationalem appetitum”
6
This conception of a defender rests on assumptions about what is ‘available’ to Aristotle
xxviiFor Aquinas, the different sources of moral principles are
the same, and they rely on basic facts of rational agency. This
is why we can, according to Irwin, unify universal conscience or
synderesis, natural law, and the ultimate good.xxviii Following
Aristotle, Aquinas sees contingent empirical facts as limited
but on the essence of
human beings that are
made in the image of
God. Hence, the
ultimate end of human
beings is God. Aquinas
claims that the
attainment of virtue
and happiness implies
the utilization of
free will. Again,
using the Aristotelian
line of thought,
Aquinas sees happiness
as the ultimate end of
a free rational agent.
This can be achieved
if the agent exercises
his free will (a
person who deliberates
and makes the right
choices and
decisions). It follows
that as a free agent, human beings have control over their
desires. They do not simply pursue some end. Instead, they
deliberate various choices, making desire a rational desire. For
Aquinas, deliberation which begins from aiming at an end
therefore direct the course of action making action to be in our
control.
For example, I see y as a mean to x, what happens to me is that
I control my attitude in pursuit of y, in different ways that
gives various outputs such as: 1. There is no need for me to
pursue y because I do not see it promoting x or vice versa. 2.
Since it promotes x however, it leads me to bad outputs, it is
therefore not good to pursue y. 3. If I pursue y where it
reveals z which is more important than x, I will pursue it since
it achieves a much greater output. Hence, through rational
agency what I do is direct my action to an end that therefore
limit my inclination towards this action. This is what makes
rational agents active participants in the world because they
control their action through deliberation.
Indeed, what makes “Virtues” as conditions for happiness is that
they first ask us to understand and pursue the “mean” before
leading us toward the right account of action and avoidance of
sin. In following them, human beings become responsible free
agents who are capable of self-directing, and this distinguishes
them from non-rational agents. Similar to Aristotle, the role of
reason in everyday life must not be forgotten; this is what
allows us to transcend our existence. When we grasp the concept
of an end in the intended sense, we also conceive that the
universal good is naturally perceivable and, therefore, must be
seen as an end to be pursued.
xxix
For Aquinas, our conception of

an end directs us towards
action, but it is the exercise
of our reason to make desire
rational, and through virtues
that compare and deliberate
action, our end as a human
being is realized. Hence, if
one’s ultimate end permits the
doing of an action, this makes
it a plausible action. It
makes each form of desire to
be subordinated to the
ultimate end.
In this case, Aquinas,
following Aristotle,
systematized his notion of
ethics. He sees the need to
regulate human actions in the
light of the ultimate good. The difference is that the ultimate
end in Aquinas is the happiness associated with God. To put it
differently, Aristotle’s eudaemonist attitude, which utilizes
practical reason and morality to attain happiness, Aquinas added
God, which he calls the “Primary Cause to which all causes are
subordinated.
His interpretation of Aristotle brings into view the concept
that the pursuit of happiness is not merely a contingent feature
of human beings but a characteristic of rational agency. Hence,
reference to the ultimate end is to explain how human beings are
free and responsible. For this end imposes deliberation and
rational comparison of possible actions. This is why for Aquinas
the law is necessary for freedom and it does not restrict or
denies freedom. In so far, we utilized our rational agency,
freedom will always be viewed along with responsibility
specially when there is a room of doubt in a situation. When
there is doubt there is also a need for further inquiry about
the means and ends so that we can attain an end that is proper
to human beings. As Irwin noted, for Aquinas, “we act rationally
in so far as intellect constrains the operation of the will.”xxx
Indeed, what makes will different from passion is because of the
guidance of reason in reference to the ultimate end which is the
basis of freedom.
“Common law is what all men, by a natural intuition, feel to be

common right and wrong, even if they have no common association
and no covenant with one another”- Aristotle
This brings into view the role of law in Aquinas. He claims that
law is one of God’s means to lead human being back to Him. The
law is therefore a way of how we can avoid sin and explain how
sin obscures and distorts our notion of good. God for Aquinas
instructs us through law and this indicate that we must follow
the law if we desire to go back to God. Accordingly, there are
four laws as Aquinas noted that must be observed. It follows
that there are four (4) laws that govern the world.
“Lex injustia non est lex (An unjust law is no law at all)”- St.
Thomas Aquinas
1. Eternal Law- this refers to God’s rational purpose and

plan, which human beings have no absolute idea about. This
is what directed everything to their respective ends.
2. Natural Law- this refers to the aspect of the eternal law
that is accessible to human reason. This law presents a
rational principle that directs human beings toward their
ultimate end. This represents the portion of the eternal
law that relates it to human conduct. It orders human
beings to do good and avoid evil since human beings
participate in the grand design that God has created. In
addition, it serves as the basis for all the laws of nature
that go beyond practical concerns
3. Divine Law- this refers to the law of revelation found in
the Scriptures that directs human beings to their ultimate
end. It focuses on how human beings can become holy and
return to God.
4. Human Law – this refers to human interpretation of the
divine and natural law. It clarifies what is vague and
ambiguous in the natural and divine laws. Hence, it is an
exact and forceful provision. It dictates to human beings
what kind of action must be pursued and done.
In all these laws, a duty, he explained, implies a need or

exigence that imposes a constraint by a law. On the other hand,
what is morally due requires moral rightness and is free from
obligation. In this case, his ethics follows the idea that moral
duty results from the appropriateness of the thing (conventia
rei). The law, therefore, is a duty that we are obliged.
Before we can examine the natural law, we need to consider
Aquinas's notion of causation, which appears to lead him in a
direction different from that of Aristotle. Aristotle explained
that there are four causes that govern our world, and it is
necessary for us to investigate the supreme cause of everything.
According to Aristotle, everything that exist has a final cause
or purpose- a telos that must be fulfilled. The intrinsic
purpose that permits it achieve its own ends.
Deontology
-
Utilitarianism
-
Theory of Justice
-
The Seven Steps of Moral Reasoning
The general question we can ask is: “What is the best life a
human being can live? The answer this question lies on how we
can interpret and actualize the various theories of ethics in
our everyday life. Accordingly, there are five ethical theories
that we need to explore to expand our moral reasoning. The
following are the different systems of expressing morality that
will serve as our framework for addressing moral dilemmas:
Virtue Ethics, Natural Law, Deontology, Utilitarianism, and
Theory of Justice. Accordingly, each system has its own proposed
ways of deriving toward the good and how one can justify its
action.
As various ethicists have noted, the construction of the right
answer needs to undergo various thought experiments. The
different premises present different conclusions that increase
our openness and receptivity to truth. The thought experiments
are simulation spaces that enlarge the subject of debate and
then finally become realized in the form of actual movements.
Indeed, when a person consciously tries to use his capabilities
for good, his existence is ensured to be in the world. Hence,
the role of ethical theories is associated with making oneself
conscious of the presence of others and the various realities
connected to one's existence. Thus, ethics aims to determine,
present, and defend systematic answers to moral dilemmas and
justify actions toward them.
To further clarify this,
let us illuminate the
meaning of a moral
dilemma. A dilemma, also
known as an ethical
paradox or conundrum, is
a situation that presents
a difficult choice where
none of the choices
predominates the other
but requires the agent to
make a critical decision
or choice. As various
philosophers noted moral
dilemmas brings into
conflict the moral rules we have learned or those that were to
taught to us when we were young.
Moral dilemmas have three kinds: personal, organizational, and

structural, and with the
complexities of our human
condition.
i Elements of Moral Philosophy, 156.
ii It is worth noting that one of the critical arguments we have on VE in modern-day education is
the way it is thought. Often taught to student to only gain epistemic knowledge on VE. But we
have to understand the aim of VE is an actual application of the virtues in everyday life. Thus,
if we only defines it as that which emphasizes the virtues to distinguish it from other theories.
VE, therefore, no longer serves its purpose.
iii Elements of Moral Philosophy 157-158.
iv One can argue that Kant’s theory is agent-centered since it focuses on the duty of the agent.
As Stohr noted, this derivation of action in duty ethics is fallacious because it depends upon
the categorical imperative that disregards the role of goodwill.
See Nathan Wood, Virtue Rediscovered: Deontology, Consequentialism, and Virtue Ethics in the
Contemporary Moral Landscape (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019), 1-19.
v “Aristotle,” HISTORY, November 9, 2009, https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-
greece/aristotle.
vi Liezl van Zyl, Virtue Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge 2018, 14).
vii Ethics Discovering Right and Wrong, 164.
viii We can say it also runs the risk of doing the same incompleteness.
ix Liezl van Zyl, Virtue Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge 2018, 18-22).
x There is a huge difference between happiness that falls under circumstances of life that
include things like the social-demographic profile that social scientists often study. One clear
problem we can draw immediately is that happiness varies according to the person’s perspective
and understanding of his profile. In addition, there are factors where those profiles cannot
justify the happiness we want. Happiness is not a matter of whether we have certain things or are
engaged in some activities, but a matter of how we deal with the circumstances of life. We need
to realize that the circumstances of life are not fully under our control and there are various
factors that affect our personal disposition on things which can go against the view of others.
Virtue and Happiness, Virtue Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction, 42.
xi
FN, xxv
xii
As Ricoeur noted, in order to clarify the role of feeling. Only through a critique that places oneself before
goodness, the perfection of pleasure, and not before evil, can the finitude of pleasure, which is more primordial
than any adventitious evil, manifest. Happiness, as Ricoeur emphasized, does not transcend the evil of pleasure but
the very perfection of pleasure (FM, 93).
xiii
According to Ricoeur, this is the affective form of pleasure, which is the imaginary apprehension of pleasure that
makes “need” to be available to a judgment that designates the object of need as good (FN,100-104).
xiv
FN, 100
xv
Citing Pradines, Ricoeur contends if imagination takes possession of our most vital interests from the outside and
nourishes them with anticipation, it leads them into a kind of hallucinatory delirium and tends to take the future it
has evoked (FN, 269).
xvi
FN, 258
xvii
If we further diagnose pleasure through the imaginative lens of feeling, we find, according to
Ricoeur, that it completes and perfects isolated, partial, finite acts or processes. Pleasure
becomes an anticipation of a finite perfection that resides in the instant. On the other hand, this
clarifies that pleasure has no other meaning besides the satisfaction that “needs” are intended
through it. In its process of perfection, it considers the mediation of the past and the future that
allows pleasure to attain the meaning of happiness.
xviii
Virtue Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction, 100-120.
xix
https://www.redbubble.com/i/greeting-card/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas-by-colleendoodle/65471677.5MT14
xx
DK, St. Thomas Aquinas in Philosophers: Their Lives and Works (London, England: DK, 2019).
xxi
Jeremy Stangroom, Saint Thomas Aquinas, in The Great Philosophers (Chippenham, UK: Arcturus Publishing,
2005).
xxii
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas
xxiii
One of the key differences we can draw at that time was the beginning of the universe, where Aristotle stated
that it has no beginning, which is quite the opposite of the church's claim. Among other things, the University of
Naples introduces St. Thomas to different intellectual traditions, expanding therefore his knowledge of things.
xxiv
Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas’s Shorter Summa: Saint Thomas’s Own Concise Version of His Summa Theologica,
trans. Cyril Vollert (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2002) 9.
xxv
Terence Irwin, From Socrates to the Reformation. The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study,
Volume 1 (Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2007), 434-628).
xxvi
Irwin argues, that once we understand the nature of the will and its relation to intellect and passion, we also
understand the source of freedom, the basis of ethics and virtues.
xxvii
Triumph of St Thomas Aquinas, the inscription “BENE SCPSISTI DE ME, THOMMA” means ("You have written
well about me, Thomas"). The saint is enthroned in the centre between Aristotle and Plato. At his feet lies the
Arabic scholar Averroes, whose writings he refuted.
https://www.wga.hu/html_m/g/gozzoli/5various/8aquinas.html
https://bigccatholics.blogspot.com/2016/01/ten-things-about-st-thomas-aquinas.html
xxviii
Terence Irwin, The Forms of Aquinas’ Argument in From Socrates to the Reformation. The Development of
Ethics: A Historical and Critical Study, Volume 1 (Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2007), 437.
xxix
The Apotheosis of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1631 (oil on canvas) by Zurbaran, Francisco de (1598-1664)
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-apotheosis-of-saint-thomas-aquinas-francisco-de-zurbaran.html
xxx
Aquinas: Action in in From Socrates to the Reformation. The Development of Ethics: A Historical and Critical
Study, 472.

The Ethical Perspectives Student

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ethical Perspectives Student

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ethical Perspectives Student

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1|General Education Ethics

2|General Education Ethics

You may wonder what is the point of understanding the different

3|General Education Ethics

4|General Education Ethics

The question, then, is how can we clarify or illuminate

When God created the world,

5|General Education Ethics

As Jean-Jacque Rousseau noted, human beings have conflicting

6|General Education Ethics

The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur critically

7|General Education Ethics

8|General Education Ethics

Let us further illuminate the fallibility of the self to witness

9|General Education Ethics

2 Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains.”

As Rachel emphasized, each

trans. Martin Nicolaus (London, England: Penguin Classics, 1993).

Press, 2015), 14-16.

Feeling”, Ricoeur noted that in understanding feeling, there is a natural

of Man: Selected Essays (Makati, Philippines: Goodwill Trading Co.Inc, 2004),

(Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1975), 145–78.

Case #2: The Sinking Submarine

When we speak of moral actions, we refer to human actions alone.

1. The voluntary acts of man.

Values, Norms and virtues

The most important parts of normative ethical theories are

Values are individuals’ beliefs that motivates an individual to

• Moral values are matters/convictions that are worth striving

• Moral norms are rules that prescribe what actions are

• Moral virtues are character traits that make someone a good

The following are partial list of virtues:

civility friendliness Prudence

cooperativeness industriousness self-reliance

courage justice tactfulness

courteousness loyalty thoughtfulness

dependability moderation tolerance

CHARACTERISTIC OF MORAL PRINCIPLES

One of the central features of morality is the moral principle.

Influences that provides us with ethical or moral

There are different influences that played a major role in the

However, if we assert that this answer tells the whole story of

The mutually shared habitual actions by individuals that forms

Culture is one of the unique aspects of a certain society. Its

Ethics has four branches:

a. Deontology- pertains to the system of ethics that accords

3. Meta-ethics pertains to the study of the nature of ethical

As mentioned above, five important

The main theme of this ethical theory is the

“Virtue lies in our power, and so does vice;

Aristotle Takes on Ethics

“Three things can classify us as a happy person: self-deception,

Moral and Intellectual Virtue

It follows that there are two sets of virtues that each of us

The term eudaimonia is often referred to as happiness or

Self-Deception and Fascination

The rise of self-deception and fascination are effects of the

Happiness and the Person

Refers to mean The highest good of anything can be