Student’s Name

Nicole I. Revesencio
Instructor

Disclaimer: This material is produced/distributed for the students of Garcia

College of Technology intended for academic purposes only. Reproduction of
this material without the consent of the author/institution is strictly prohibited.
This module is referenced from the book of ROMAN D. LEAÑO, J., & GUBIA-
ON, A. B. (2018). ETHICS FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS CHED
CURRICULUM COMPLIANT. RECOLETOS ST., INTRAMUROS, MANILA:
MINDSHAPERS CO., INC.
 CHAPTER 1: THE MORAL AGENT
Lesson 1: Orientation of the Course
Learning Objectives:
At the end of this chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Recall rules they have to follow;
2. Explain why they have to follow rules;
3. Explain the difference between moral and non-moral standards;
4. Detect a moral dilemma; and
5. Explain why only human beings can be ethical

Introduction
It seems that people don't like rules as they represent a kind of restrictions, but in fact life can't be organized without
rules. People always need rules and laws to be able to live and deal together. Can you imagine even a game without rules;
of course it will be a kind of mess. When they are playing a game, they must follow its rules or it will be unfair. Also,
everything in our life should be restricted with rules or it becomes a mess and unfair. If there are no rules and everyone is
free to do whatever they want, most people will probably behave selfishly. We need rules to help us get a long together and
show respect to each other.
All the rules and laws have the same purpose. They organized the relations between individuals and the society to
make it clear what is right and wrong and what happens if someone breaks the rules. They are designed to ensure fairness,
safety and respect for other people's right.
Rules and Its Importance
Rules refer to a set of guidelines which have been put in place in different countries and communities and have
been accepted by all. Rules are useful tools in guiding and monitoring the interactions of humans in the society. A rule is a
prescribed guide for conduct or action. Rules help guide actions toward desired results. When used appropriately, rules
provide a sense of predictability and Consistency for people, thereby promoting physical, moral, social, and emotional
safety. At the heart of ethics is a concern about something or someone other than selves and our own desires and self-
interest.
Ethics is concerned with other people's interests, with the interests of society, with God's interests, with "ultimate
goods", and so on. So, when a person thinks ethically' they are giving at least some thought to something beyond themselves.
Rules are specific sets of norms of behavior, regulations, and laws established on purpose to regulate the life in the
community. These norms secure the order and allow avoiding total chaos. The sets of rules available nowadays have
undergone a long formation process. There were many variations and transformations applied. Due to that, nowadays we
have a well-established social, governmental and educational mechanisms that work as a clock accurately, simultaneously
and in an organized way. The availability of rules is a crucial criterion allowing to call nowadays society civilized and well
developed.
Rules are important because they tend to protect the weaker class if the society as they might be in a disadvantageous
position if rules are broken. When rules are used in the right way. They provide a stable environment and human co-existence
in a society which leads to peace and development. The process of setting rules aims to craft rules in line with some desired
results. For example, rules in schools and other institutions promote trust, fairness and discipline in a bid to establish
desirable relationship among students and people. Besides, rules are vital in one's life because peace and order are
maintained, an important ingredient for society's development. As a way of maintaining these rules, many societies have
adopted and changed them into law. These assure that no rules will be broken. If one violates the rule, a corresponding
punishment is imposed. Most of us are basically honest, and knowing the rules means that we usually try to follow them.
One reason we do is to avoid punishment, but the strongest argument for following the rules is to make the world peaceful
and fair.
Why Do We Have Rules?
Rules help people in many aspects of life. They enable people to organize all the processes correctly, starting from
house chores and ending with more complicated issues as the functioning of as whole country. Rules are specific modes of
behavior that secure a regulated flow of all processes.
A well-developed system of rules help humanity to avoid chaos and many problems that may be caused by the lack
of regulations. Laws dictate what is proper and what is wrong. In many spheres of life, we have guidelines to follow. Norms
enable people to interact, to work together and contribute to the global development. Moral rules assist people in the
establishment of shared values and norms in accordance to which an honorable member of society can be identified.
The Subject: Ethics
Ethics, or moral philosophy, may be defined in a provisional way, as the scientific study of moral judgments. Ethics
is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or
theory of moral values or principles.
The subject of Ethics consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include
the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong. At its simplest, ethics
is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what
is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy.
The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. Our concepts
of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and cultures. They infuse debates on topics like abortion, human
rights and professional conduct. Ethics is not only about the morality of particular courses of action, but it's also about the
goodness of individuals and what it means to live a good life. Virtue Ethics is particularly concerned with the moral character
of human beings.
Branches of Ethics
One way to try and define morality is through ethics, the philosophical study of morality. In the field of ethics,
morality is often defined in one of two ways. First is normative, in which actions are judged by their merits, allowing
societies to develop codes of conduct for behavior. The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you,
is a classic example of normative ethics, since you are determining morality through your actions. Other examples Could
include helping someone who is lost, or finding a wallet and turning it in to the lost and found. If your actions to another
person align with how you want to be treated, they are moral. The other side of this is descriptive ethics. If normative ethics
try and define how people should act, descriptive ethics ask what do people think is moral? This branch of ethics does not
actually claim that things are right or wrong, but simply studies how individuals or societies define their morals. What
makes something right or wrong in a specific culture?
While normative ethics actually defines what is right and wrong, descriptive ethics defines morals in terms of their
cultural or personal significance. Morals are seen as part of a greater system that is not objective or unbiased but is created
by a culture, like language. So, while in normative ethics we may say that it is moral to tun in a lost wallet, in descriptive
ethics, we simply define that a certain society this as moral. We don't actually judge it as right or wrong. These two branches
of ethics are just a few of the ways we try and define morality. While there are many more, most of them can be broken into
the same divisions as these two. Some theories define what is right and wrong as objective truth, others see morals as entirely
subjective, only definable through their respective societies.

Why Study Ethics?

Nevertheless, the serious student of Ethics will find this work both profitable and interesting to the highest degree.
His understanding of moral problems will be widened, as he becomes acquainted with the thoughts of other men upon
problems of good and evil, justice and injustice, virtue and vice, the rights and duties of the individual and of society.
His critical faculties will be trained. He will know the reasons for his moral convictions, and also the reasons for
the moral convictions of others. His reverence for duty will be deepened. On the whole, he will become more tolerant, but
his moral judgments in becoming more discriminating will not become laxer. He will not confuse charity with condonation
of vice and wrong. Far from finding that "to comprehend all is to forgive all' is a universal principle, he will learn that while
sometimes to comprehend is to forgive, at other times it is to condemn with severity, though never with ignorance or
injustice.
The study of Ethics will enable a person to understand better what his conscience is, how he acquired it, how far he
is likely to be able to trust to its deliverances with safety, and how he can improve it and make it more intelligent. He will
gain a clearer insight into his claims upon society, and the duties that he owes to society. He will learn to discriminate
between the respects in which all individuals are mutually interdependent and those in which each is responsible for his
own life, and ought to insist upon freedom of initiative. Finally, while a book on Ethics can by no means prescribe for
anyone what should be his vocation in life, or his avocations, it can at least proffer some Considerations, from the standpoints
of self-realization, self-sacrifice, and service, that ought to help anyone in making such decisions.
 Lesson 2: The Moral Agent
Introduction
Philosophers often disagree about which of these and other conditions are vital; the term moral agency is used with
different degrees of stringency depending upon what one regards as its qualifying conditions. The Kantian sense is the most
stringent. Since there are different senses of moral agency, answers to questions like 'Are collectives moral agents? depend
upon which sense is being used. From the Kantian standpoint, agents such as psychopaths, rational egoists, collectives and
robots are at best only quasi-moral, for they do not fulfill some of the essential conditions of moral agency. It is well,
however, that reason should know its limits, and we are not to seek for the origin of moral obligation in any of what are
merely results of its exercise. The constitution of moral agents, and the grounds and conditions of moral action are matters
open to the investigation of reason; but the sense of obligation can result only from Divine authority apprehended or believed
to be somehow, manifested or revealed.

Morality
Morality can be defined as the standards that an individual or a group has about what is right and wrong, or good
and evil. Morality is not imposed from outside, but innate and can even be unconscious. We have a fundamental urge to
connect. Ultimately, it's our moral qualities that force us to live in harmony with the unconscious; doing so is the highest
form of morality. Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects
others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal. Morality is a complex of concepts and philosophical beliefs by
which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Often, these concepts and beliefs are
generalized and codified in a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behavior of its members. Conformity to such
codification is called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued
existence. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and general summary of a moral principle, as
applied in a given human situation (Darwall, 2005). There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition
d morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this js hot "morality" seems to be used in two distinct
broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term "morality" can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by
an individual for his/her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Key Features of Morality

To understand morality in its true sense, let us identify the six (6) features:
1. People experience a sense of moral obligation and accountability. One cannot doubt successfully a phenomenon of
his own existence--namely, his moral experience. Even secularists like Kai Nielsen recommend that one "ought to" act or
follow some rules, policies, practices, or principles. (Nielsen, 1973) Even atheist Richard Dawkins declares that there are
"moral instructions on how we ought to behave." (Dawkins, 2006).
2. Moral values and moral absolutes exist. It's hard to deny the objective reality of moral values-actions like rape, torture,
and child abuse are not just socially unacceptable behavior but are moral abominations. (Craig, 1994). Some actions are
really wrong in the same way that some things like love and respect are truly good. There are moral absolutes-truths that
exist and apply to everyone.
3. Moral law does exist. When we accept the existence of goodness, we must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to
differentiate between good and evil. C.S. Lewis demonstrates the existence of a moral law by pointing to men who quarrel-
the man who makes remarks is not just saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him but is rather
appealing to some kind of standard of behavior that he expects the other man to know about (Lewis, 2003).
4. Moral law is known to humans. Moral law is also called Law of Nature because early philosophers thought that
generally speaking, everybody knows it by nature. Different civilizations and different ages only have "slightly different"
moralities and not a radically or "quite different moralities One cannot present a country where a man feels proud for double-
crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. Men may have differed as to whether one should have one wife or four
wives but people have always agreed that one must not simply have any woman he likes. Will and Ariel Durant: "A little
knowledge of history stresses the variability of moral codes, and concludes that they are negligible because they differ in
time and place, and sometimes contradict each other. A larger knowledge stresses the universality of moral codes, and
concludes their necessity." (Durant, 1968).
5. Morality is objective. Morality is absolute – there is a real right and real wrong that is universally and immutably true,
independent of whether anyone believes it or not. Since almost all people assume certain things to be wrong-such as
genocide, murder of babies for feast, and rape–the best explanation is that such things really are wrong and morality is
objective. (Kleiman, n.d.)
6. Moral judgments must be supported by reasons. Moral judgments are different from mere expressions of personal
preference-they require backing by reasons, and in the absence of such reasons, they are merely arbitrary. James, 1999)

Man as a Moral Agent

A moral agent is a being that is "capable of acting with reference to right and wrong". A moral agent is anything
that can be held responsible for behavior or decisions. "It is moral agents who have rights and responsibilities, because it is
moral agents whom we take to have choices and the power to choose", If you do not believe that anything or anyone should
ever be blamed or deemed responsible, then you are going against the idea of moral agency, and denying the concept of
responsibilities and rights.
A moral agent is an intelligent being who has the power of choosing, and scope to act according to his choice; one
to whom the Supreme Governor has given a cognizable law, with its proper sanction, by which to regulate his volitions and
actions, and who is placed in circumstances which present no physical obstruction, either to obedience or disobedience.
Moral action, therefore, is action which springs from choice, and is not necessitated either by mental propulsion or external
circumstances: intelligent, free, and account able, it is distinguished on the one hand from instinctive action, which is the
result of an undeviating and unfailing but blind propulsion, and on the other from Divine action, which though certain as
instinct, is yet in the fullest sense intelligent and free.
When something or someone is deemed a moral agent, it does not necessarily mean that they are successfully
making moral decisions. It means that they aro in a category that enables them to be blamed. If someone is unable to be
blamed then they do not have rights. Being a moral agent means that they can be held responsible for their decisions and
behaviors, whether they are good or bad. A moral agent must be a living creature, as they must be able to comprehend
abstract moral principles and apply them to decision making. They must have “self-consciousness, memory, moral
principles, other values, and the reason faculty, which allows him to devise plans for achieving his objectives, to weigh
alternatives, and so on.” Also, in order to weigh the options in decision making a moral agent must attach a positive value
to acts that conform to his moral principles and a positive value to some of the results that he can achieve violating his moral
principles". This means that in order to be a moral agent "you must live in a world of scarcity rather than paradise.” If all of
your values could be easily and immediately be achieved, you wouldn't have to pick between your moral and non-moral
goals, and you couldn't practice moral agency.
In order to be a moral agent who makes decisions about justice and takes action based on those decisions, one must
live in a society with others who they consider to have moral rights. If one lives alone or with others who do not have moral
rights, then they are unable to make decisions regarding other's rights. In order to act morally, one must be free to act. If
one is unable to act, then they do not have moral responsibility. As long as each person does not violate the rights of other
moral agent, then each moral agent has the right to make decisions and take action on these decisions.
A being capable of moral agency is one who possesses the means of judging rightly, and power to act accordingly;
but whether he will do so or not, depends on the voluntary exercise of his faculties.
Aristotle and Moral Responsibility
Aristotle was the first to discuss moral responsibility. He stated that it is "sometimes appropriate to respond to an
agent with praise or blame on the basis of his/her actions and /or dispositional traits of character." He discusses that "only a
certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who
possesses a capacity for decision.” From Aristotle's perspective, "a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from
deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good.
In reference to modern ethical theories, which separate actions and questions about then, Aristotle would not agree.
"Praiseworthy and blameworthy actions are not those which match up to a particular template of rules or principle. Rather,
they are ones which flow from, and reveal a certain type of character Moral agency is not just about which rules to follow,
it comes from a way of l which Aristotle called the virtuous life, which necessitates a unison of thought and feeling.

Lesson 3: Standards and Dilemma

Introduction
To call something "right" in the abstract tells us little. To tell what the criteria are for making that assessment, we
need a context. Otherwise, we simply don’t know what it means. value judgments and prescriptive judgments, although
both normative may be either moral or non-moral. This statement does not tell us what makes judgments moral other, of
course, than that they are made on moral ground; that is a difficult and controversial issue. But it is enough to indicate the
importance of recognizing these distinctions, which are interrelated as shown in the diagram.
The point is, from the practical activities of evaluating and directing conduct, different frames of reference (or points
of view) have emerged that contain criteria for appraising conduct as right or wrong in different areas. These frames of
reference include (but are not limited to) etiquette, the law; economics, religion, self-interest, fascism, Marxism, sexism,
and racism. The actions they prescribe can and often do conflict, just as the things considered to be valuable can vary
radically among them. White supremacy, for example, is a form of racism that attaches highest value to the flourishing of
the so-called white race, and typically prescribes actions prejudicial to nonwhites. Such prescriptions can and do conflict
with laws that prohibit discrimination.
Whatever its exact nature, morality has also emerged in human affairs and represents a frame of reference along
with these others. And whatever the most plausible account of how one judges right and wrong from a moral point of view.
what is believed to be morally right and wrong clearly often conflicts with what is right and wrong from other perspectives.

Differences Between Moral and Non-Moral Standards

A moral standard refers to the norms which we have about the types of actions which we believe to be morally
acceptable and morally unacceptable Specifically, moral standards deal with matters which can either seriously harm or
seriously benefit human beings. The validity of moral standards comes from the line of reasoning that was taken to back or
support them, and thus are not able to be formed or changed by particular bodies of authority. Some ethicists equate moral
standards with moral values and moral principles.
The foundations of evolving moral systems test on a complex cybernetic process, scientific study of control and
communication, that sustains and preserve the human species This is a dynamic process that drives the creation of moral
ethical standards. Every human action inspires a corresponding reaction whether subtle in nature or violent. Some people
are more emotionally reactive than others. Emotions can get out of control if not regulated by laws, customs, moral code
professional codes and even the rules of etiquette, Rules are a stabilizing force that enhances the survivability of individuals,
families and nations. Mathematically the initial point evident in human behavior is the survival of the species, it is defined
and redefined in many ways, such as a concern for public safety.
Developing a moral compass in children is a responsibility that should be shared by the family, educational
institutions and the community at large. Each one of them has a role to play in instilling personal and collective values and
supporting the development of the individual's ability to judge what is right and wrong and to know how to act accordingly.
It is important to remember that the moral development of young people depends on the ethical capacities of the adults who
interact with then on a daily basis -especially parents, but also teachers, members of their extended family and other adults
in the community, every young person needs both a role model to inspire them and an environment that holds up good
values and celebrates them.
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards are
not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of non-moral standards include rules of
etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules. Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal
statutes (i.e. Laws and ordinances) are non-moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some
factors and contexts.
Etiquette refers to the norms of correct conduct in polite society or, more generally, to any special code of social
behavior or courtesy. The rules of etiquette are prescriptions for socially acceptable behavior. If you violate them, you're
likely to be considered il-mannered, impolite, or even uncivilized, but not necessarily immoral. If you want to fit in, get
along with others, and be thought well of by them, you should observe the common rules of politeness or etiquette.
Statutes are laws enacted by legislative bodies, The law that defines and prohibits theft is a statute. Congress and
state legislatures enact statutes. (Laws enacted by local governing bodies such as city councils usually are termed
ordinances.) Statutes make up a large part of the law and are what many of us mean when we speak of "laws." Limited in
their time and knowledge, legislatures often set up boards or agencies whose functions include issuing detailed regulations
covering certain kinds of conduct--administrative regulations. For example, state legislatures establish licensing boards to
formulate regulations for the licensing of physicians and nurses, as long as these regulations do not exceed the board's
statutory powers and do not conflict with other kinds of law, they are legally binding.
People sometimes confuse legality and morality. but they are different things. On one hand, breaking the law is not
always or necessarily immoral. On the other hand, the legality of an action does not guarantee that it is morally right.
Somewhere between etiquette and law lie professional codes of ethics. These are the rules that are supposed to
govern the conduct of members of a given profession. Generally speaking, the members of a profession are understood to
have agreed to abide by those rules as a condition of their engaging in that profession. Violation of a professional code may
result in the disapproval of one's professional peers and, in serious cases, loss of one's license to practice hat profession.
Sometimes these codes are unwritten and are part of the common understanding of members of a particular profession-for
example, that professors should not date their students. In other instances, these codes or portions of them may be written
down by an authoritative body so they may be better taught and more efficiently enforced.
Given their nature, professional codes of ethics are neither a complete nor a completely reliable guide to one's moral
obligations. Not all the rules of a professional code are purely moral in character, and even when they are, the fact that a
rule is officially enshrined as part of the code of a profession does not guarantee that it is a sound moral principle. As a
professional, you must take seriously the injunctions of your profession, but you still have the responsibility to critically
assess those rules for yourself.

How Are Moral Standards Formed?

There are some moral standards that many of us share in our conduct in society. These moral standards are
influenced by a variety of factors such as the moral principles we accept as part of our upbringing, values passed on to LIS
through heritage and legacy, the religious values that we have imbibed from childhood, the values that were showcased
during the period of our education, the behavior pattern of those who are around us, the explicit and implicit standards of
our culture, our life experiences and more importantly, our critical reflections on these experiences. Moral standards concern
behavior which is very closely linked to human well-being. Most, if not all, people have certain moral principles or a moral
code that they explicitly or implicitly accept. Because the moral principles of different people in the same society overlap,
at least in part, we can also talk about the moral code of a society, meaning the moral standards shared by its members.

Characteristics of Moral Standard

The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards farther differentiate them from non-moral standards:
1. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits. Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously
impact, that is, injure or benefit human beings. It is not the case with many non-oral standards for instance, following or
violating some basketball rules may natter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one's life or wellbeing.
2. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values. Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic
authority. If a moral standard states that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do
that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest. Moral standards are not the only rules
or principles in society, but they take precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic, prudential and even legal
ones, A person may be aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life to painting, but morally,
all things considered, he/she probably was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to save one's dignity, but it probably is
morally wrong to do so, when a particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people's moral duty to exercise civil
disobedience. There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come a time when the injustice of an evil law is
unbearable and thus calls for illegal but moral non-cooperation.
3. Moral standards are not established by authority figures. Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by
authoritative bodies or persons such as nations legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the
process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular
authoritative body. One thing about these standards, nonetheles5, is that its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of
the reasons that are considered to support and justify them.
4. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability. Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral
standards. To be more accurate, however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly similar
situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally right for anybody relevantly
similar to P. This characteristic is exemplified in the Golden Rule, "Do unto others what you would them do unto you (if
you were in their shoes)" and in the formal Principle of Justice, "I cannot be right for A to treat B in a manner which it
would be Wrong for B to treat A, merely on the ground that they are two different individuals, and without there being any
difference between the natures or circumstances of the two which can be stated as a reasonable ground for difference of
treatment." Universalizability is an extension of the principle of consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent about one's
value judgments.
5. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of
the interests of a certain person or group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each
person's interests are impartially counted as equal. Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice.
Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties.
6. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary. Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-
guiding nature of moral standards. These moral standards are generally put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do
not kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for use, to advise, and to
influence to action. Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to produce
feelings of satisfaction or of guilt. Ifa person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is
not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his/her behavior afterwards. On the contrary, no much guilt
is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (Manebog, 2013).

Moral Dilemmas
 A moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons
for choosing each action. What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself
as having moral reasons to do each of two0 actions, but doing both actions is not possible, Ethicists have called situations
like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of wo or more
actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both or all of the actions. The agent thus seems
condemned to moral failure: no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or tail to do something that she ought
to do). (Lemmons, 1987).
A moral dilemma is a situation where:
1. You are presented with two or more actions, all of which you have the ability to perform.
2. There are moral reasons for you to choose each of the actions.
3. You cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or actions when there are three or more choices,
to perform.
Since there are moral reasons for you to choose each action, and you cannot choose them all, it follows that no matter what
choice you make, you will be failing to follow your morals. In other words, someone or something will suffer no matter
what choice you make, for example, your friend will suffer if you tell the truth, and you will likely lose your friendship. But
you don't tell the truth, you will be a iar and possibly a lawbreaker, and your friend will get arrested for a crime she did not
commit.

Moral Dilemmas in the Organization

Ethical dilemmas in the workplace are quite common, and they’re not always easy to answer. The concepts are
straightforward, but the challenge is in the execution. Even when organizations have great policies and procedures and
follow the laws and regulations, there's still a high risk of unethical behavior.
For example, some employees may not know the resources exist to help in decision-making. They may not know
who to turn to with questions. Any time an organization is not fully supporting people, they're increasing the possibility of
high risk behavior.
Why do some organizations stumble when it comes to ethics? The answer is sometimes simple. In many cases there
are mixed messages, such as inconsistent application of policies or a tendency to overlook borderline or even directly
unethical behavior. This is the "it's not my job" mentality.
Here are some other common missteps:
1. Senior leaders fail to "walk the talk – they are guilty of modeling inappropriate behavior.
2. Leaders often have an irrational sense of entitlement, feeling I should be allowed to do this," or "I deserve this."
3. Individuals may begin cutting corners due to misplaced incentives. When an organization begins rewarding the wrong
things, this can lead to cutting corners on safety, quality, etc.
4. Individuals may also feel the need to be obedient to authority, even when they are being asked to do something they feel
is wrong.
5. Individuals also have the need for closure, which can lead to conflict avoidance. For example, an employee may not be
sure how to approach a possibly unethical situation, so he or she may simply opt to close it out without having the difficult
conversation about ethics.
6. Defensive "logic" is prevalent. This manifests as "everyone is doing it, so why not me? or "why should I stick my neck
out?"
In other cases, the ethical dilemmas organizations face is even more difficult because there is no wrong" answer.
The toughest ethical dilemmas in the workplace occur when two or more competing alternatives are present each having its
own set of ethical values, the choice of which always offers a less-than- ideal solution. This happens because we often are
pitting two favorable outcomes against each other-often fairness versus compassion. "Right" versus "right" is the toughest
ethical challenge to navigate.

Moral Dilemmas in the Health Care Service

Scenario 1: Carrie is a doctor working in a hospital. Due to an accident the building next door, there are deadly
fumes rising up through the hospital’s ventilation system. In a certain room of the hospital are four of her patients. In another
room there is one of her patients. If she does nothing the fumes will rise up into the room containing the four patients and
cause their deaths. The only way to avoid the deaths of these patients is to hit a switch that will cause the fumes to bypass
the room containing the four patients. As a result of doing this, the fumes will enter the room containing the single patient
(against her will). If she does this, the woman will die, but the other four patients will live.
Should Carrie hit the switch in order to save four of her patients?
Scenario 2: Your partner is dying from a rare disease. Luckily a cure has recently been invented, by one druggist
who lives fairly close to you. This druggist is selling the cure for tern times the amount it cost him to make it. You try to
raise the money, but even borrowing from friends and taking a loan from the bank. you can only raise half the amount. You
go to the druggist and offer to pay him half now and half later, but he refuses, saying that he invented the cure and is
determined to make money off it. You beg him to sell it cheaper as your partner will die before you can raise the full amount,
but he still reuses.
You believe you could break into his store one night after he has gone home and steal the cure. This would definitely
save your partner, although you might be arrested for the crime. What should you do? What if you could only steal the cure
by killing the druggist?

The Philippine Health Care Dilemma:

Our geographical location and growing population are still the top and perennial reasons why developing the
Philippine health care system remain challenge, said the Department of Health (DoH) and several United Kingdom- based
pharmaceuticals executives in a recent dialogue.
The World Health Organization recommends that there should be 20 be in a hospital per 10,000 people. The current
population of the Philippines is over 100 million. Beds, among our many needs, are usually insufficient. According to the
2008 DoH report "The Philippine Health System at a Gance" available on its website, almost all regions have insufficient
beds relative to population, The sufficiency of beds is one indicator of a good (or a tailing) healthcare system The
Autonomous Region of Muslin Mindanao (ARMM) has the smallest bed-population ratio, said the data.
"The ARMM has the worst health system in the Philippines. It shares the same healthcare level with Africa," said
GE Healthcare country manager Ivan Arota at the recent dialogue with private pharmaceutical companies held at the British
Embassy on August 11.
"We still conduct our operation under the trees," affirmed an audience member from Mindanao. She pleaded for
assistance from PhilHealth central branch manager Arsenia Torres, who said PhilHealth would help but it could not enter if
there is no hospital to begin with.
The DoH data available on its website said private hospitals outnumbered government-owned hospitals in all levels.
There are four classifications of hospitals. Level one is comparable with infirmaries and has a limited level of access. Level
one hospitals are scattered around the country, but level four hospitals which have the most advanced technology- are
concentrated in Metro Manila and Region Ill only.
Despite the challenges, the DoH hopes to welcome new innovative drugs into the country through its plans of
reforming the Philippine National Drug Formulary (PNDE, which aims to make drugs available, accessible, and affordable.
"It is a paradigm shift we're trying to implement," said DoH Undersecretary Kenneth Hartigan-Go. The PNDF has
over 600 drugs listed and approved by the Food and Drugs Authority. Mr. Hartigan-Go said the formulary was last updated
in 2008. Many drug innovations have happened since then, new drugs need to be listed and entered into the formulary.
"There are also a lot of drugs, which are not cost effective, that need to be replaced, he said. He added that sometimes,
choosing more innovative and yet expensive drugs is more cost-effective than cheap but inefficient drugs.
A panel of expert decides on what drugs should make it to the list based on their cost-effectiveness and safety. Now
the number of experts in the panel s down to five members only, said Mr. Hartigan-Go. It makes the evaluation faster.
(Philippine Council for Health Research and Development)
 CHAPTER 2: FREEDOM AND MORALITY
Lesson 1: Freedom and Moral Acts
Learning Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Explain why only human beings can be ethical;
2. Discuss the meaning of moral acts;
3. Put into practice Kant's definition of freedom and morality;
4. Analyze the relationship of culture to morality;
5. Detect a moral dilemma; and
6. Identify the three levels of dilemma.
Introduction
Remember that morality deals with the choices that define who we become and determine our eternal destiny. How
we define and use our freedom would clearly affect these defining choices. In fact, it defines how we make these decisions.
Whether we see our freedom as license to do whatever we want or as a mission to discern and choose what will make us
better people and our lives more fulfilled inform the entire framework in which we make these defining choices. If we are
off on how we understand human freedom, or moral compass is inaccurate from the very start. If we are to choose among
possible goods, the goal would be to choose those goods that meet the other goals of natural law -making us more human,
choosing and protecting authentic human goodness, being true to Our physical and spiritual nature, and enriching human
society. For human freedom to fulfill its purpose, we need to have not only the ability to choose, but the ability to choose
what can do the greatest good for us as human beings. Put simply, true human freedom is the ability to choose the best
possible good.
In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in the moral domain, at the question: what
should I do? In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as a free person. Kantian freedom is
closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which means law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a law that I created
myself. It is therefore, respect its commitment to compliance with oneself. Practical reason legislates (makes laws and
requirements) of free beings, or more precisely the causality of free beings. Thus, practical reason is based on freedom, it is
freedom. Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural causality: each event is the effect of another,
and so on to infinity. Unlike the phenomenon of man, the moral rule is free, i.e., it has the power to self-start condition.
Kant ethics is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.

Kant's Morality and Freedom

To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act according to a law I give myself. Whenever I
act according to the laws of nature, demands of social convention, when I pursue pleasure and comfort, I am not acting
freely. 1o act freely is not to simply choose a means to a given end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own sake.
This is central to Kant's notion of freedom. For Kant, (autonomously) and acting morally are one and the same thing. acting
freely the capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that special dignity that things and animals do not
have. Respecting this dignity requires us to treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in themselves. Kant's notion of
moral law and the to arrive at a proper understanding of Connection between morality, freedom and reason let’s examine
these contrasts.
1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality) – Only the motive of duty, acting accorait6 to the law I give myself confers moral worth
to an action. Any other motive, while possibly commendable, cannot give an action moral worth.
2. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy (freedom) – I am only free when my will is determined autonomously, governed by the law
I give myself. Being part of nature, I am not exempt from its Jaws and I'm inclined or compelled to act according to those
laws (act heteronomously). My capacity for reason opens another possibility, that of acting according to laws other than the
laws of nature: the laws I give myself. This reason, "pure practical reason," legislates a priori – regardless of all empirical
ends.
3. Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives (reason) – Kant acknowledges two ways in which reason can command the
will, two imperatives. Hypothetical Imperative uses instrumental reason: If I want X, I must do Y. (If I want to stay out of
jail, I must be a good citizen and not rob banks). Hypothetical imperative is always conditional.
If the action would be good solely as a means to Something else, the imperative is hypothetical. If the action is
represented as good in itself, and therefore necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, the imperative is
categorical.
Categorical Imperative is non-conditional. "It is concerned not with the matter of the action and its presumed results,
but with its form, and with the principle from which it follows. And what is essentially good in the action consists in the
mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may.
What is Categorical Imperative?
This question can be answered from the idea of a law that binds us as rational beings regardless of any particular
ends.
Here are two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
1. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it sha become a universal law. "Maxim" is a rile, a
principle that gives reason to action. This is a "universalizing test that checks whether my action puts my interests and
circumstances ahead of everyone else's. My action will fail the test if it results in a contradiction.
Example: I want a loan but I know I won't have money to repay it. I’m considering making a promise I know l can't keep.
Can I make this a universal law, the law that says “every time one needs a loan and has no money to repay it, one should
make a false promise?” Imagine everyone then acting according to this maxim. We quickly realize that thus would result in
negating the whole institution of promise-keeping We arrive at a contradiction.
2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your person or in the person at any other, never simply as
a means, but always at the same time as an end. For Kant. human existence has in itself an absolute value-it is an end in
itself and the only ground of a possible categorical imperative.

The Role of Freedom in Morality

The personal aspect of morality which might more properly be called ethics- is about the cultivation of virtue: the
development of character traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of habit. But a person, in order to be truly
virtuous, must be free to cultivate the virtues, or not.
There is no virtue in being temperate when you are being forced not to indulge. There is no virtue in being charitable
when someone is forcing you to give up what is yours, Virtue can be guided by cultural traditions and social institutions,
but it cannot be coerced. A virtuous man must also be a free man.
The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following. These rules are important because, they prevent
us from "colliding" with each other. They permit us to live together in harmony, and they also make us recognize, apart
from the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of others. Here too, liberty is essential.
When some people are permitted to dominate others, they treat others as merely a means to an end, rather than ends
in themselves. Not only does this fail to honor the basic dignity within each person, it also stifles the flourishing of human
potential and creativity. A society of domination will be a society that never reaches its full potential in the human sciences,
physical sciences, and creative arts. Liberty affords us the greatest space possible to pursue our projects, in a way that
enables us to live well with one another.
Having a final end does not obviate the need for liberty. Freedom remains essential. Freedom is so precious that
God will not override it, even when we badly misuse that freedom. In other words, we can’t get where were going we're not
free to walk the road. Thus, freedom is essential to a genuinely good human life at all the levels of morality.

Freedom: The Foundation of Moral Act

Freedom is humans' greatest quality and it is a reflection of our creator. Freedom is the power rooted in reason and
will, to act or not to act, to do this or that and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. Having freedom
means having responsibility. Every action you choose further determines our character.
Are animals free? Do they have freedomn2 What separates human hon animals? Reason (Intellect) and will (moral
action). Freedom is a power rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act. Good and evil are forged in freedom the degree
that a person reaches higher level of freedom, he becomes capable of higher levels of morality. The sinful person becomes
slave. The existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality. Our secular culture greatly exalts freedom. Yet it
also questions whether freedom really exists.

Freedom and Free Will

While the existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality, we are not all equally free. There are many
possible limits to our freedom: both external and internal. External freedom is a freedom from factors outside ourselves that
limit or destroy our free will. Internal freedom is a freedom from interior factors that limit our free will.
Requirement of True Freedom
True freedom is dependent upon truth, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). Example,
lying to a teacher or to friends. True freedom is oriented toward the good. We should not understand freedom as the
possibility of doing evil. Evil enslaves us and diminishes our ability to be free. True freedom requires responsibility. There
is no such thing as irresponsible freedom.

Human Acts vs Acts of Humans

Human acts make use of his knowledge and free will. Example: love your enemy, pray to God, sacrifice for others.
Acts of human do not make use of his intellect or will knowledge. His action is natural. Examples of acts of human acts
are breathing, blinking, and sneezing.
True freedom liberates us to develop our God-given talents in a responsible way so we can live our lives tor others
and for God. True freedom serves what I good, just and true.
Man is created by God as a human person who can begin and control his own actions. He is meant to seek God and
gain perfection by clinging to him. By freedom which is rooted in his intellect and will, man has the power to act or not to
act. He can shape his own life, mature in goodness, and gain a perfection which is rooted in God. Until man attains God, he
can choose to do good or evil, to grow in perfection or to sin. Because human acts are free, they are worthy of praise or
blame. By constantly doing good, man grows in freedom. Doing evil leads man into a "slavery of sin" (Rom 6:17).
A person is responsible for his voluntary acts. By progress in virtue, in knowledge of good, and in self-discipline,
he gains greater mastery. Man's responsibility and imputability can be lessened or nullified by ignorance, fear, habits, or
inordinate attachments or other factors.
God confronted Eve, "What is this that you have done?" (Gen 3:13). He also confronted Cain, "What have you
done?" (Gen 4:10). A person is responsible for any directly willed act. Also, an action can be indirectly voluntary (from
negligence or ignorance). A person is not responsible for an evil act if he did not will it and did not intend it as a means to
an end. For example, a person might incur death while trying to help another. A person is responsible if they could have
avoided the evil as a drunk driver killing someone.
Every human person must recognize the right of freedom in others. Exercising freedom, especially in moral or
religious matters, is an inalienable right of the human person. This must be protected by civil authorities within the limits
of public order.
Human freedom who refused God's love becomes a slave to sin. The first sin has led to so many others. Human
history attests that the problems of man come from man's abuse of freedom. Freedom does not give man the right to say and
do everything, because man's purpose is not his own earthly satisfaction. Man's blindness and injustice destroy the cultural
conditions needed for freedom. Deviating from the moral law violates man's own freedom and imprisons him within himself.
"For freedom, Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1) and saved us from sin's power. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is freedom (1 Cor 17). Christ's grace is not a rival to man's freedom. The person grows in inner freedom by being docile to
God's Spirit. “Take away from us all that is harmful so we may freely accomplish your will.” Whenever man deliberately
chooses, he is the "father of his acts." These freely chosen acts can be morally evaluated as good or evil.
The object directly chosen by the will determines the basic morality (good or bad). The person's intellect sees this
as according to moral standards (good) or not according to moral standards (evil). The person also has an intention which
determines the act’s morality. A intention can guide many acts or even a whole lifetime (as loving God). can have a
multiplicity of intentions (Doing a favor to help someone and also to receive a favor in return).
However, a good intention can never turn an evil act into a good one. A good purpose cannot justify evil means.
However, an evil intention can make a good act into an evil one, such as giving alms to gain praise. Only the act and the
intention make an act good or bad. The circumstances can increase or diminish the goodness or evil. For example, stealing
a large amount of money increases the evil, while fear of harm can lessen a person's responsibility. Circumstances can never
make an evil act into a good one.
An act is good when the object, the intention, and the circumstances are all good. A good act is vitiated by an evil
intention like praying in order to be seen as good. Some acts are evil in themselves as fornication and are always wrong to
choose. Therefore, the person's intention and the circumstances, such as pressure or duress, cannot change a morally evil
act, such as murder, blasphemy, or adultery, into a morally good act. We cannot do evil so good will come from it.
 Lesson 2: Culture and Morality
Introduction
In a review essay on morality and culture, Mary Douglas pointed out that there exists little communication between
anthropologists writing on morals the (Western) moral philosophers. Anthropological findings enter the ethical discussions
as exotic examples," She expects this situation to last tor quite time. Two conversations are running parallel: one the
philosophers', about the rational foundation of ethics, another the anthropologist’s, about the interaction between moral
ideas and social institutions. The conversations, as they are set at the present time, seems will never converge.
Anthropologists are confident that they are speaking about the role of culture in human life and societies. Moral
philosophers are sure that they are discussing moral issues. So far so good but the problem begins when anthropologists
turn the investigation of the morality of a culture and when philosophers try to account for the role of culture in the formation
of morality. The central difficulty has to do with the way the relation between morality and culture is perceived. In fact, the
problem is more fundamental than Douglas assumes. According to her, it is possible to reduce the gap between
anthropologists and philosophers if the latter were to give up some of their (culturally determined) views on morality. True,
but this is not the whole story. The anthropologists have difficulties too while accounting for the morality that philosophers
speak about.

What is Culture?
Culture is derived from the Latin word “cultura” or “cultus” which means care or cultivation. Culture as
cultivation implies that every human being is a potential member of his own social group. He is endowed with certain innate
qualities to make use. However, he cannot develop these inborn talents without the other people. He/she needs other people
who can provide him/her with the needed opportunities so he/she can translate these potentialities into realities called
achievements. These accomplishments not only help him achieve self-actualization but also make him/her a contributing
member of his society.
Anthropologist Edward B. Tylor, an Englishman, developed one of the classic definitions of culture. He said,
"Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, law, art, moral, custom, and other capabilities and habits
acquired as a member of society." In other words, culture refers to the totality e the humanly created world, from material
culture and cultivated landscapes, via social institutions (political, religious, economic etc.), to knowledge and meaning
something that human has created and learned in a society. His theory defines culture in descriptive terms as the "complex
whole" that makes up social ideas and institutions.
In Tylor's view, culture includes all aspects of human activity, from the fine arts to popular entertainment, from
everyday behavior to the development of sophisticated technology. It contains the plan, rules, techniques, designs and
policies for living. On the other hand, sociologists defined culture as the entire way of life followed by people, and
everything learned and shared by people in society. (Hunt, et. al, 1994). According to Landis (1992), culture is a complex
set of learned and shared beliefs, customs, skills, habits, traditions, and knowledge common to members of society.

The Influence of Culture in Moral Development

Culture has been with us since the dawn of human existence. Significant as it is, a culture considerably shapes its
members on how they live and relate within themselves and with other cultures (Bretzke, 2004). Culture is a social
environment in which a person is born and wherein he or she lives together with other persons. Hence, culture has a great
impact in the development of the human person in varied ways; may it be in physical knowledge, thought, relationship,
religious or moral development.
Moreover, culture is a person's social heritage that has been passed from one generation to the next basically through
the relationship that binds the society together. It necessarily says on what are the things a member of the society must do,
what to do and how to do things. It teaches and conditions members on how to relate and live with the other members of
the society and even to people outside of their own culture.
At its fundamentals, culture has important characteristics. As I would emphasize, culture is rooted from the
collective “human experience.” Culture is always transmitted, shared or acquired through learning. Culture satisfies human
needs as a social being and culture tends towards the participation of the members of the society.
Therefore, culture functions to mold and l establish social identity that brings people as well to the knowledge of
common objectives which members would try to achieve. Culture, indeed, provides norms, customs, laws, and moral
demands that are to be followed. So, to speak, in general, in a culture there is consistency and systematic patterns of behavior
(Palispis, 2007).
In general, culture plays a vital role the development of the human person. In every aspect of the human person, the
cultural background can be very visible. In particular, culture has an essential influence on the moral development of the
human person since morality is just one of the cultural aspects. Culture would tell, as I have mentioned above, the members
on what to do, how to do things, and what are the things that should be done as well as those things that should be avoided.
So, to speak, culture imprints the existing moral principles into its members, thus, shapes the character of its members as
well. Indeed, this 1s a process from infancy to adulthood, effectively presented by Kohlberg in his theory on the stages of
moral development.
At this point let us particularize how culture influences the moral development of the people. The points below are
the following:
1. Culture is always social and communal by which the relationship of the people towards one another and their experience
as a people are the culture's meadow. It is in this relationship and communal experience that culture influences the moral
development of its members. It is important to note that morality as principle is promoted because primarily of the
relationship within the community. Laws and rules and standards of attitudes and behaviors are set and promulgated by the
community to promote that relationship that binds them together as a people. And culture as it is being handed down from
one generation to other forms as well the morality of that particular generation. Yet. the kind of morality may not be
absolutely the same with the previous generation due to changes that would inevitably occur.
2. The culture defines the normative principles and behaviors of the society It defines which particular principle and behavior
that should be kept that would serve the best interest of the community. There would be a definition on what are the
principles and behaviors also that should not be promoted or rejected. This kind of influence of culture in moral development
is best seen in terms of relational level. Again, it is basic that it is in the relationship within the community and in their
experience of that relationship that the community would able to form certain normative principles and behaviors. These
defined normative principles and behaviors inform and indoctrinate the members as they live and relate with the community.
These would shape also the kind of moral judgment a person has, which is most of the time congruent to the general moral
judgment.
3. Moreover, a culture, as best exemplified in the experience of the people develops restrictions and sets boundaries and
limitations as they live and relate with one another. These restrictions and boundaries serve as protection among themselves.
These would create an atmosphere of promoting the welfare of the community. Indeed, anyone who tries to step beyond
these I subject to punishment or consequences set by the community embedded in the culture. Culture here draws this
consciousness into the moral development of its members.
4. As culture helps in generating the character and identity of its people, it also includes their moral character. Culture
conditions the mind - the way people think and the way they perceive the world and their relationship with one another.
Henceforth, a culture which characteristic is aggressive tends to be aggressive in terms of its relationship with one another
or with other cultures. Yet, the character that is being shaped by a culture may not always be just and rightful. A culture like
many others may shape a character that is unjust and mistaken in the general perspective of human morality.
5. The culture identifies the authorities or the governing individuals or groups. They are the symbol of guidance and control.
In many cultures, men are always regarded as the leaders who oversee the order of the community and give guidance, which
is true in patriarchal societies. Through their roles and responsibilities in the community within the given culture, may it be
patriarchy, matriarchy or whatever; people submit themselves to their authorities. By their very authority as they represent
the general populace, the members look at them as people who promote and keep the set of rules and laws that govern the
community. Their moral judgments are considered essential in moral issues of the community. In particular, in domestic
level the parents of a child are the first authorities who set and teach the child essential for the moral development of their
child.
Evidently, culture is very significant in the development of the human person and in moral development particularly.
Furthermore, as one would look at it, culture has a tight grip on the moral development of the people. Culture is the
conditioning principle of the moral development of its members. Nevertheless, culture as the principle that surrounds the
moral development of the people may not always promote what is good and just for all. It is certain that sometimes there
are principles, attitudes and behaviors that actually hinder good relationships and violate the welfare of the others. These
are indeed difficult to eliminate immediately in a culture, yet, they should be subject to people's discernment that proper
changes and modifications have to be done for the sake of the welfare and justice for everybody.

Lesson 3: Dynamics of Culture

Introduction
Cultural relationship is the idea that people from different cultures can have relationships that acknowledge, respect
and begin to understand each other's diverse lives. People with different backgrounds can help each other see possibilities
that they never thought were there because of limitations, or cultural prescriptions, posed by their own traditions. Traditional
practices in certain cultures can restrict opportunity because they are "wrong" according to one specific culture. Becoming
aware of these new possibilities will ultimately change the people that are exposed to the new ideas. This cross-cultural
relationship provides hope that new opportunities will be discovered but at the same time it is threatening. The threat is that
once the relationship occurs, one can no 1oryer claim that any single culture is the absolute truth.
The concept of cultural relativism as we know and use it today was established as an analytic tool by German-
American anthropologist Franz Boas in the early 20th century. We recognize that the many cultures of the world have their
own beliefs, values, and practices that have developed in particular historical, political, social, material, and ecological
contexts and that it makes sense that they would differ from our own and that none are necessarily right or wrong or good
or bad, then we are engaging the concept of cultural relativism.

Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the
standards of one's Own culture. The goal of this is promote understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of
one's own culture. Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is superior than another
culture when compared to systems a concept that cultural norms and values derive of morality, law, politics, etc. It is a
concept that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. This is also based on the idea
that there is no absolute standard of good or evil, therefore every decision and of what is right and wrong is individually
decided in each society. The judgment concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the
perspective of each person within their particular culture. Overall, there is no right or wrong ethical system. In a holistic
understanding of the term cultural relativism, it tries to promote the understanding of cultural practices that are unfamiliar
to other cultures such as eating insects or genital cutting (Leano, 1995).
Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and p conception as compared to ethnocentrism. It permits
to see an individual's habits values and morals in the context of his or her cultural relevance not by comparing it to one's
own cultural values and by deeming these the most superior and greater of all.
Cultural relativism is a method or procedure for explaining sand interpreting other people's culture. It offers
anthropologists a means of investigating other societies without imposing ethnocentric assumptions (Scupin, 2000).
Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are
worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to
be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today's anthropologists consider all cultures to be equally
legitimate expressions of human existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective. Cultural relativism is closely
related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined
solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard which applies to all
cultures. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society can pass
judgment on another society (Ladd, 1973).
Cultural relativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing, inherently good) with any cultural expression. So,
the ancient Mayan practices of self-mutilation and human sacrifice are neither good nor bad; they are simply cultural
distinctive, akin to the American custom of shooting fireworks on the fourth of July. Human sacrifice and fireworks – both
are simply different products of separate socialization. Marriage practices of Muslims should not be judged based on the
culture of the Roman Catholics is one example. The celebration of fiesta in the Philippines should not look into by other
nation as too much religiosity.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Cultural Relativism

There are additional cultural relativism advantages and disadvantages to consider when looking at this theory. Here
are some of the key points to consider (Vittana.org).
1. It is a system which promotes cooperation. For the most part, humanity ls Hereunder are the advantages of cultural
relativism: strong because of the differences we all have. Every individual has a different perspective that is based on their
upbringing experiences, and personal thoughts. By embracing the many differences, we have, the cooperation creates the
potential for a stronger society. Each individual definition of success allows us to pursue stronger bonds with one another
and potentially achieve more because there are no limitations from a group level and what can or cannot be accomplished.
2. It creates a society where equality is possible. In any society, people rise by climbing on top of other people. It is a
socially acceptable way of creating discrimination. We see this today in the wage gap that women face, the educational
opportunities that minority groups face, and the violence we see because of political oppression. Cultural relativism allows
the individual to define their moral code without defining the moral code of others. Each person is separate in such a society.
That separation creates equality because each person can set his/her own definition of success.
3. People can pursue a genuine interest. In the modern society, people are funneled toward certain career options because
of their circumstances. If you can afford to go to college, then you pursue a vocational career or some sort of
entrepreneurship instead of a career that requires a graduate degree. If you can't afford to buy a house, you go rent an
apartment. In cultural relativism, you get to pursue your own interests without restriction. You set the definitions of what
you can have and what you cannot have. When implemented successfully, each person would get to focus on his/her
strengths instead of his/her weaknesses.
4. Respect is encouraged in a system of cultural relativism. People come from different cultures. They have different
ideas. They pursue different definitions of success because such a system promotes the individual's definition instead of a
group definition, a society can evolve because there is a natural level of respect built into the process. Each person is
naturally given the right to pursue life through his/her own specific perspective and then learn from his/her experiences in
a way that works best for him/her.
5. It preserves human cultures. Humanity is a very diverse set of thoughts, traditions, ideas, and practices. Many times,
the traditions of humanity are set aside so that a set of standards can be appeased. Native and First Nations tribes in North
America did this by signing treaties which would help them to preserve some lands, but limit their rights by being subject
to a new governmental authority. They were forced to trade some of their culture. relativism, such a trade Under the theory
of cultural would not be necessary. It wouldn't even be a consideration.
6. Cultural relativism creates a society without judgment. We are so trained to judge others in today's world that we
don't even give it a second thought. Looking at someone and saying, "Glad that isn't me, is a judgment. Under the theory of
cultural relativism, judgment goes away. The only person that judges you is yourself. People who might disagree with you
are able to set their own codes and standards for their own individualistic bubble. Instead of worrying about others, you
only worry about yourself.
7. Moral relativism can be excluded from cultural relativism. Each culture can be treated as an individual under the
theory of cultural relativism. This means the moral codes of a culture can be defined and an expectation implemented that
people follow it. Although other cultures may not set up such a restriction and others might say such a restriction isn't a true
form of cultural relativism people in such a system can do what makes the most sense for them. You're focusing on the
customs of a culture, not the morality that is imposed upon those customs.
8. We can create personal moral codes based on societal standards with ease. To determine if a decision would be
"right" or "wrong," cultural relativism allows individuals to consult with the standards of their society or culture. It is a
simple test to determine the course that a person should take in such a circumstance. By consulting with the moral code of
the culture, one question must be asked: does the action conform to the cultural moral code? If it does, then the action is
permitted. Although this process can allow for disturbing results, most cultures are based on inclusion instead of exclusion.
It is only in structures where apartheid, segregation, or purging where disturbing outcomes are typically present.
9. It stops cultural conditioning. People tend to adapt their attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs to the people they are with on
a regular basis. This is cultural conditioning and it prevents people from having an individualistic perspective. Cultural
relativism stops this.

The disadvantages are as follows:

1. It creates a system that is fueled by personal bias. Every society has a certain natural bias to it because of how humanity
operates. People tend to prefer to be with others who have similar thoughts and feelings, so they segregate themselves into
neighborhoods, communities, and social groups that share specific perspectives. When people are given the power to define
their own moral code, then they will do so based on their own personal bias. There 15 no longer a group perspective. People
follow their own code at the expense of others.
2. It would create chaos. People who can follow their own moral code because there is no "wrong" or "right" would be
allowed to pursue any life they preferred under the theory of cultural relativism. If you're upset with your neighbor, then
you can kill that person without Consequence if your moral code allows for murder. Instead of purchasing something, you
could steal it if you see stealing as "right" to do. There is no real way to protect people in such a society, so each person
becomes responsible to protect themselves. It 5asystem that is Darwinian in practicality, where only the strongest can creates
survive.
3. It is an idea that is based on the perfection of humanity. Many people strive to do good every day. Most want to see
everyone have the chance to pursue happiness in some way. That is why the idea of cultural relativism often seems to be
inviting. The only problem is that people are not perfect. We can be forgetful. We can lie. We can become aggressive when
a driver cuts you off while driving and puts your family at risk. Without a group moral code in place to govern decisions,
anything could happen when we experience these moments of imperfection.
4. It could promote a lack of diversity. Cultural relativism promotes an individualistic point of view, so although it seems
to promote diversity, it actually removes it from a society. Cultural relativism would allow slavery to return to the US South.
It would allow men to exclude women from voting once again. It would stop employers from paying someone a fair wage
– or even paying them a wage at all. The only standards that are in place are those which are set by the individual involved,
which means everyone is pursuing his/her own position of strength. We cannot create diversity when the emphasis of a
society is individualistic gain that can come at the expense of others.
5. It draws people away from one another. Although cultural relativism can promote people coming together to share
their: strengths, it can also encourage people to draw apart from one another. C.S. Lewis, in his description of Hell from
The Screwtape Letters, envisions a place where people are constantly going away from each other to avoid the demons that
each person has because each person is uncertain of what codes and standards another is following the natural inclination
for self-preservation causes people to draw away. You might develop a close-knit community at first, but as Lewis describes,
each demon causes people to back away from one another instead of coming closer.
6. It could limit moral progress. When we look at the idea of moral progress, we think of becoming more inclusionary
instead of exclusionary. This inclusion is reflected in the laws and customs of the culture. The current debate on the
transgender bathroom laws in North Carolina and Texas is a good example of this. In cultural relativism, everyone would
be able to use his/her bathroom of choice or a culture could state that everyone must use a specific bathroom without
exception and there would be complete agreement in either choice Within the society, either choice would be seen as moral
progress, but in reality, it could hold people back.
7. It could limit humanity's progress. We often think of the concept of cultural relativism as progression, but it isn't
necessarily that way. When you remove the ability to judge one standard from another, then the comparative process of
placing a current society or culture against a past one is removed as well. No definition of success can be implemented
because each is successful in its own way. We might consider the ability for women to vote as the "right thing to do today,
but in past societies, not allowing women to vote was also "right" from a cultural standpoint. Because both are "right,"
there's no way to judge progress.
8. Cultural relativism can turn perceptions into truth. It's a dark night and it is warm outside. A teen is walking down
an alley wearing a hoodie and the hood is up. His hands are jammed into his pockets and there is a bulge in one of them. In
this scenario, some people may automatically assume that the teen is up to "no good." The bulge might even be a weapon
under that assumption. In the world of cultural relativism, that bias becomes a truth that can be acted upon. It doesn't matter
if the bulge is a gun or a package of Skittles. The decision to act becomes a righteous one because of the individual truth
that the culture allowed through the bias it perpetrates.
The cultural relativism's advantages and disadvantages which are discussed are based on the theoretical
implementation of such a system. Originally proposed by Franz Boas in 1887, it is an idea that has never been implemented
on a large scale. Moral standards make sense in a person's culture. By creating individualized cultures, on singular or larger
scales, it does become easier to keep and embrace the traditions that humanity has developed over the millennia.

Lesson 4: The Filipino Way

Introduction
Our culture is a big reflection of our great and complex history. It is influenced by most of the people we have
interacted with. by most of the people A blend of the Malayo-Polynesian and Hispanic culture with the influence from
Chinese, Indians Arabs, and other Asian cultures really contribute to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos. Filipino
culture is unique Compared to other Asian countries, and beliefs applied every day in the life of the Filipinos reveal how
rich and blessed the culture the people have.

The Filipino Customs and Traditions

What is it about the Philippines that makes it different from the rest of the world? Well, for one thing, it is all about
their culture. When children or young people greet or say goodbye to their elders, they typically do so by taking the right
hand of the elder with their right hand and place the back the elder's hand lightly on their forehead. It is a way of giving
respect to the elders and it is believed that is also a way of receiving blessing to the elders. "Mano po" is the term used when
kissing the hands of elders.
Mano is a Spanish word for "hand" while po is used at the end of the sentence when addressing elders or superiors.
The Filipinos are one of the most hospitable people you may find anywhere. Foreign visitors in the country are treated with
the utmost respect. This trait is usually seen during fiestas and holidays where many Filipinos are giving their best to
entertain their visitors well. It is amazing to see that even the simplest home along the road opens its door to a stranger. For
Filipinos, to be able to serve others gives them honor of showing true friendship. Filipino hospitality is a trait you can't take
away from them.
1. Having close family ties – is also one of their unique traits. It is one of the outstanding cultural values that Filipinos have.
The family takes care of each other and is taught to be loyal to family and elders by simply obeying their authorities. This
is One of the unique characteristics of Filipinos. Having fondness for family reunions during secular and religious holidays
such as Christmas, New Year’s Eve, All Saints Day, Holy Week, Fiestas, homecomings, birthdays, weddings, graduations,
baptisms, funerals etc. Is evidence that Filipino people value not only our cultural tradition but the spirit of our family. As
Filipinos, we are blessed to have been brought up with strong family ties.
2. The Bayanihan – It is the spirit of communal unity or effort to achieve a particular objective. A famous example of this
is the neighbors carrying a hut or house to a new location. People nowadays use it to describe an outpouring of community
spirit - as people give their all to the common good, without expecting recognition or personal gain. (Photo reference:
steemit.com)

3. Courtship – We Filipinos are very romantic when it comes to heart affairs. Serenading or harana in Tagalog is one of
the most popular forms of courtship to show that a man is very serious with his intentions to a woman. A serenade would
require the young man to sing a love song in front of the young lady's house. Normally, he is accompanied by his male
friends who act as back-up singers. The man himself or his friend played the instrument, usually a guitar, which provides
the background music to his song. They would have to wait until the young lady opened a window to listen. It would be up
to her if she wanted to invite them in for some refreshment and to chat after the song. Even if they had been asked to come
in, the suitor would not expect that he could have the chance of a private moment with his object of affection. It was highly
likely that the parents would also be there to entertain the man and his friends.
4. Religion – The Philippines is one of two predominantly Roman Catholic nations in Asia-Pacific. Their habit of going to
church and often praying reflects that Filipinos have a deep faith and belief when it comes to religion. They are very devoted
to religions that sometimes many take the risk of their lives just to touch the Black Nazarene (in Quiapo, Manila). For many,
it is just a choice between their faith and fears. Filipinos believe that having a strong devotion may lead to a better life and
their guidance to face everyday life.
5. Superstition – In the Philippines, superstitious beliefs have grown throughout the country. These beliefs have come from
the different sayings and beliefs of our ancestors that aim to prevent danger from happening or to make a person refrain
from doing something in particular. These beliefs are part of our culture, for one derives his/her beliefs from the influences
of what his/her customs, traditions, and culture have dictated to explain certain phenomena or to scare people. Some are
practiced primarily because Filipinos believe that there is nothing to lose if they will comply with these beliefs.
6. Mariage and Wedding Customs – In the country, marriage is a sacred union of man and woman after a period of
courtship and engagement. It is a sacrament between two people who love each other. For many Filipinos, the eternal quality
of dedication to God pervades a truly sacred marriage. A sacred marriage is a covenant between two who love each other
in God and with God, whose joining becomes an expression of the desire of each to love and serve God together.
7. Death – Death in the Philippines is one of the most important occasions in family life. For many Filipinos, a death of a
relative is an opportunity to strengthen ties in the family. To pay respect and honor the relationship to the deceased, long
lost relatives, friends, and even relatives working abroad are reunited. The Philippines is the home of some unique death
rituals that are partly religious and mostly superstitious. The mourning and the weeping are still present, but a happy and
welcoming atmosphere would usually envelop the place to help the deceased on his/her journey to the afterlife. After the
death of a person, a nine-day period of having a novena of prayers and masses offered up to the deceased is held, although
the beginning of the “siyam na araw” varies, but usually ends the week after the death. Another period follows after death,
the 40-day mourning period. Family members indicate their state of bereavement by wearing a small, black rectangular
plastic pin on their left breast or breast pocket area. A ceremonial mass is held at the end of this 40-day period. Common
belief states that the soul goes to Heaven after these 40 days, following the belief that Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven after
the said period of days.
8. Society – The primary ancestors of Filipinos are Malays who came from southeastern Asian country. 1he Philippines is
á combined society. Bos singular and plural in form, It ts singular as one nation, but plural in that is fragmented
geographically and culturally. The nation is divided between Christians, Muslims, and other religious-ethno-linguistic
groups; between urban and rural people; between upland and lowland people; and between the rich and the poor. Although
different in numerous Ways, the Filipinos are very hospitable and give appropriate respect to everybody regardless of race,
culture and belief.
9. Christmas in the Philippines is considered as one of the biggest holidays in the archipelago. We earned the distinction
of celebrating the world's longest Christmas season with Christmas carols heard as early as September and lasting until
Epiphany, the feast of the Black Nazarene on January 9 or the Feast of the Santo Niño de Cebu on the third Sunday of
January. In one article, Archbishop Cruz told in his Christmas message that "the essence of Christmas is God made flesh,
God who has come among us" in an act of love "that joins humankind to the Living God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
For many Filipinos, the true essence of Christmas is not gift giving but sharing this special holy day with family.
10. Fiestas – Every town and city in the Philippines has a fiesta of its own; whatever time of the year it is, there's sure to be
a fiesta going on somewhere. Fiestas in the Philippines are held to celebrate a patron saint. It is part and parcel of Filipino
culture through good times and bad times, it must go on. The biggest and most elaborate festival of all is Christmas, a season
celebrated with all the pomp and pageantry where the whole country breaks out in celebrations that can begin long before
December.
For individual Filipinos, fiestas can be a way of supplicating the heavens or to make amends for past wrongs. It is
a way to celebrate their blessings, commemorate their past and observe solemn religious rituals. Celebrations may take the
form of music, dancing, feasting, beauty contests, balls, processions, sports challenges or a host of other events. Spanish
influence is evident in the elaborate masks, makeup, headdresses and costumes worn by the revelers; outfits which often
take months of preparation.
11. Living with Parents – Filipinos highly value the presence of family more than anything. Adult children living with
their parents are another Filipino traditional that make them exceptional. Unlike in the United States where children leave
the home after finishing high school or college, many Filipinos continue living with parents until they get married. (Abundo,
2015)

Characteristics of Filipino Culture

Here are some characteristics of the Filipinos that set them apart from any other culture and society: (Dumaraos,
2018)
1. The Filipino people are very resilient – In times of calamities and catastrophes, Filipinos always manage to rise above
the challenge. Instead of wallowing, they manage to pick themselves up and smile. it is family first. So
2. Filipinos take pride in their families – In the Philippines, whether you are part of the immediate family or you belong
to the third or fourth generation, you are treated as a family member. Sometimes, even the closest of friends are considered
family, too.
3. Filipinos are very religious – In all corners of a Filipino house, you can find brazen images of crosses and other religious
paraphernalia. They go to church every Sunday, or sometimes even twice or three times a week.
4. Filipinos are very respectful – From the moment they are born into this world, they are already taught how to be
respectful by using these simple Catchphrases–po and opo, words that end sentences when addressing elders. They have a
culture of pagmamano, which is where they raise the backs of the hands of their elders to their foreheads as a sign of
respect.
5. Filipinos help one another – More popularly known as bayanihan, Filipinos help one another--without expecting
anything in return-so that undertaking their tasks and responsibilities become much easier. Sometimes this is called
"community spirit."
6. Filipinos value traditions and culture – For Filipinos, traditions in their home and in their family are important. They
usually set aside a specific day for a certain celebration like festivals, birthday parties, reunions, etc. And of course, every
gathering is dedicated to keeping up with each other over sumptuous food.
7. Filipinos have the longest Christmas celebrations – Even as early as August, you can hear Christmas songs and jingles
being played in the malls or in the restaurants in the Philippines. The mood becomes festive, with many people shopping
and in good spirits. Christmas s celebrations last until around the first or second week of January.
8. Filipinos love art and architecture – Just look at the massive and tall buildings everywhere. Filipinos have a penchant
for bringing art and architecture to a whole new level. They love t to design creatively, to think intuitively, and have a
passion for anything different and unique.
9. The Filipinos are hospitable people – Foreign visitors sin the country are treated with the utmost respect. This trait is
usually seen during fiestas and holidays where many Filipinos are giving their best to entertain their visitors well.

Filipino Family Values

The family is the center of the social structure and includes the nuclear family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins
and honorary relations such as godparent sponsors, and close family friends. People get strength and stability from the
family. As such, many children have several godparents. Concern for the extended family is seen in the patronage provided
to family members when they seek employment. It is Common for members of the same family to work for the same
company. In fact, many collective bargaining agreements state that preferential hiring will be given to family members.
 The Filipino family consists of many traditional values that have been treasured and passed on for many generations
already. These values are incredibly beneficial. Hereunder are the following traditional values:
1. Paggalang (Respect) – The English translation of paggalang means o be respectful or to give respect to a person. Filipinos
are accustomed to using the words "po,""opo," and "ho" when they are conversing with older people or, sometimes, with
those who are in a high role or a prestigious member of society. Using these words is customary in the Philippines, and it
shows a sign of respect if you do so. Paggalang can also be shown toward your elders by kissing their hands before leaving/to
say goodbye and upon arrival/to greet them. The younger members of the family can show respect toward older siblings by
calling them kuya (older brother) or ate (older sister).
2. Pakikisama (Helping Others) – Pakikisama has the connotation of getting along with people in general. There is a general
yearning to be accepted and well-liked among Filipinos. This applies to one and his or her friends, colleagues, boss, and
even relatives. This desire is what steers one to perform pakikisama. The word pakikisama literally translates to "helping
others." Therefore, this trait usually fosters general cooperation and performing good or helpful deeds, which can lead to
others viewing you in a favorable light.
3. Utang na Loob (Debt of Gratitude) – Utang na loob means to pay your debt with gratitude, With utang na loob, there is
usually a system of obligation. When this value is applied, it imparts a sense of duty and responsibility on the younger
siblings to serve and repay the favors done to them by their elders.
4. Pagpapahalaga sa Pamilya (Prioritizing Family) – Pagpapahalaga sa pamilya is in other words, putting importance on
your family. This implies that a person will place a high regard on his/her family and prioritize that before anything else.
For example, this is why it's not uncommon for a father or a mother in a Filipino family from the Philippines to seek
employment abroad or a job they don't want just to earn a decent wage for their family. They’ve placed the utmost priority
on meeting the family’s basic needs and toward practicing pagpapahalaga sa pamilya.
5. Hiya (Shame) – Hiya means shame. This controls the social behaviors and interactions of a Filipino. It is the value that
drives a Filipino to be obedient and respectful to their other authorities. This is parents, older siblings, and also a key
ingredient in the loyalty of one's family.
6. Damayan System – extending sympathy for people who lost their loved ones. In case of death of a certain member of
the community, the whole community sympathizes with the bereaved family. Neighbors, friends, and relatives of the
deceased usually give certain amount of money as their way of showing sympathy.
7. Compassionate – a Filipino trait of being sympathetic to others even the person is a stranger. An example of this is giving
alms to the beggars. This is observed when we hear Filipinos saying, "kawawa naman or nakakaawa naman."
8. Fun-loving Trait – a trait found in most Filipinos, a trait that makes them unique that even in times of calamities and
other challenges in life, they always have something to be happy about, a reason to celebrate.

Social Values of the Filipinos

The great majority of the Philippine population is bound together by common values and a common religion.
Philippine society is characterized by many positive traits. Among these are:
1. High regard for amor propio (self-esteem) – Self-esteem reflects an individual's overall subjective emotional evaluation
of his or her own worth. It is the decision made by an individual as an attitude towards the self. Self-esteem encompasses
beliefs about t oneself, as well as emotional l states, such as triumph, despair, pride, and shame (Hewitt, 2009). Smith and
Mackie (2007) defined it by saying "The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem is the positive or negative
evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it."
This characteristic is generally conducive to the smooth running of society, although, when taken to extreme, it can
develop that discourages independent judgment and individual responsibility and into an authoritarianism are sensitive to
attacks on their own self-esteem and initiative. Filipino Cultivate a sensitivity to the self-esteem of others as well. Anything
that might hurt another's self-esteem is to be avoided or else one risks terminating the relationship. One who is insensitive
to others is said to lack a sese shame and embarrassment, the principal sanction against improper behave. This great concern
for self-esteem helps to maintain harmony in society and within one's particular circle, but it also can give rise to
clannishness willingness to sacrifice personal integrity to remain in the good graces of the group. Strong personal faith
enables Filipinos to face great difficulties and unpredictable risks in the assurance that “God will take care of things” but,
if allowed to deteriorate into fatalism, even this admirable characteristic can hinder initiative and stand in the way of
progress.
2. Smooth interpersonal relationships – An interpersonal relationship is the nature of interaction that occurs between two
or more people. People in a interpersonal relationship may interact overtly, covertly, face-to-face or even anonymously.
Interpersonal relationships may occur with friends, family, coworkers, strangers, chat room participants, doctors or clients.
3. Personal alliance system – This scheme is anchored on kinship, beginning with the nuclear family. A Filipino loyalty
goes first to the immediate family, identity is deeply embedded in the web of kinship. It is normative that one owes support,
loyalty, and trust to one's close kin and, because kinship is structured bilaterally with affinal as well as consanguineal
relatives, one's kin can include quite a large number of people. Still, beyond the nuclear family, Filipinos do not assume the
same degree of support, loyalty, and trust that they assume for immediate family members for whom loyalty is nothing less
than a social imperative. With respect to kin beyond this nuclear family, closeness in relationship depends very much on
physical proximity.
4. The Compadre system – Bonds of ritual kinship, sealed on any of three ceremonial occasions- baptism, confirmation,
and marriage intensify and extend personal alliances. This mutual kinship system, known as compadrazgo or compadre,
meaning god parenthood or sponsorship, dates back at least to the introduction of Christianity and perhaps earlier. It is a
primary method of extending the group from which one can expect help in the way of favors, Such as jobs, loans, or just
simple gifts on special occasions. But in asking a friend to become godparent to a child, a Filipino is also asking that person
to become a closer friend. Thus, it is common to ask acquaintances who are of higher economic or social status than oneself
to be sponsors. Such ritual kinship cannot be depended on in moments of crisis to the same extent as real kinship, but it still
functions for small and regular acts of support such as giving.
5. Utang-na-loob – A dyadic bond between two individuals may be formed based on the concept of utang na loob. Although
it is expected that the debtor will attempt repayment, it is widely recognized that the debt (as in one’s obligation to a parent)
can never be fully repaid and the obligation can last for generations. Saving another's life, providing employment, or making
it possible for another to become educated are "gifts" that incur utang na loob. Moreover, such gifts initiate a long-term
reciprocal interdependency in which the grantor of the favor can expect help from the debtor whenever the need arises and
the debtor can, in turn, ask other favors. Such reciprocal personal alliances have had obvious implications for the society in
general and the political system in particular. In 1990, educated Filipinos were less likely to feel obligated to extend help
therefore not initiating an utang na loob relationship than were rural dwellers among whom traditional values remained
strong. Some observers believed that as Philippine society became more modernized and urban in orientation, utang na loob
would become less important in the political and social systems.
6. Suki relationship – In the commercial context, suki relationships (marker exchange partnerships) may develop between
two people who agree to become regular customer and supplier. In the marketplace, Filipinos will regularly buy from certain
specific suppliers who will give them, in return, reduced prices, good quality, and, often, credit. Suki relationships often
apply in other contexts as well. For example, regular patrons of restaurants and small neighborhood retail shops and tailoring
shops often receive special treatment in return for their patronage. Suki does more than help develop economic exchange
relationships because trust is such a vital aspect, it creates a platform for personal relationships that can blossom into genuine
friendship between individuals (Dolan, 1991).
7. Friendship – Friendship often is placed on at par with kinship as the most central of Filipino relationships. Certainly,
ties among those within one's group of friends are an important factor in the development of personal alliance systems.
Here, as in other categories, a willingness to help one another provides the prime rationale for the relationship.

Weaknesses of the Filipino Character

1. Passivity and Lack of initiative – Acceptance of what happens, without active response or resistance.
2. Colonial mentality – Colonial mentality more strictly refers to the attitude the Filipinos feel that products coming from
other countries are more superior than the local products. For example, Filipinos often romanticize Western culture and
prefer to indulge in American restaurants media rather than supporting local businesses that were created with Filipino
culture. McDonald's versus Jollibee is one example. Many customers might simply just prefer McDonald's due to its
association with American culture and life, and therefore, American superiority.
3. Kanya-kanya syndrome – Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a feeling of envy and
competitiveness towards others, particular one's peers who seem to have gained some status or prestige. Towards them, the
Filipino demonstrates the so-called crab mentality referring to the tendency of crabs in a basket to pull each other down
using the levelling instruments of tsismis, intriga, and unconstructive criticism to bring others down. There seems to be a
basic assumption that other's gain is one's loss. The kanya-kanya syndrome is also evident in the personal ambition and the
drive for power and status that is completely insensitive to the common good. Personal and in-group interests reign supreme.
This characteristic is also evident in the lack of a sense of service among people in the government bureaucracy. The public
is made feel that service from these offices and from these civil servants is an extra perk that has to be paid for.
4. Extreme personalism – Filipinos view the world in terms of personal relationships and the extent to which one is able
to personally relate things and people determines the recognition of their existence and the value given to them. There is no
separation between an objective task and emotional involvement. This personalism is manifested in the tendency to give
personal interpretations to actions, i.e., "take things personally." Thus, a sincere question may be viewed as a challenge to
one's competence or positive feedback may be interpreted as a sign of special affection. There is in fact some basis for such
interpretations as Filipinos are quite personal in criticism and praise. Personalism is also manifested in the necessity for the
establishment of personal relationships before any business or work relationships can be successful.
5. Extreme family centeredness – While concern for the family is one of the Filipino s greatest strengths, in the extreme
it becomes a serious flaw. Excessive concern for the family creates an in-group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal to the
detriment of concern for the larger community or for the common good. Excessive concern for family manifests itself in the
use of one's office and power as a means of promoting the interest of the family, in factionalism, patronage, and political
dynasties and in the protection of erring family members. It results in lack of concern for the common good and it acts as a
block to national consciousness.
6. Lack of discipline – Procrastination is one reason of lack of self-discipline. Lack of willpower, motivation and ambition
are also causes for lack of self-discipline. A weak state of health might also lead to weakness of this important ability
7. Lack of self-analysis and reflection – There is a tendency in the Filipino to be superficial and even somewhat flighty.
In the face of serious problems, both personal and social, there is lack of analysis or reflection. We joke about the most
serious matters and this prevents looking deeply into the problem. There is no felt need to validate our hypotheses or
explanation of things. explanations and superficial solution to Thus, we are satisfied with superficial problems. rather than
on emphasis on form (porma) Related to this is the Filipino substance. There is a tendency to be satisfied with rhetoric and
to substitute this for reality. Empty rhetoric and endless words are very much part of public life. as long as the right things
are said, as long as the proper documents and reports exist, as long are deluded into believing that what ought to be actually
exist.
8. Ningas cogon – A Filipino attitude of being enthusiastic only during the start of new undertaking but ends dismally in
accomplishing nothing.
9. Gaya-Gaya Attitude – A Filipino attitude of imitating or copying other culture especially in mode of dressing, language,
fashion, trend or even haircut.
 CHAPTER 3: UNIVERSAL VALUES
Lesson 1: Basic Universal Values
Learning Objectives:
Objectives:
At the end of this chapter, the students will be able to;
1. Explain why universal values are necessary for human survival;
2. Identify the different universal values;
3. Discuss the different concepts of universal values;
4. Explain the relationship between individual acts and character; and
5. Explain and articulate each stage of moral development.

Introduction
Human basics can be seen as a first universally designed and coherent philosophy of most basic knowledge for any
human, wherever on the world and regardless of culture, religion, education or status. It consists of generally recognized
and established knowledge, generally verifiable observation, and some basic theories and conclusions, and combined with
a number of basic theses it makes up a universal philosophy of human basics. This philosophy of most basic knowledge is
in the first place about an understanding and awareness of our human nature, and our most basic universal human values. It
contains a concise basic information about social, psychological, cultural and moral human qualities and basic universal
human values in relation to political, economic, ecological, religious, judicial and educational issues in all societies. By its
nature this basic knowledge tends to create a basic understanding and more agreement between people and cultures.
However, by its basic and realistic nature, some of this information can also be experienced as confronting.
Human beings are endowed with spiritual capacities. This is a fact testified to by the founders of all the world
religions as well as by sages and philosophers throughout history. An understanding of these positive virtues and values
gives individuals and societies the moral accountability that is the basis of human integrity. Mere knowledge of ideals and
principles is not enough. There is always the need to translate the ideals into action. The development of civilization has
occurred in a spiral pattern with seasons of enlightenment and periods of darkness, but with constant advancement.
Confidence in the advent of human maturity and global community provides the foundation for world peace.

What is Universal Value?

A value is a quality that weans people, things, events or situations. The term is used to designate the moral
characteristics that are inherent in a subject piety, responsibility, secularism, respect, etc. Universal, however, is an adjective
that is related to what belongs or which relates to the universe. The concept refers to the set of all things created and what
is common to all its kind. These definitions enable us to approach the notion of universal value Universal values are formed
by implied behavioral standards that are necessary to live in a harmonious and peaceful society. It is a notion which is not
obvious to define, because a value is associated with morality and ethics, which is difficult to transpose, or refer to the level
of the group. In other words, all people have certain values that come from their interior and guide their actions because
humans do not think all the same way, values can vary from one person to the next. Universal values, however, have the
particularity to be socially shared (Didactic Encyclopedia, 2015). In addition to cultural differences, we can say that the
goodness, solidarity, volunteerism and honesty are virtues you want in any country or region. So, these are universal values.
Universal values are acquired with family education and school, because the process of socialization involves that new
generations internalize timeless concepts.

Schwartz Concept of Universal Values

S. H. Schwartz, along with a number of psychology colleagues, has carried out empirical research investigating
whether there are universal values, and what those values are. Schwartz defined 'values' as "conceptions of the desirable
that influence the way people select action and evaluate events (Sen, 1999). Schwartz's results from a series of studies that
included surveys of more than 25,000 people in 44 countries with a wide range of different cultural types suggest that there
are fifty-six specific universal values and ten types of universal value. Below are each of the value types, with the specific
related values alongside:
1. Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources.
2. Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.
3. Hedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
4. Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
5. Self-Direction: Independent thought and action - choosing, creating, exploring. Universalism: Understanding,
appreciation, tolerance, and protection for welfare of ail people and for nature.
7. Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact.
8. Tradition: Respect: commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide.
9. Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations
or norms.
10. Security: Safety: harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.
Schwartz also tested an eleventh possible universal value, 'spirituality' or 'the goal of finding meaning in life', but
found that it does not seem to be recognized in all cultures.

UN Charter on Universal Values

The values enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter, respect for fundamental human rights, social justice and
human dignity, and respect for the equal rights of men and women, serves as overarching values to which suppliers of goods
and services to the UN are expected to adhere. in a speech at Tubingen University in Germany, UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan emphasized that PROGRESS, EQUAL RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY, are acutely needed in this age of
globalization. Annan further stated that three years ago, in the Millennium Declaration, all states reaffirmed certain
fundamental values as being "essential to international relations in the twenty-first century": freedom, equality, solidarity,
tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility. They adopted practical, achievable targets – the Millennium
Development Goals - for relieving the blight of extreme poverty and making such rights as education, basic health care and
clean water a reality for all. However, globalization has brought nations closer together in the sense that they are all affected
by each other's actions, but not in the sense that they all share the benefits and the burdens. Instead, some nations have
allowed it to drive other nations further apart, increasing the disparities in wealth and power both between societies and
within them.

Basic Universal Human Values

The function of most of these basic values is to make it possible for every human to realize or maintain the very
highest or most basic universal core values of life, love and happiness. Hereunder are some of the basic universal human
values:
1. Happiness – In the ancient past the founders of the big religions in the world have already taught about the reward for a
religious life by an afterlife Paradise, Heaven, or Nirvana etc., to enjoy there an ultimate and eternal happiness. And from
this we can understand that in fact eternal happiness the ultimate value of all religious people ... For nobody would like to
go to any dull or miserable Paradise or so.
2. Peace – Peace has to be seen as a basic condition for freedom and happiness, for without peace there cannot be real
freedom. Wherever there is fight, threat or hostility, our freedom and happiness are inhibited or totally prevented.
3. Love – Love in a general sense can be best defined as feelings, or an experience of deep connectedness or oneness with
any other human being, any animal, plant, tree, thing, or unnamable. Love can also be experienced as something far beyond
any comprehension, and totally indescribable. Love may happen to us when we are able to be open to the beauty and nature
of other people, or to the beauty and mystery of nature in general, or even beautiful things. Hence the importance of a
human-friendly mentality, which contains an attitude of openness to the basically loving nature of others, and the state of
openness out of human-friendliness imply an openness and friendly attitude to the whole of existence.
4. Freedom – Freedom means the experience of unrestricted, and to be as much as possible independent of the social
pressure of others. A basic condition for happiness is however the experience of an inner, or mental freedom; freedom from
all kinds of stress, worry, anxiety, problems, obligations and fears, often directly or indirectly caused by the respectless
egocentric or power-oriented mentality of many others in our society. For many people in the world, it would be much
easier to attain happiness if others in their society would show a little more respect for the value of freedom of all other
people in that society. For basically an outer freedom from dominance, repression, burden, obligations and duties creates
also an inner freedom from problems of worry, stress, and fears. And this shows also a huge responsibility for politicians
and all other people in power, and it asks for their integrity, empathy, and respect, for freedom is for any human a basic
condition for happiness, One of our very highest human values.
5. Safety – Safety means free of threat, fear and survival-stress. Without safety, people tend to live out of their individual
survival instinct, and long-term insecurity creates an egocentric survival-mentality. Without safety, people in a society are
burdened by emotional fear, helplessness, and anxiety.
6. Intelligence – Intelligence has been defined in many different ways to include the capacity for logic, understanding, self-
awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. It can be more generally
described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retainit as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive
behaviors within an environment or context. A tremendous challenge to our human intelligence is our ability to cooperate
on a global scale, to avoid catastrophic global developments, like climate change, population growth, the ecology problem,
and the nuclear (war) problem. These problems of humanity show the urgent need for a 'global intelligence', and the very
basic value of human intelligence on a global scale.
7. Human respect – The most basic principle of any social community is feelings of connectedness which come out of our
perception, empathy and awareness that the other human is basically as we are ourselves. This creates trust and a friendly
attitude towards the other. Out of this empathy and the awareness that the other is basically as we are ourselves and the
resulting feelings of connectedness, we feel a natural and spontaneous respect for the other. Natural and spontaneous human
respect can only be earned by integrity, veracity and truly social behavior. Not by just some impressing or over acting
behavior. True respect is a spontaneous phenomenon, which comes basically out of the understanding that deep down the
other person is the same as we are ourselves.
8. Equality – Equality originates from aequalis, aequus and aequalitas. These are all old French or Latin words. These
French/Latin words mean even, level and equal. Thus, the meaning of the word 'equality' used in political science
corresponds to the meaning from which it originates. Every person has certain claims to equality. There are two very
important forms of legal or formal equality. One is equality before law and equal protection of law. What is to be noted here
is that the legal member of the legal association can legitimately claim that all the citizens must be treated equally by law
and no discrimination is to be allowed. Every individual has the right to claim equal liberties with others and when the state
authority can ensure this, it will be assumed that justice will no longer be far away. The state must see that in regard to the
allotment of rights and liberties the principle of equality has been most scrupulously observed. If equality is violated, justice
will not be achieved. Justice is always hand in glove with equality. In a state, all the opportunities and position shall be
opened to all. There shall be no place of discrimination.
9. Justice – It is the proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law. In
general justice is needed to realize and maintain our highest human values of freedom, peace, life, love and happiness; and
injustice can prevent or inhibit these highest human values.
10. Nature – Understanding our physical dependence of nature, and our awareness of being part of it are needed to see the
basic value of nature. Man is part of nature, and our very human existence is dependent of nature and its ecology. And hence
our highest human values of life itself and freedom, safety, peace, love and happiness can only be realized in harmony with
nature.
11. Health – World Health Organization (WHO) defined health as being "a state of complete physical, mental, and social
well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity". In 1986 WHO also said that health is "a resource for everyday
life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical
capacities." Also, there is a term known as mental health and it describes either a level of cognitive or emotional well-being
or an absence of a mental disorder.

The Human Dignity

The English word dignity comes from the Latin word, “dignitas,” which means "worthiness." Dignity implies that
each person is worthy of honor and respect for who they are, not just for what they can do. In other words, human dignity
cannot be earned and cannot be taken away. It's an inalienable gift given to us by God, and every other good thing in life
depends on the safeguarding of our fundamental dignity. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it, "recognition
of the inherent dignity...of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."
Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically. Human dignity
originates from God and is of God because we are made in God's own image and likeness. Human life is sacred because the
human person is the most central and clearest reflection of God among us. Human beings have transcendent worth and value
that comes from God; this dignity is not based on any human quality, legal mandate, or individual merit or accomplishment.
Human dignity is inalienable - that means it is an essential part of every human being and iS an intrinsic quality that can
never be separated from other essential aspects of the human person. Human beings are qualitatively different from any
other living being in the World because they are capable of knowing and loving God, unlike any other creature. Belief in
the dignity of the human person is the foundation of morality.

Lesson 2: Development of Moral Character

Introduction
Aristotle tells us that there are good people in the world. These are those who exhibit excellences-excellences of
thought and excellences of character. His phrase for excellences of character – éthikai aretai – we usually translate as moral
virtue or moral excellence. When we speak of a moral virtue or an excellence of character, the emphasis is on the
combination of qualities that make an individual the sort of ethically admirable person that he is. Aristotle defines virtuous
character at the beginning of Book II in Nicomachean Ethics: "Excellence of character, then, is state concerned with choice,
lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would
determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect." In
Aristotle's view, good character is based on two naturally occurring psychological responses that most people experience
without difficulty: our tendency to take pleasure from self-realizing activity and our tendency to form friendly feelings
toward others under specific circumstances. Based on his view, virtually everyone is capable of becoming better and they
are the ones responsible for actions that express (or could express) their character (Stanford Encyclopedia).

What is Moral Character?

Moral character or character is an evaluation of an individual's stable moral qualities, The concept of character can
imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, and
loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one
individual from another-although on a cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said
to unite and define it culturally as distinct from others. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as "a
disposition to express behavior in Consistent patterns of functions across a range of situations" (Timpe, 2008).
A moral character is defined as an idea in which one is unique and can be distinguished from others. Perhaps it can
assemble qualities and traits that are different from various individuals. It implies to how individuals act, or how they press
themselves, in another words, it is "human excellence," or unique thoughts a character. When the concept of virtue is spoken,
this would emphasize the distinctiveness or specialty, but it all involves the combination of qualities that make an individual
the way he or she is, based on this definition, the insight of a moral character can be viewed differently. Although these
philosophers diverge with their arguments, they in some sense have similarities, these similarities will show how the matter
of a character is important and crucial to the human nature.

Importance of Having a Strong Moral Character

When you have strong moral character, you'll be judged by who you are rather than who you pretend to be. Below are some
of the consequences of having a strong moral character (Sonnenberg, 2016):
1. Achieve peace of mind. People with character sleep well at night. They take great pride in knowing that their intentions
and actions are honorable People with character also stay true to their beliefs, do right by others, and always take the high
ground.
2. Strengthen trust. People with character enjoy meaningful relationships based on openness, honesty, and mutual respect.
When you have good moral character, people know that your behavior is reliable, your heart is in the right place, and your
word is good as gold.
3. Build a solid reputation. People with character command a rock-solid reputation. This helps them attract exciting
opportunities "like a magnet"
4. Reduce anxiety. People with character carry less baggage. They're comfortable within their own skin, and they accept
responsibility for their actions. They never have to play games, waste precious time keeping their stories straight, or invent
excuses to cover their behind.
5. Increase leadership effectiveness. Leaders with character are highly effective. They have no need to pull rank or resort
to command and control to get results. Instead, they're effective because they're knowledgeable, admired, trusted, and
respected. This helps them secure buy-in automatically, without requiring egregious rules or strong oversight designed to
force compliance.
6. Build confidence. People with character don't worry about embarrassment if their actions are publicly disclosed. This
alleviates the need for damage control or the fear of potential disgrace as a result of indiscretions.
7. Become a positive role model. People with character set the standard for excellence. They live their life as an open book,
teaching others important life lessons through their words and their deeds.
8. Live a purpose-driven life. People with character live a life they can be proud of. They're driven to make a difference
and to do right by others rather thar trying to impress others with extravagance.
9. Build a strong business. Doing the right thing is good business. Everything else being equal, talented people would
rather work for and customers would rather buy from-companies that do right by their people, customers, and communities.
While unprincipled business tactics may provide short-term results, it's NOT a long-term strategy. Although you may not
be able to quantify the benefits of being a good person, there's great truth in the saying, good people finish first." Strong
moral character is like a boomerang that causes good things to find their way back to you. So, promise yourself to be true
to yourself and do what's right, even when nobody is looking – Character matters.
Development of Moral Character
If you believe developing your character is an endeavor you, want to pursue, here are some steps to show you how:
1. Define your core values – Know what is most important to you by determining your values for your professional and
personal life. These are the principles that are the foundation for your priorities, choices, actions, and behaviors.
2. Practice the habits – Pick one or two of the traits of good character to practice for several weeks. Write down the actions
you want to take or the behaviors you define that reflect this trait, and implement them in your daily life and interactions.
Wear a rubber band on your wrist or create other reminders to help you practice.
3. Find people with character – Surround yourself with people who reflect the character traits you want to embrace. They
will inspire and motivate you to build these traits in yourself. Try to avoid people who have a weak character and make bad
decisions.
4. Take some risks – Start taking small actions toward a goal or value that involve some level of risk. When you face the
possibility of failure and challenge yourself toward success, you become mentally and emotionally stronger and more
committed to your principles.
5. Stretch yourself – Create high standards and big goals for yourself. Expect the best of yourself and constantly work
toward that, even though you will have setbacks and occasional failures. Every stretch builds your confidence and
knowledge that your character is getting stronger.
6. Commit to self-improvement – Realize that building your character is a life-long endeavor. It is something that is
practiced both in the minutiae and the defining moments of your life. There will be times you step up to the character traits
you embrace and other times you falter, by remaining committed personal growth and learning about yourself, your
character will naturally improve, even though the failures.
Some Good Character Traits to Practice
1. Attract the trust and respect of other people.
2. Allows you to influence others.
3. Changes your perspective about failure.
4. Sustains you through difficult times or opposition.
5. Improves your self-esteem, self-respect, and confidence.
6. Creates a foundation for happy, healthy relationship.
7. Helps you stay committed to your values and goals.
8. Improves your chance of success in work and other endeavors.

Character Traits that Impact One's Happiness (lveboldandbloom.com)

Good character consists of defining your values and integrity based on time-tested principles and self-reflection and having
the courage to live your life accordingly.
1. Integrity – Integrity is having strong moral principles and core values and then conducting your life with those as your
guide. When you have integrity, you main your adherence to it whether or not other people are watching,
2. Honesty – Honesty is more than telling the truth. It's living the truth. It is being straightforward and trustworthy in all of
your interactions, relationships, and thoughts. Being honest requires self-honesty and authenticity.
3. Loyalty – Loyalty is faithfulness and devotion to your loved ones, your friends, and anyone with whom you have a trusted
relationship. Loyalty can also extend to your employer, the organizations you belong to, your community, and your country.
4. Respectfulness – You treat yourself and others with courtesy, kindness, deference, dignity, and civility. You offer basic
respect as a sign of your value for the worth of all people and your ability to accept the inherent flaws we all possess.
5. Responsibility – You accept personal, relational, career, community, and societal obligations even when they are difficult
or uncomfortable. You follow through on commitments and proactively create or accept accountability for your behavior
and choices.
6. Humility – You have a confident yet modest opinion of your own self- importance. You don't see yourself as "too good"
for other people or situations. You have a learning and growth mindset and the desire to express and experience gratitude
for what you have, rather than expecting you deserve more.
7. Compassion – You feel deep sympathy and pity for the suffering and misfortune of others, and you have a desire to do
something to alleviate their suffering.
8. Fairness – Using discernment, compassion, and integrity, you strive to make decisions and take actions based on what
you consider the ultimate best Course or outcome for all involved.
9. Forgiveness – You make conscious, intentional decisions to let go of resentment and anger toward someone for an offense
– whether or not forgiveness is sought by the offender. Forgiveness may or may not include pardoning, restoration, or
reconciliation. It extends both to others and to one's self.
10. Authenticity – You are able to be your real and true self, without pretension, posturing, or insincerity. You are capable
of showing appropriate vulnerability and self-awareness.
11. Courageousness – In spite of fear of danger, discomfort, or pain, you have the mental fortitude to carry on with a
commitment, plan, or decision, knowing it is the right or best course of action.
12. Generosity – You are willing to offer your time, energy, efforts, emotions, words, or assets without the expectation of
something in return. You offer these freely and often joyously.
13. Perseverance – Perseverance is the steadfast persistence and determination to continue on with a course of action,
belief, or purpose, even if it's difficult or uncomfortable in order to reach a higher goal or outcome.
14. Politeness – You are knowledgeable of basic good manners, common courtesies, and etiquette, and are willing to apply
those to all people you encounter. You desire to learn the skills of politeness in order to enhance your relationships and self-
esteem.
15. Kindness – Kindness is an attitude of being considerate, helpful, and benevolent for others. It is motivated by a positive
disposition and the desire for warm and pleasant interactions.
16. Lovingness – The ability to be loving toward those you love means showing them through your words, actions, and
expressions how deeply you care about them. It includes the willingness to be open and vulnerable.
17. Optimism – Optimism is a sense of hopefulness and confidence about the future. It involves a positive mental attitude
e in which you interpret life e events, people, and situations in a promising light.
18. Reliability – You can be consistently depended upon to follow through on your commitments, actions, and decisions.
You do what you say you will do.
19. Conscientiousness – You have the desire to do things well or to the best of your ability. You are thorough, careful,
efficient, organized, and vigilant in your efforts, based on your own principles or sense of what 1S Hgtt.
20. Self-discipline – You are able, through good habits or willpower, to overcome your desires or feelings in order to follow
the best course of action or to rise to your commitments or principles. You have a strong sense of self-control in order to
reach a desired goal.

Lesson 3: Stages of Moral Character

Introduction
A major task beginning in childhood and continuing into adolescence is discerning right from wrong. Psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) extended upon the foundation that Piaget built regarding cognitive development. Kohlberg
believed that moral development, like cognitive development, follows series of stages. To develop this theory, Kohlberg
posed moral dilemmas to people of all ages, and then he analyzed their answers to find evidence of their particular stage of
moral development.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, a comprehensive stage theory of moral development based on
Jean Piaget's theory of moral judgment for children (1932) and developed by Kohlberg in 1958. Cognitive in nature,
Kohlberg's theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one decides whether a behavior is right or wrong Thus,
the theoretical emphasis is on how one decides to respond to a moral dilemma, not what one decides or what one actually
does. The framework of Kohlberg's theory consists of six stages arranged sequentially in successive tiers of complexity. He
organized his six stages into three general levels of moral development (Encyclopedia Britannica).
Level 1: Pre-conventional level
At the pre-conventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rules imposed by authority figures are conformed
to in order to avoid punishment or receive rewards. This perspective involves the idea that what is right is what one can get
away with or what is personally satisfying. Level 1 has two stages.
Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation – Behavior is determined by consequences. The individual will obey in order
to avoid punishment.
Stage 2: Instrumental purpose orientation – Behavior is determined again by consequences. The individual focuses on
receiving rewards or satisfying personal needs.
Level 2: Conventional level
At the conventional level, conformity to social rules remains important to he individual. However, the emphasis
shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and social systems. 1he individual strives to support rules that are
set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the government in order to win their approval or to maintain social order.
Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation – Behavior is determined by social approval. The individual wants to maintain
or win the affection and approval of others by being a "good person."
Stage 4: Law and order orientation – Social rules and laws determine behavior. The individual now takes into
consideration a larger perspective, that of societal laws. Moral decision making becomes more than consideration of close
ties to others. The individual believes that rules and laws maintain social order that is worth preserving.
Level 3: Post-conventional or principled level
At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the perspective of his or her own society. Morality is defined
in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies. The individual attempts to take the
perspective of all individuals.
Stage 5: Social contract orientation – Individual rights determine behavior. The individual views laws and rules as flexible
tools for improving human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are exceptions to rules. When laws are not
consistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority, it does not bring about good for people and alternatives
should be considered.
Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation – According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning.
However, he claimed that some individuals will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is determined
by one's self-chosen ethical principles of conscience. These principles are abstract and universal in application. This type
of reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be affected by the decision.

Arguments Against Kohlberg’s Theory

How does this theory apply to males and females? Kohlberg (1969) felt that more males than females move past
stage four in their moral development. He went on to note that women seem to be deficient in their moral reasoning abilities.
These ideas were not well received by Carol Gilligan, a research assistant of Kohlberg, who consequently developed her
own ideas of moral development. In her groundbreaking book, in a "Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's
Development", Gilligan (1982) criticized her former mentor's theory because it was based only on upper class white men
and boys. She argued that women are not deficient in their moral reasoning – she proposed that males and females reason
differently. Girls and women focus more on staying connected and the importance of interpersonal relationships. Moral
development plays an important role in our social interactions. Understanding how and why individuals make decisions
regarding moral dilemmas can be very useful in many settings. Kohlberg's theory of moral development provides a
framework in which to investigate and begin to comprehend how moral reasoning develops within individuals.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional: Each level is
associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.
 CHAPTER 4: THE ACT
Lesson 1: Ethical Requirements
Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Recall immediate responses to moral dilemmas;
2. Differentiate responses based on reason and those based in feelings;
3. Compare reasonable and emotional responses;
4. Check real life cases against moral reasoning model;
5. Differentiate reason from will; and
6. Explain the role of mental frames in moral experience.

Introduction
During the last thirty years R. M. Hare has developed and defended a metaethical view about the meaning of moral
language which he calls "universal prescriptivism" (Potter, et.al, 1985). During this time Hare has also professed allegiance
to a normative theory which constitutes a version of preference utilitarianism. What has never been made entirely clear,
however, is his conception of the relationship between those two theories. In his earlier writings Hare maintained that:
Ethical theory provides only a clarification of the conceptual framework within which moral reasoning takes place; it is,
therefore, in the required sense, neutral as between different moral opinions. On my view, there is absolutely no content for
a moral prescription that is ruled out by logic or by the definition of terms. Fortunately, Hare's most recent writings shed
considerable light on these issues. In his important paper, "Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism", and in his recent book, Moral
Thinking, Hare appears to have modified his theory in at least one very important respect. He now holds that universal
prescriptivism is not only not normatively neutral but in fact entails preference.
Based on Hare's view, to prescribe acting in accordance with a universal moral principle from which, in conjunction
with statements specifying one's beliefs concerning the relevant facts, the judgment can be derived. To in turn determine
whether one can prescribe acting in accordance with a universal principle is to determine whether one would actually choose
to perform that action if one knew that one would have to play, in a series of possible worlds otherwise identical to the
actual world, the role of each person (including oneself) who would be affected. Moreover, it is not enough that one simply
imagines oneself, with one's own interests, in the place of those other persons – rather, one must imagine oneself as being
in their place while having, in turn, their interests and desires.

Reason and Impartiality

The ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others. We are capable
of acting toward others in such a way as to increase or decrease the quality of their lives. We are capable of helping or
harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding when we are doing the one and when the other. This
is so because we have the capacity to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and recognize how we would be
affected if someone were to act toward us as we are acting toward others. It is said that reason gives rise to ethical discourse
and healthy debate and engagement and if this is true, the question must be asked: Have we lost all reason that we can resort
to insults, that we fail to engage one another in a constructive and thoughtful way, even as we differ ideologically and
politically? It Is said that "reason requires impartiality" and this statement has serious implications for truthfulness and
reason. Reason and impartiality are not absolute to any particular group of people, while morality is absolute. Whatever is
considered wrong morally within a certain group of people cannot be debated through reason. Morality decides the outcome
first and then employs reason to justify it. For impartiality, fairness is given more importance where people are supposed to
be treated equally before the law. While morality may apply generally to a particular group of people, the same cannot be
said of reason and impartiality because the two take a more individualized approach. These are however important because
they help in understanding the moral perception, for example impartiality introduces an aspect of treating people the same,
which is a moral issue

What is Reason?
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and
changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information (Kompridis, 2000). It is
closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and
is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred
to as rationality.
 Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The philosophical field of logic studies ways in
which humans reason formally through argument (Hintikka, 2013). Reason is a declaration made to explain or justify action,
decision, or conviction.
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of others-
that warrant our praise- and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others-- and thus warrant our criticism. Developing
one's ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human nature a strong tendency toward egotism, prejudice,
self-justification, and self-deception. These tendencies are exacerbated by powerful sociocentric cultural influences that
shape our lives- not least of which is the mass media. These tendencies can be actively opposed only through the systematic
cultivation of fair-mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of others. We can never
eliminate our egocentric tendencies absolutely and finally. But we can actively fight them as we learn to develop as ethical
persons.
Reasons have everything to do with ethics: if you have no good reasons for an act or a belief, then you can't have
thought it through very well and maybe you shouldn't be doing it or believing it at all. It's quite scary to think that there are
people out there who are voting, protesting, financing causes, or running campaigns without any clear idea of why they are
doing it. Each and every one of us should be clear about our reasons for our values, beliefs, and behaviors, and we should
each be able to give a reasoned account of them to others.
If someone asks you why you believe or act as you do, don't just say, “Because I believe (or act) that way.” Give
them a reason why but before you give a reason why, ask yourself why-and keep on asking yourself why. Only then will
your life become meaningful to you. Giving reasons for our actions is important socially, too. It either connects us to others
or divides us from them. So much of our social life depends on a shared understanding of what’s true, right, and appropriate.
When this understanding breaks down, the only way to restore it is by asking the reason why we disagree with one another.

Predicting Consequences
Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of an action before we act. There are always consequences
when we take the action, we think is right, and when we try to be good persons, and usually these include unintended as
well as intended outcomes. When the likely beneficial outcomes of acting on an ethical presumption seem to outweigh the
likely adverse outcomes, then predicting consequences confirms our presumption. But when we predict that the adverse
consequences will outweigh the beneficial consequences, even when we are obeying an ethical rule or following an inspiring
story, then we should consider whether to make an exception to the rule or to look to a different story for guidance. We
must remember, however, that before we act, we can never know for certain what the consequences will be. Therefore, we
should take care in predicting what will result from acting on an ethical presumption. In doing ethics, we look at rules (about
duty and rights) and at stories (about character and relationships) to construct a presumption, and then test this presumption
by predicting what we do know (and don't know) about the likely consequences of acting on it.

Impartiality
Impartiality also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a principle of justice holding that decisions should
be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another
tor improper reasons (Wikipedia). Someone who is impartial is not directly involved in a particular situation, and is,
therefore, able to give a fair opinion or decision about it. We might be impartial because this promotes our desire to be fair
or because it promotes our well-being and self-respect and earns us social approval. Or we might appeal to the social good,
or to the inherent badness of violating impartiality. Impartiality makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious
beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs,
and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

Consequences of the Fundamental Principle of Impartiality

The consequences of the principle of Impartiality are as follows:
1. It establishes one of its key values: non-discrimination, which is one of the most important elements of all aspects of the
protection of the human being: human rights law, humanitarian law, refugee law.
2. Although the need to "enjoy the confidence of all" is mentioned about the principle of Neutrality, this also applies to the
principle of Impartiality. Only an impartial action can give the image of an organization that can be trusted by people to be
assisted or protected. Therefore, systems have to be put in place to ensure that the people benefitting from the action of the
Red Cross and Red Crescent are those whose vulnerability is the highest.
3. Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside. To illustrate the difference between the two
notions: a National Society that refuses to provide its services to a specific group of people, because of their ethnic origin,
fails to observe the rule of non-discrimination; whereas a National Society staff member who, in the exercise of his
functions, favors a friend by giving him better treatment than that given to others, contravenes the principle of impartiality.
Therefore, staff and volunteers should be trained to ensure that correct behavior becomes almost a reflex. Impartiality is one
of the more commonly recognized aspects of the role of the Mediator. This does not mean that the Mediator should somehow
become inhuman and not have a feeling of bias towards one party or another, but that he/she practices Ina way that minimizes
any manifestation of this bias, This is an important distinction to make. No-one can genuinely claim to be impartial, but
he/she can continually review his/her own feelings and thoughts about someone or a situation in order to acknowledge this
and then monitor, and adjust where necessary, his/her practice as a mediator in the light of this awareness.
Similarly, anyone supporting people in dispute will be more effective if he/she maintains his/her impartiality in the situation,
even if one of the people involved is someone, he/she knows. There can be a temptation to automatically take sides' when
we know someone who is in dispute but ultimately this often just entrenches that person even more in his/her despair, anger,
disillusionment etc. and can make him/her less likely to be able to resolve it. Hence, impartiality serves a purpose in
supporting conflict resolution whether we are a mediator or not. In mediation and in other conflict resolution support,
striving for impartiality means that the process of resolution is untainted by the Mediator's biases and prejudices, so that the
disputants can focus on resolving their own concerns rather than have to respond to ʻinput from the mediator. The mediator
creates a channel for communication and not an obstacle to it and remaining impartial allows for the channel to be as
unimpeded as possible. The challenges that mediators face in maintaining impartiality will be unique to each mediator.

Reasons and Impartiality as Requirement of Ethics

In the Euthyphro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would prosecute his own father for murder.
The conventional assumption he seems to be making is that filial relationships impose special constraints that may override
other considerations, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro, by contrast, a murder is a murder. The fact that it was
committed by his father has no bearing upon what he is required to do about it. He must prosecute his father just as he would
a stranger. In the dialogue, the issue is quickly dropped, unresolved. This brief passage can serve as an emblem of a
perplexing range of problems that bedevil ethical theory - problems now typically grouped together under the heading of
impartiality. In one way or another, all of these problems concern the way in which modern moral philosophy seems to
force detachment from self-interest, privileged personal relationships, the demands of the moment, and a fully situated first-
person point of view, in favor of aggregate or common good, equal and universal relationships, long-range considerations,
and the point of view of a disinterested, omniscient observer. There are at least three distinct elements that run through these
problems, namely:
1. We grant the powerful and persistent force of self-interest in our lives, and assume that morality must somehow give us
reasons for constraining such motives;
2. We grant that rules and principles of conduct will be useless or counter-productive in prely local or short-range terms,
and assume that morality must give us reasons for acting in principle in spite of it;
3. We grant that our favorites and friends have special claims on our attention, and assume that morality must give us reasons
for occasionally denying such claims.
In order to provide such reasons, moral theories standardly argue that our selfish, local, and purely personal interests are
morally indistinguishable from many others and that reason requires us to treat similar cases similarly. Morality, thus,
requires that we should not play favorites, or manipulate rules to our personal advantage, or make ad hoc exceptions for
ourselves. In that sense it requires us to be impartial (Becker, 1991).

Reasons and Feelings

Broadly stated ethics is "concerned with making sense of intuitions" (Light, et. al, 2003) about what is right and
good. We do this by reasoning about our feelings. Biologists verify that "Emotion is never truly divorced from decision
making, even when it is channeled aside by an effort of will" (Blakeslee, et. al, 2007). Physicists now confirm that seeing
the world with complete objectivity is not possible, as our observations affect what we perceive (Werner, 2002).
Moral philosopher Mary Midgley (1983) writes "Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it, and vice versa. There
is no siding onto which emotions can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought." We rely on our reason to guard against
feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument, and also to refine and
explain a felt conviction that passes the test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to move us to act
morally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane.
Scientific evidence supports this approach to ethics. As children, we manifest empathy before developing our
rational abilities, and there is evidence for the same order of development in the evolution of the human brain (Carey, 2007).
"Empathy is a unique form of intentionality in which we are directed toward the other's experience" This involves feeling,
at least to some extent, what another person is feeling. "In empathy we experience another human being directly as a person-
that is, as an intentional being whose bodily gestures and actions are expressive of his or her experiences or states of mind"
(Thompson, 2007).
 Empathy enables us to identify with others, and may generate a "perception of the other as a being who deserves
concern and respect." This does not guarantee ethical conduct, but it makes morality possible. "Aid to others in need would
never be internalized as a duty without the fellow-feeling that drives people to take an interest in one another. Moral
sentiments came first; moral principles second" (de Waal, 2007).
Conscience, at its best, reflects our integration of moral sentiments and principles. We should test our conscience,
however, by explaining to others the reasons for our moral presumptions, and we should listen carefully to concerns they
may have. This is especially important when dealing with ethical issues among family members or friends, but applies as
well to concerns about the environment.
Moreover, both our feelings and our reason reflect our participation in a moral community, or more likely several
moral communities. As children, our moral community is our family, which soon broadens to include our friends and then
is defined by the rules of our school. As adults, our moral community extends from our family to our friends (at work, in
our neighborhood or a support group, and perhaps in our religious community), to our city, our country, the people of the
world whose moral and legal rights are defined by international law, and perhaps also to a moral community that includes
non-human organisms and ecosystems.

Ethics vs Feelings
Many times, there's a conflict between what we naturally feel and what is considered to be ethical. Our subconscious
reaction to a news event might be hatred, jealousy or other negative feelings, but we might not be able to morally argue why
we feel that way. My guess is that the human race developed those subconscious reactions as an evolutionary mechanism
to survive. Our ancestors wouldn't have been able to find and obtain food if they hadn't fought for it. Arguing about ethics
would've meant that you’ll have to stay hungry and die. The problem is most of our feelings in today's world are unethical,
politically incorrect or even outright harmful. It takes a great deal of effort to retrospect and self-analyze our feelings to
judge whether they are ethical or not. Let us take a few common examples and see how to tackle those feelings Groupism,
Patriotism, Dunbar's number, Negative feelings to content on Social Networks,
1. Groupism
a. Natural feeling: I am part of a group. I am supposed to help this group become better. I am also supposed to compete
with other groups.
b. Reasoning: Being part of a herd made it easier for us ancestors to survive in the wild. There were so many survival
benefits that belonging to a group brought. Naturally, our ancestors started developing good feelings about belonging to a
group.
c. Ethical viewpoint: Help the group. Help other groups too. There is no compelling reason to compete in today's times of
peace.
2. Patriotism
a. Natural feeling: I was born in a place. I am supposed to help people in the geographical vicinity around me. There are
human-decided borders that define my country. Those outside the border don't deserve that much attention as those inside
the border do.
b. Reasoning: Patriotism is Groupism in a higher scale. Most borders were drawn for political benefits by a small group of
individuals running that country. There have been countless stories of propaganda by governments to motivate people to
join their wars to fight people over borders. We humans tend to justify these efforts as noble.
c. Ethical viewpoint: Wars are always bad. There is no reason to be proud of your country just because you were born in
it. It is okay to be in your country and help your country because you are used to it. But it is also okay to move to other
countries and help those countries.
3. Dunbar’s number
a. Natural feeling: I cannot maintain more than 150 stable relationships.
b. Reasoning: Our brains have limited capacity and it becomes mentally hard to maintain more relationships.
c. Ethical viewpoint: Acceding to the Dunbar's number promotes Groupism. Just as we push ourselves to become better
humans, we should also try to push the Dunbar number limit further. Accepting that all life forms in this world (and outside
the world if life exists) are part of the same group counters the negative effects of Groupism.
4. Negative feelings to content on Social Networks
a. Natural feeling: I hate what’s being posted on Facebook. They are just stupid selfies, people gloating their achievements
or just distracting. unproductive content.
b. Reasoning: Many of us have been taught to compete with others since our childhood. We tend to compare ourselves with
others. We don't like selfies because they are attention-seeking and we look down upon those who seek attention.
Distracting, unproductive content is noise to us and we cannot handle too much noise in our daily life.
C. Ethical viewpoint: We don't have to compete with our friends. We can applaud their life achievements without
comparing our lives with theirs.
We don't have to look down upon those who seek attention. Comedians, actors and other entertainers are attention-seeking.
But we don't look down upon them. 1t1s up to us to filter out noise in our lives. Social networks aren't thrusted into our
face. We can choose to stay away from them if they are noisy. Or even better, adjust the content shown in our feed and tailor
it to our comfort.

Conclusion
It is easy to give in to our feelings. An analogy would be with unhealthy foods. It is easy to choose unhealthy foods
because they are tasty and easy to prepare. But we hit the gym, avoid those foods and exercise because we want to become
better individuals. Similarly, we can take the ethical route, avoid negative feelings and exercise those reactions because we
want to become better individuals.

Steps in Moral Reasoning Model

Ethical reasoning is how to think about issues of right or wrong. Processes of reasoning can be taught, and the
college or university is an appropriate place to teach these processes because so often it is taught no place else, and because
it is essential for a successful adulthood. Although parents and especially religious institutions may teach ethics, they do not
always teach ethical reasoning, Academic courses are the logical place to teach the cognitive process of reasoning especially
as ethical issues relate to the content of a particular discipline. No matter how knowledgeable one is about his/her profession,
if the knowledge is not backed by ethical reasoning, long-term success in the career is likely to be severely compromised.
Ethical reasoning is hard because there are so many ways to fail. Ethical behavior is far harder to display than one
would expect simply on the basis of what we learn from our parents, from school, and from our religious training (Sternberg,
2009). To intervene, individuals must go through a series of steps, and unless all of the steps are completed, they are not
likely to behave in an ethical way, regardless of the amount of training they have received in ethics, and regardless of their
levels of other types of skills. Given the fact that ethical dilemmas may not always be readily resolved through the use of
codes of ethics, it might be useful to have a framework in which to analyze and make ethical decisions. The following
ethical decision-making model comes from the work of Corey et. al. (1998).
Step 1: ldentify the problem. What facts make this an ethical situation?
Step 2: ldentify the potential issues involved. What level of ethical issues are we dealing with: systemic, corporate, or
individual?
Step 3: Review relevant ethical guidelines. Given the facts and the ethical issues, what alternative actions are possible in
this situation?
Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. Who will be affected by the alternatives and to what degree?
Step 5: Obtain Consultation. Use ethical principles to decide on the best alternative. The ethics of each of the most plausible
alternatives is assessed using ethical principles or rules.
Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. Can the best alternative be put into effect? Having decided on
one alternative, we need to see whether there are any practical constraints which might prevent that alternative from being
acted upon.
Step 7: List the consequences of the probable courses of action.
Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. Implementing the best alternative. Having selected the
best alternative which is not ruled out by practical constraints, we need to decide on the steps necessary to carry it out. It is
extremely important that you keep your immediate supervisor and all involved parties informed during this process. After
you have made your decision, take some time to reflect on the process and to review what you have learned with a trusted
supervisor or colleague.

The Difference Between Reason and Will

Will, generally, is that faculty of the mind which selects, at the moment of decision, the strongest desire from among
the various desires present. Will does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism for choosing from
among one's desires. Within philosophy the will is important as one of the distinct Parts of the mind - along with reason and
understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action.
When we become conscious of ourselves, we realize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving,
wanting, and desiring. These are characteristics of that which we call our will. Schopenhauer affirmed that we can
legitimately think that all other phenomena are also essentially and basically will. According to him, will "is the innermost
essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting force of nature, and also
in the deliberate conduct of man." Schopenhauer (1998) said that his predecessors mistakenly thought that the will depends
on knowledge. According to him, though, the will is primary and uses knowledge in order to find an object that will satisfy
its craving. That which, in us, we call will is Kant's "thing in itself", according to Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer's philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the expression of an insatiable will to life. It is
through the will that mankind finds all their suffering. Desire for more is what causes this suffering. He argues that only
aesthetic pleasure creates momentary escape from the will. Since the derivation of actions from laws requires reason, the
will is nothing but practical reason. To explain, the will is guided by reason, where, as determined by reason, action is
performed according to rational requirements, or laws of reason. Reason directs action by "determination of the will" as
long as the will is guided by reason. Where the will is determined by reason in accordance with which action is performed,
reason is practical, i.e. action-directing. Reason has, in other words, the capacity to direct action. Further, where the will is
guided by reason, it is free.

Lesson 2: Moral Theories

Introduction
A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain or predict a set of facts or Concepts. A moral theory, then,
explains why a certain action is Wrong or why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine
right and wrong conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a reasoned way,
and so evaluate, specific moral issues. For the strategist, a useful theory provides a way of understanding the dynamics of
the complex strategic environment, recognizable indicators or warning signals of change, and agreed-upon means of dealing
with change. Simply put, a theory is one's notion of cause and effect.

Moral Theories
Through the ages, there have emerged multiple common moral theories and traditions. We will cover each one
briefly below with explanations and how they differ from other moral theories. Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories,
unlike virtue and deontological theories, hold that only the consequences, or outcomes, of actions matter morally. According
to this view, acts are deemed to be morally right solely on the basis of their consequences. For instance, most people would
agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person's life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of
an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations,
consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good.
Consequentialism is based on two principles:
1. Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act;
2. The better consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act.
It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma: A person should choose the action that maximizes good
consequences and it gives this general guidance on how to live: People should live so as to maximize good consequences.
Moral Subjectivism. Right and wrong is determined by what you, the subject, just happens to think or ‘feel’ is
right or wrong. In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind,
and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ lose their meaning because so long
as someone thinks or feels that some action is right, there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you
cannot object to anyone’s behavior assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right.
This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral
grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues (Brandt, 1959).
Moral Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary
because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or
conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held
by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person
of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited
to, perception.
There are different types of Moral Subjectivism:
1. Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements reflect sentiments, personal preferences and feelings rather than
objective facts.
2. Individualist Subjectivism: the view originally put forward by Protagoras, that there are as many distinct scales of good
and evil as there are individuals in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains that every human being
ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
3. Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally right is for it to be approved of by
society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right for people in different societies and different periods in
history.
4. ldeal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer (a
being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and David Hume espoused early
versions of the ldeal Observer Theory, and Roderick Firth (1917-1987) is responsible for a more sophisticated modern
version.
5. Ethical Egoism. Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary to your
self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism - that we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism does
not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods example, wisdom, political success, but rather
that we will ideally act so as to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forego some immediate pleasures for
the sake of achieving some long-term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others However, egoists will
help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because
He wants to (perhaps because he/she derives pleasure out of helping others) or because he/she thinks there will be some
personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they think we are all by
nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism that the person who helps others at the expense of
his/her self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of
morality - i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not
further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.
6. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, first popularized by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th
century, is a theory that holds that the best way to make a moral decision is to look at the potential consequences of each
available choice, and then pick the option that either does most to increase happiness or does least to increase suffering.
Utilitarianism, also known as consequentialism, is often summed up asa philosophy of "The greatest good for the greatest
number." (NOTE: This is discussed fully in the succeeding chapter)
7. Deontology. Deontology or Deontological Ethics is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of
actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to
the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics). What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with a moral norm: Right
takes priority over Good.
The word ‘deontology’ derives from the Greek words deon for duty and logos for science (or study). In
contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally
required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess
our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are
and should be.
Deontology is a duty-based moral theory. Deontology states that society needs rules in order to function, and that a
person can only be called moral to the extent that he abides by those rules. The most famous and eloquent exponent of
deontology is generally agreed to be Immanuel Kant. Kant coined the following maxim, known as the Categorical
Imperative, to help people decide which actions should be governed by rules, "Act only according to that maxim by which
you can also will that it would become a universal law" In other words, people should only do things that they would be
happy to see everyone does. For example, people shouldn't lie, because if everyone lies all the time then society would
collapse.
Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to
fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn't ethical. Kant's deontology, sometimes called deontological ethics,
starts by acknowledging that actions and their outcomes are independent things. Basically, there are things you have to do,
even though you know they are wrong, such as shooting that intruder to protect your family. According to deontology, you
need to focus on the act, such as protecting your family, and not the likely death it will mean for the intruder.
8. Virtue Ethics. A virtue is an excellent trait of character. It is a disposition, well entrenched in its possess or something
that, as we say, goes all the way down, o notice, expect, value, feel, desire, choose, act, and react in certain characteristic
ways. Virtue ethics emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the
acts themselves (Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism). To possess a virtue is to bea certain sort of person
with a certain complex mindset. A significant aspect of this mindset is the wholehearted acceptance of a distinctive range
of considerations as reasons for action. Virtue ethics states that only good people can make good moral decisions. Therefore,
the best way to be moral is to constantly seek to improve oneself. Virtue ethicists list a number of qualities that they believe
are universal, and are appreciated in all cultures. They include wisdom, prudence, loyalty, honesty, temperance, bravery,
magnanimity, and justice. Virtue ethicists argue that if a person tries his best to embody these traits, then by definition he
will always be in a good position to make moral judgments.
There are three main elements of Virtue Ethics:
1. Eudaimonism. It is the classical formulation of Virtue Ethics. It holds that the proper goal of human life is eudaimonia
(which can be variously translated as "happiness," "well-being" or the "good life"), and that this' goal can be achieved by a
lifetime of practicing "arête" (the virtues) in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of "phronesis" (practical
wisdom) to resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise. Indeed, such a virtuous life would in itself constitute
eudaimonia, which should be seen as an objective, not a subjective, state, characterized by the well-lived life, irrespective
of the emotional state of the person experiencing it. A virtue is a habit or quality that allows individuals to succeed at their
purpose. Therefore, Virtue Ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological example, it includes an account of the purpose or
meaning of human life, a matter of some contention among philosophers since the beginning of time. Aristotle, with whom
Virtue Ethics is largely identified, categorized the virtues as moral virtues (including prudence, justice, fortitude and
temperance) and intellectual virtues (including "sophia" or theoretical wisdom), and "phronesis" or practical wisdom.
Aristotle further argued that each of the moral virtues was a golden mean, or desirable middle ground, between two
undesirable extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is a mean between the two vices of cowardice and foolhardiness.
This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By practicing being honest,
brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing
virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.
2. Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers Annette Baier (1987) in the second half of the 20th century,
and was motivated by the idea that men think in masculine terms such as justice and autonomy, whereas women think in
feminine terms such as caring. It calls for a change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues
exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-sacrifice, etc., which have been
marginalized because society has not adequately valued the contributions of women. It emphasizes the importance of
solidarity, community and relationships rather than universal standards and impartiality. It argues that instead of doing the
right thing even if it requires personal cost or sacrificing the interest of family or community members, as the traditional
consequentialist and deontological approaches suggest, we can, and indeed should, put the interests of those who are close
to us above the interests of complete strangers.
Agent-Based Theories, as developed recently by Michael Slote (1993), give an account of virtue based on our
common-sense intuitions about which character traits are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc.), which
we can identify by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. The evaluation of actions is therefore dependent
on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions.
The Theory of Natural Rights. Natural rights theorists believe that every person is endowed with certain
inalienable rights, such as the right to life, the right to own property, and the right to liberty. Natural rights theorists argue
that these rights are self-evident, and would exist even if nobody believed in them. The reason that natural rights theorists
hold these rights as self- evident is that they are essential to the flourishing of human happiness and the foundation of civil
society. For example, they argue that without the right to own property, there is no incentive to create property and therefore
there is no mechanism by which society can advance (Pangle, l985).
Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation mankind. To serve that purpose. he
reasoned, individuals have both a right a tuty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since
they act outside the law of reason.
Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as
they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching. By “property,”
Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain
circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well-being. Jefferson,
however, substituted the phrase, “pursuit of happiness,” which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity
as well as the duty to help those in want.
The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the
people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and
the ruled but, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with “a long train of abuses” over an extended period,
the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.
3. Moral Relativism. Moral relativism is a theory which states that no one person's morals are better or worse than any
other. Relativists argue that a person's moral code is shaped by the society in which he is raised, and that no society is
inherently better or worse than any other.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other's differing moral values, given that
there are no universal moral principles.
Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is always
one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would say, "When in Rome, do as
the Romans do." Relativistic positions may specifically see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural
boundaries (Cultural Relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (Ethical Subjectivism). A related but slightly
different concept is that of Moral Pluralism (or Value Pluralism), the idea that there are several values which may be equally
correct and fundamental, and yet conflict with each other example, the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a
mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable (Rachels, 1999).

Lesson 3: Mental Frames

Introduction
To put theories or mental models to work, we use an approach referred to as systems thinking. While strategic
thinking involves consideration of the big picture, systems thinking begins when we consider a real-world phenomenon and
seek to understand the cause-and-effect relationships characteristic of a “system.” A systems thinker wonders how an
organization works, looking at the parts as dynamic aspects of the whole. It is the interrelationships of the elements of an
organization that interests the systems thinker.

The Mental Frames

Organization leaders use mental frames to simplify the world they are observing and to make the decision-making
process more efficient. Under normal conditions, mental frames are generally very useful.
Mental framing is a selective, reductive excessively narrow way by which a question or information used to take a
decision is expressed, presented, worded, formulated, categorized, and pictured.
A framing is done by the agent itself who designates his selective perceptions and representations of realities and
issues and by the advisors or third parties who feed the agent with a selective formulation that disseminates their own picture
of things. Example, 50 pesos a day seems less costly than 18000 pesos a month; Saying "there is 50% chance of success"
instead of "50% chances to fail" could change a decision (the famous half-full or half-empty glass is a common expression,
generally used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for optimism (half full) or pessimism (half
empty), or as a general litmus test to simply determine an individual's worldview).
Some framing is due to pure reasoning errors, logical fallacies, confusions, and bogus information or knowledge
that sneakily infiltrated the memory at one time or another. Then, the decisions use mixed up or misunderstood notions or
facts.
Framing is the process of understanding and interpreting a particular event. Goffman (1974) defines frames as
"principles of organization which govern events at least social ones and our subjective involvement in them". Frames are
the "schemata of interpretation" that allow individuals "to locate, perceive, identify, and 1abel a seemingly infinite number
of concrete occurrences... rendering what would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is
meaningful".
Gitlin (1980) suggests that "Frames are principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit
theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters."
Shon (1983) describes framing as mental device that sets the boundaries of our attention, while Ahn and Erein
(2006) model frames in terms of different levels of awareness.
Mental frames are important in decision making not only by simplifying the chaotic situation that the agent faces,
but also by defining the problem itself. Brubaker, Loveman, and Stamatov (2004) suggest that "cognitive perspectives are
not things in the world but ways of seeing the world". Kahneman and Tversky (1979) incorporate framing as an essential
part of their prospect theory, where they distinguish two discrete phases in a decision-making process: a phase of framing,
editing and analysis, followed by a phase of evaluation of the various prospects. Later studies (Tversky and Kahneman,
1981; 1986) have documented large and systematic changes in an individual's preference caused by variations in the framing
of the available options in terms of gains and losses.
Individuals use frames to simplify the interconnections in their environment. In that sense, framing acts similar to
a model is an attempt to simplify complex issues. Consequently, a'mental frame carries along the shortcomings of theoretical
models - its deduction results in high efficiency in decision making since the agent uses mental shortcuts and rules of thumb
instead of considering all possible relations; however, it also results in a major drawback since anything what is left out of
the frame is ignored. A basic notion underlying much of the literature on heuristics is that these mental shortcuts are many
times systematically biased (Kahneman, et. al, 2000).
Mental frame is a frame through which we view the world. We attend to what is inside our frame, oblivious
sometimes to what occurs outside our frames, which can lead to dangerous blind spots. Frames can be useful insofar as they
direct our attention toward the information we seek. But they can also constrict our peripheral vision, keeping us from
noticing important information and, perhaps, opportunities. Once liberating, mental models can become shackles.
The Framing Bias
Blanking all parts of the universe that are outside the frame. Framing becomes easily a damaging mental bias, which
distorts the perception and analysis of an issue and the whole decision-making process. The framing bias gives a selective
(framed) and simplistic picture of reality. This leads to flawed decisions with unwanted effects. This has some relation with
heuristic:
1. Representativeness heuristic in which we take simplified stereotypes as models, and;
2. Availability heuristics such as our first perception/interpretation of things, or the memory of a recent event or data seen
as similar, but often unrelated or irrelevant, that jumps into the mind. Biased mental frames can result from a kind of
cognitive myopia a narrow mental selectivity (selection bias), or a representation that is deliberately reductive, manipulative,
one-sided, partial, truncated, non-neutral.

The consequences of deciding with blinders.

To use narrow, selective (or wrong) data, explanations, ideas and approaches about either an issue (i.e. stressing
gains or losses) or the facts themselves:
1. Thwart the ensuing reasoning, conclusions and decisions. As a common example, gives usually a too favorable or too
unfavorable impression (positive or negative framing);
2. Those flawed decisions bring dubious, damaging or at least "anomalous" practical effects.
 CHAPTER 5: THE EARLY PHILOSOPHERS AND THEIR WORKS
Lesson 1: The Early Philosophers
Learning Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Articulate what virtue ethics is;
2. Critique virtue ethics;
3. Make use of virtue ethics;
4. Understand and articulate the rights theory;
5. Differentiate legal from moral right

Introduction
Certain early Greeks from lonia (Asia Minor) and southern Italy asked questions about the world around them.
Instead of attributing its creation to anthropomorphic gods, these early philosophers’ broke tradition and sought rational
explanations. Their speculation formed the early basis for science and natural philosophy. After about the 4th or 5th century
A.D., Europe entered the so-called Dark Ages, during which little or no new thought was developed. By the 11th century,
though, there was a renewed flowering of thought, both in Christian Europe and in Muslim and Jewish Middle East. Most
of the philosophers of this time were mainly concerned with proving the existence of God and with reconciling Christianity/
Islam with the classical philosophy of Greece (particularly Aristotelianism). This period also saw the establishment of the
first universities, which was an important factor in the subsequent development of philosophy.

The Early Philosophers

While moral theory does not invent morality, or even reflection on it, it does try to bring systematic thinking to bear
on the phenomenon. Ancient moral theory, however, does not attempt to be a comprehensive account of all the phenomena
that fall under the heading of morality. Rather, assuming piecemeal opinions and practices, it tries to capture its underlying
essence.

Aristotle on Ethics
The most famous and thorough of Aristotle's ethical works is his Nicomachean Ethics. This work is an inquiry into
the best life for human beings to live. The life of human flourishing or happiness (eudaimonia) is the best life. It is important
to note that what we translate as "happiness" is quite different for Aristotle than it is for us. We often consider happiness to
be a mood or an emotion, but Aristotle considers it to be an activity--a way of living one's life. Thus, it is possible for one
to have an overall happy life, even if that life has its moments of sadness and pain (Barnes, 1984).
Happiness is the practice of virtue or excellence (arete), and so it is important to know the two types of virtue:
character virtue, the discussion of which makes up the bulk of the Ethics, and intellectual virtue. Character excellence comes
about through habit-one habituates oneself to character excellence by knowingly practicing virtues. To be clear, it is possible
to perform an excellent action accidentally or without knowledge, but doing so would not make for an excellent person, just
as accidentally writing in a grammatically correct way does not make for a grammarian. One must be aware that one is
practicing the life of virtue (Broadie, 1991).
Aristotle arrives at the idea that " the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue" is the best life for human beings
through the "human function" argument. If, says Aristotle, human beings have a function or work (ergon) to perform, then
we can know that performing that function well will result in the best sort of life. The work or function of an eve is to see
and to see well. Just as each part of the body has a function, says Aristotle, so too must the human being as a whole have a
function. This is an argument by analogy. The function of the human being is logos or reason, and the more thoroughly one
lives the life of reason, the happier one's life will be (Kraut, 2014).
So, the happiest life is a practice of virtue, and this is practiced under the guidance of reason. Examples of character
virtues would be courage, temperance, liberality, and magnanimity (Rorty, 1984). One must habitually practice these virtues
in order to be courageous, temperate, and so forth. For example, the courageous person knows when to be courageous, and
acts on that knowledge whenever it is appropriate to do. Each activity of any particular character virtue has a related
excessive or deficient action. The excess related to courage, for example, is rashness, and the deficiency is cowardice. Since
excellence is rare, most people will tend more towards an excess or deficiency than towards the excellent action. Aristotle's
advice here is to aim for the opposite of one's typical tendency, and that eventually this will lead one closer to the excellence.
For example, if one tends towards the excess of self-indulgence, it might be best to aim for insensibility, which will
eventually lead the agent closer to temperance.
 Friendship is also a necessary part of the happy life. There are three types of friendship, none of which is excusive
of the other: a friendship of excellence, a friendship of pleasure, and a friendship of utility. A friendship of excellence is
based upon virtue, and each friend enjoys and contemplates the excellence of his/ her friend. Since the friend is like another
self, contemplating a friend's virtue will help us in the practice of virtue for ourselves. A mark of good friendship is that
friends "live together," that is that friends spend a substantial amount of time together, since a substantial time apart will
likely weaken the bond of friendship. Also, since the excellent person has been habituated to a life of excellence, his/her
character is generally firm and lasting. Likewise, the friendship of excellence is the least changeable and most lasting form
of friendship.
The friendships of pleasure and use are the most changeable forms of Friendship since the things we find pleasurable
or useful tend to change over a lifetime. For example, if a friendship forms out of a mutual love for beer, but the interest of
one of the friends later turns towards wine, the friendship would likely dissolve, Again, if a friend is merely one of utility,
then that friendship will likely dissolve when it is no longer useful.
Since the best life is a life of virtue or excellence, and since we are closer to excellence the more thoroughly, we
fulfill our function, the best life is the life of theoria or contemplation. This is the most divine life, since one comes closest
to the pure activity of thought. It is the. most self-sufficient life since one can think even when one is alone. What does one
contemplate or theorize about? One contemplates one's knowledge of unchanging things. Some have criticized Aristotle
saying that this sort of life seems uninteresting, since we seem to enjoy, he pursuit of knowledge more than just having
knowledge. For Aristotle, however, the contemplation of unchanging things is an activity full of wonder. Seeking knowledge
might be good, but it is done for the sake of a greater end, namely having knowledge and contemplating what one knows.
For example, Aristotle considered the cosmos to be eternal and unchanging. So, one might have knowledge of astronomy,
but it is the contemplation of what this knowledge is about that is most wonderful. The Greek word theoria is rooted in a
verb for seeing, hence our word "theatre." So, in contemplation or theorizing, one comes face to face with what one knows
(Barnes, 1991).
The way Aristotle sketches the highest good for man as involving both a practical and theoretical side, with the two
sides necessary for each other, is also in the tradition of Socrates and Plato-as opposed to pre-Socratic philosophy. As Burger
(2008) points out "The Ethics does not end at its apparent peak, identifying perfect happiness with the life devoted to theōria;
instead, it goes on to introduce the need for a study of legislation, on the grounds that it is not sufficient only to know about
virtue, but one should try to put that knowledge to use." At the end of the book, according to Burger, the thoughtful reader
is led to understand that "the end we are seeking is what we have been doing" while engaging with the Ethics.
Aristotle also made mention of telos. A telos is derived from the Greek word for “end,” “purpose,” or “goal.” It is
an end or purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology",
roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology
figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. It is central to nearly all philosophical theories of history,
such as those of Hegel and Marx. One running debate in modern philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological
language (as in the "purposes" of various organs or life-processes) is unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that
can ultimately be spelled out non-teleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological vocabulary:
on Davidson's account, an action is just something an agent does with an intention--that is, looking forward to some end to
be achieved by the action.

St. Thomas Aquinas on Virtue

Thomas broad account of virtues as excellences or perfections of the various human powers normally echoes
Aristotle, both with regard to the nature of a virtue and many specific virtues. The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas
(1225-1274) involves a merger of at least two apparently disparate traditions: Aristotelian eudaimonism and Christian
theology. On the one hand, Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that an act is good or bad depending on whether it
contributes to or deters us from our proper human end-the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim. That telos is
eudaimonia, or happiness, where "happiness" is understood in terms of completion, perfection, or well-being. Achieving
happiness, however, requires range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to understand the nature of happiness
and motivate us to seek it in a reliable and consistent way.
On the other hand, Aquinas believes that we can never achieve complete or final happiness in this life. For him,
final happiness consists in beatitude, or supernatural union with God. Such an end lies far beyond what we through our
natural human capacities can attain. For this reason, we not only need the virtues, we also need God to transform our nature
to perfect or "deify" it- so that we might be suited to participate in divine beatitude. Moreover, Aquinas believes that we
inherited a propensity to sin from our first parent, Adam. While our nature is not wholly corrupted by sin, it is nevertheless
diminished by sin's stain, as evidenced by the fact that our wills are at enmity with God's. Thus, we need God's help in order
to restore the good of our nature and bring us into conformity with his will. To this end, God imbues us with his grace which
comes in the form of divinely instantiated virtues and gifts.
However, even though this beatitudo is brought about supernaturally by the power of God, it is not utterly foreign
to human nature. In effect, the supernatural power of God elevates or expands the powers of intellect and will to a kind of
completion beyond themselves and yet not foreign to them. So, this distinction of a "two-fold happiness" should not be
thought of as involving two fundamentally distinct goals or ends of human life. The second supernatural happiness is seen
as a kind of surpassing perfection of the first (Bradley, 1997).
This distinction of a two-fold happiness in human life leads to a distinction between the natural virtues and the
theological virtues. Natural virtues are virtues that pertain to the happiness of this life that is "proportionate" to human
nature. Theological virtues pertain to the beatitudo that is not proportionate to human nature, the supernatural good of life
with God. Natural virtues are divided into moral virtues and intellectual virtues. The intellectual virtues perfect the intellect
and confer an aptness for the good work of the intellect which is the apprehension of truth. The moral virtues are the habits
that perfect the various powers Concerned with human appetites, including rational appetite, conferring upon them an
aptness for the right use of those appetites (Hankley, 1987).
The cardinal natural virtues are Prudence, Justice, Courage, and Temperance. Prudence is an intellectual virtue since
it bears upon the goal of truth in the good ordering of action. In addition, because there are two specific powers of the
generic sensitive appetite, the concupiscent c and the irascible, there are two cardinal virtues that pertain to them. The
concupiscent appetite inclines one toward what is suitable and away from what is harmful to human bodily life. Temperance
is the cardinal virtue that pertains to it. The irascible appetite inclines one toward resisting those things that attack human
bodily life. Courage is the cardinal virtue that pertains to it. Finally, Justice is a virtue of the rational appetite or will. These
virtues are called "cardinal" both because of their specific importance, but also as general headings under which the wide
array of particular virtues are classed. Temperance and Courage are ordered toward and perfect the good of the individual
as such, While Justice is ordered toward and perfects the good of others in relation to the individual.
The theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Love. They bear upon eternal beatitude and are simply infused by God's
gift of grace. They cannot be acquired by human effort. However, as noted above the "second" supernatural happiness is
not foreign to the first natural happiness, but a kind of surpassing perfection of it. So along with the infusion of the
theological virtues, Thomas holds that natural Virtues are infused along with them. Thus, there is a distinction between
"infused natural virtues" and "acquired natural virtues." As infused, the natural virtues cannot be acquired by human effort,
although they may be strengthened by it. Acquired natural virtues, on the other hand, are the corresponding virtues that can
be acquired by human effort without the gift of divine grace. While Thomas acknowledges that these acquired natural virtues
can in principle be developed by human effort without grace, he thinks that their actual acquisition by human effort is very
difficult due to the influence of sin (De Young et.al, 2009).
In addition, the infused natural virtues spring from Charity as its effects, and thus bear upon its object, which is the
love of God and the love of neighbor in God. A primary example for Thomas is Misericordia which is the virtue that pertains
to suffering with others and acting to alleviate their suffering. It looks like Justice because it bears upon the good of another.
And yet it is different from Justice because it springs from the natural friendship that all human beings bear to one another,
and requires that one take upon oneself the sufferings of other human beings. Thomas explicitly but unconvincingly claims
that Aristotle recognized it. And yet in the Summa Theologiae he says that it is an effect of Charity. In that case there is an
acquired form of it and an infused form of it. As infused, it is informed by the love of God and the love of neighbor in God
which is beatitude.
The infused natural virtues differ in important respects from the corresponding acquired virtues because as infused
they point toward the supernatural end, and the mean in acquired virtue is fixed by human reason while the mean in the
infused virtue is according to divine rule. Thomas gives as an example the difference between acquired and infused
Temperance. Acquired temperance is a mean inclining a human being to eat enough food to sustain his or her health and
not harm the body. Infused temperance is a mean inclining the human being through abstinence to castigate and subject the
body.
Even one mortal or grave sin destroys both Charity and all the infused moral virtues that proceed from it, while
leaving Hope and Faith as lifeless habits that are no longer virtues. On the other hand, a single sin, whether venial or mortal,
does not destroy the acquired natural virtues.
Charity, as we've seen, is the love of God and neighbor in God. It resides in the will. Hope is the desire for the
difficult but attainable good of eternal happiness or beatitude. It too resides in the will. Faith is intellectual assent to revealed
supernatural truths that are not evident in themselves or through demonstration from truths evident in themselves. So, it
resides in the intellect. It is divided into believing that there is a God and other truths pertaining to that truth, believing God,
and believing "in" God. The distinction between the last two is subtle. It is one thing to say you believe me. It is a different
thing to say you believe in me. The latter connotes the relation of your intellect to the will's desire to direct yourself to me
in love. Thus, believing in God goes well beyond believing that there is a God. It suggests the other theological virtues of
Charity and Hope.
In beatitude and felicity, the fulfillment of intellect and will respectively, the virtues of Faith and Hope fall away,
and do not exist, for one now sees with the intellect what one believed, and has attained what one hoped for with the will.
Only Charity abides.
Kant on Good Will
To act out of a "good will" for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or "duty". In other words, the
moral agent does a particular action not because of what it produces (its consequences) in terms of human experience, but
because he or she recognizes by reasoning that it is morally the right thing to do and thus regards him or herself as having
a moral duty or obligation to do that action. One may, of course, as an added fact get some pleasure or other gain from doing
the right thing, but to act morally, one does not do it for the sake of its desirable consequences, but rather because one
understands that it is morally the right thing to do. In this respect Kant's view towards morality parallels the Christian's view
concerning obedience to God's commandments, according to which the Christian obeys God's commandments simply
because God commands after death or from fear of punishment them, not for the sake of rewards in heaven al in hell. In a
similar way, for Kant the rational being does what is morally right because he recognizes himself as having a moral duty to
do so rather than for anything he or she may get out of it.
Kant’s analysis of common-sense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good without qualification is a
“good will.” The idea of a good will is closer to the idea of a “good person,” or more archaically, a “person of good will.”
This use of the term "will" early on in analyzing ordinary moral thought prefigures concerning the nature of rational later
and more technical discussion agency. Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important common-sense touchstone to
returns throughout his works. The basic idea, as Kant describes it in the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person
good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way "determined'" by, or makes its decisions on the basis of, the moral
law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who is committed only to make decisions that she holds to be
morally worthy and who takes moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This
sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value, Kant thought. He believes we value it without limitation
or qualification. By this, we believe, he means primarily two things.
In Kant's terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by moral demands or, as he often refers
to this, by the Moral Law. Human beings inevitably feel this Law as a constraint on their natural desires, which is why such
Laws, as applied to human beings, are imperatives and duties. A human will in which the Moral Law is decisive is motivated
by the thought of duty.
Kant's pointed out that to be universally and absolutely good, something must be good in every instance of its
occurrence. He argues that all those things which people call "good" including intelligence, wit, judgment, courage,
resolution, perseverance, power, riches, honor, health, and even happiness itself can become "extremely bad and
mischievous if the will which is to make use of them...is not good." In other words, if we imagine a bad person example,
one who willed or wanted to do evil, who had all of these so-called "goods" intelligence, wit, etc. these very traits would
make only that much worse his will to do what is wrong.

Kant on Rights
Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) examined the idea of human rights within politics in such a way that it “is only a
legitimate government that guarantees our natural right to freedom, and from this freedom we derive other rights.” From
this basis it can be assumed that Kant looks at the development, creation and implementation of rights as primarily dependent
on the state and how the government within the state functions. Furthermore, Kant stresses that a society can only function
politically in relation to the state if fundamental rights, laws and entitlements are given and enhanced by the state. As Kant
teaches, these righteous laws" are founded upon three rational principles:
1. The liberty of every member of the society as a man
2. The equality of every member of the society with every other, as a subject
3. The independence of every member of the commonwealth as a citizen.
An interesting aspect of these principles is that they are not given by the state, but are fundamental in the creation
and acceptance of a state by the people of the state. In this sense Kant believes that these principles are necessary above all,
not only for the founding of "righteous laws", but for the state to function in the first place. This 1s so because without the
acceptance of the people a state would not exist therefore rights are necessary within states to keep the support of the people
of the state.
The book Metaphysics of Morals has two distinct parts: the “Doctrine of Right” and the “Doctrine of Virtue.”
Kant sought to separate political rights and duties from what we might call morals in the narrow sense. He limits right by
stating three conditions that have to be met for something to be enforceable as right (Byrd, 2010):
1. Right concerns only actions that have influence on other persons, directly or indirectly, meaning duties to the self are
excluded;
2. Right does not concern the wish but only the choice of others, meaning that not mere desires but only decisions which
bring about actions are at stake; and
3. Right does not concern the matter of the other's act but only the form, meaning no particular desires or ends are assumed
on the part of the agents. As an example of the latter, he considers trade, which for right must have the form of being freely
agreed by both parties but can have any matter or purpose the agents want.
These criteria appear to be less rigid than Kant ultimately intends, for the term "influence" is vague enough that it
might include far-reaching minor effects. They would also include under right actions even those imperfect duties that
"influence" others by improving their lot, such as beneficent (humanitarian) acts of charity. While Kant must include
consideration of beneficent action as part of right, he does not conclude that beneficent actions are required by right but
only that most are permitted by right and others violate right. His focus on free individual choice entails that any beneficent
action that interferes with or usurps the recipient's tree choice is wrong, for example, improving the recipient's property
without Permission as opposed to merely donating money to a fund made available to the recipient at the recipient's
discretion (Follesdal et. al, 2014).
In addition to these three conditions for right, Kant also offers direct contrasts between right and virtue, He thinks
both relate to freedom but in different ways right concerns outer freedom and virtue concerns inner freedom being master
of one's own passions. Right concerns act themselves independent of the motive an agent may have for performing them,
virtue concerns the proper motive lor dutiful actions. In another formulation he says that right concerns universality as a
formal condition of freedom while virtue concerns a necessary end beyond the mere formality of universality, thus appearing
to tie the distinction to the first two formulas of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork. In yet another he says that
right concerns narrow duties and virtue wide duties.
In the Feyerabend lectures, Kant notes that right is the subset of morally correct actions that are also coercible These
various alternative formulations of the distinction would exclude imperfect duties not because imperfect duties do not
"influence" others but because. as imperfect they cannot be coerced in particular instances, since imperfect duties always
allow for the moderating role of an individual's inclinations. While these various formulations of the distinction appear to
be quite different, they can in general be summarized by saying that right Concerns outer action corresponding to perfect
duty that affects others regardless of the individual's internal motivations or goals (Ellis, 2012).
Cosmopolitan Rights. Relations among the states of the world, covered above, are not the same as relations among
the peoples (nations, Volk) of the world. Individuals can relate to states of which they are not members and to other
individuals who are members of other states. In this they are considered "citizens of a universal state of human beings" with
corresponding "rights of citizens of the world." Despite these lofty sounding pronouncements, Kant's particular discussion
of cosmopolitan right is restricted to the right of hospitality. Since all peoples share a limited amount of living space due to
the spherical shape of the earth, the totality of which they must be understood to have originally shared în common, they
must be understood to have a right to possible interaction with one another. This cosmopolitan right is limited to a right to
offer to engage in commerce, not a right to actual commerce itself, which must always be voluntary trade. A citizen of one
state may try to establish links with other peoples; no state is allowed to deny foreign citizens a right to travel in its larnd
(Flikschuh, 2014).
Cosmopolitan right is an important component of perpetual peace. Interaction among the peoples of the world, Kant
notes, has increased in recent times. Now "a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all" as peoples depend upon
one another and know about one another more and more (8:360). Violations of cosmopolitan right would make more
difficult the trust and cooperation necessary for perpetual peace among states (Hoffe, 2006).

Rights
A right is described as an entitlement or justified claim to a certain kind of positive and negative treatment from
others, to support from others or non- interference from others. n other words, a right is something to which every individual
in the community is morally permitted, and for which that community is entitled to disrespect or compulsorily remove
anything that stands in the way of even a single individual getting it. Rights belong to individuals, and no organization has
any rights not directly derived from those of its members as individuals; and, just as an individual's rights cannot extend to
where they will intrude on another individual's rights, similarly the rights of any organization whatever must yield to those
of a single individual, whether inside or outside the organization. Rights are those important conditions of social life without
which no person can generally realize his best self. These are the essential conditions for health of both the individual and
his society. It is only when people get and enjoy rights that they can develop their personalities and contribute their best
services to the society.

Nature of Rights
Laski's (1935) concepts on the nature of rights are enumerated as follows:
1. Rights are the basic social conditions offered to the individual who is an indispensable member of the society;
2. Rights enable man to fully enhance his personality; to achieve his best self, in the words of Laski they are 'those social
conditions without which no man can seek to be his best self;
3. Rights are inherently social because they are never against social welfare; the rights did not exist before the emergence
of society; they are those fundamental necessities that which are very much social;
4. The state plays the role of recognizing and protecting the rights by providing for the full maintenance and observance of
the rights;
5. Rights are never absolute, the nature and extent for the fulfillment of the rights are relative; as long men endeavor for the
upliftment and betterment of the conditions of life, rights continue to serve as means for the satisfaction and gratification of
individual's needs; so there can be no rights which are absolute in nature because absolute rights are a contradiction in terms;
6. Rights are dynamic in nature because the essence and contents of rights vary according to change in place, time and
conditions.

Kinds of Rights
Hereunder are the different kinds of rights, namely:
1. Natural rights – Many researchers have faith in natural rights. They stated that people inherit several rights from nature.
Before they came to live and state, they used to live in a state of nature. In it, they appreciated certain natural rights, like the
right to life, right to liberty and right to property. Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason. Political theory
maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. John
Locke (1632-1704), the most influential political philosophers of the modern period, argued that people have rights, such
as the right to life, liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular Society. Locke
claimed that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government
as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the
government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since
governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good,
governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments.
2. Moral rights – Moral rights are based on human consciousness. They are supported by moral force of human mind.
These are based on human sense of goodness and justice. These are not assisted by the force of law. Sense of goodness and
public opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights. If any person disrupts any moral right, no legal action can be taken
against him. The state does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral rights include rules of
good conduct, courtesy and of moral behavior. These stand for moral perfection of the people.
3. Legal rights – Legal rights s are those rights which are accepted and enforced by the state. Any defilement of any legal
right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced against individuals and
also against the government. In this way, legal rights are different from al rights. Legal moral rights are equally available to
all the citizens. All citizens follow legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts for getting their legal
rights enforced

Distinction between Moral Rights and Legal Rights

Moral Rights are importantly distinct from Legal Rights:

MORAL RIGHTS LEGAL RIGHTS

Natural: Moral rights are discovered, not created. (This is a Created: Our legal rights are created by legislation.
form of Moral Realism)
Equal: Moral rights are equal rights; there is no injustice in Can be unequal: There are many situations in which the
how they are distributed. distribution of legal rights is unjust.
Inalienable: Moral rights cannot be taken away from you Alienable: Your legal rights can be taken from
without consent (although you can voluntarily surrender you against your will.
them).
Universal: Your moral rights are the same no matter where Local: Your legal rights change when you
you are. move from one jurisdiction to another.
 Lesson 2: The Categorical Imperatives and Utilitarianism
Introduction
Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical
philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on
any ulterior motive or end. "Thou shalt not steal," for example, is categorical as distinct from the hypothetical imperatives
associated with desire, such as "Do not steal if you want to be popular." For Kant there was only one such categorical
imperative, which he formulated in various ways. "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law" is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses the condition of the
rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in another Kantian formula: "So act as to treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end, and never as only a means."

Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative was devised by Immanuel Kant to provide a set of requirements a maxim (or
motivation) must pass in order for the action to be considered a moral obligation. When a Categorical Imperative is
established, it becomes one's moral duty to carry out the action under any circumstances. When carrying out this action, the
individual's primary motive should always be duty according to Kant; this is because we can decipher what our duty is by
using our reason. Human's ability to reason is what deciphers us from animals and so, logically, must be part of being a
moral agent. Reason is objective and universal for humanity and so is a reliable and reasonable basis for a moral theory.
Kant characterized the Categorical Imperative as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that
we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral
requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because
they violate the Categorical Imperative.
Kant argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle), and hence to moral requirements themselves,
can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational
will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental
principle of morality the – CI – is none other than the law of an autonomous will (Patton, 1947).

The Categorical Imperative is determined by referring to three (3) formulations namely:

1. Formula of the Law of Nature insists that we should act 'only according to that maxim' which could be universalized.
This means that we must be able to universalize a principle without contradiction. If this is not possible, we can logically
assume that the act is immoral as it is counter to reason. If a rule is not universalizable then others will not be free to act
from the same moral principles, and Kant strongly believed that autonomy and freedom were essential to being a moral
agent.
2. The Formula of End in Itself ensures that you never treat others or oneself 'merely as a means but always as an end'. To
use someone merely as a means to some other end is to exploit their rationality, and we should value everyone as rational
beings.
3. Formula of a Kingdom of Ends asks for us to 'act as if a legislating member in the universal Kingdom of Ends'. The
Kingdom of Ends is a world in which everyone acts from categorical imperatives, and although we may not live in this
world, we must act as if we are. According to this formula we must act on the assumption that everyone will follow the
rules you make through your actions. If the intended action passes each of the formulations it is a categorical imperative
and thus is not only right, but a moral obligation. Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a
categorical imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command addressed to agents who could follow it but might not.
It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possess rational wills, without reference
to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have
antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves. Kant describes the will as operating on the basis of subjective volitional
principles he calls "maxims". Hence, morality and other rational requirements are, for the most part, demands that apply to
the maxims that we act on.

Utilitarianism
Though the first systematic account of utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham, the core insight motivating
the theory occurred much earlier. That insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase
happiness or utility' What is distinctive about utilitarianism is its approach in taking that insight and developing an account
of moral evaluation and moral direction that expands on it. Early precursors to the Classical Utilitarians include the British
Moralists, Cumberland, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Gay, and Hume. Of these, Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746) is explicitly
utilitarian when it comes to action choice (Scarre, 1996).
Some of the earliest utilitarian thinkers were the 'theological’ utilitarians such as Richard Cumberland (1631-1718)
and John Gay (1699-1745). They believed that promoting human happiness was incumbent on us since it was approved by
God.
Gay (1731) held that since God wants the happiness of mankind, and since God's will gives us the criterion of virtue,
"... the happiness of mankind may be said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed". This view was combined with a
view of human motivation with egoistic elements. A person's individual salvation, her eternal happiness, depended on
conformity to God's will, as did virtue itself. Promoting human happiness and one's own coincided, but, given God's design,
it was not an accidental coincidence.
Gay's influence on later writers, such as Hume, deserves note. It is in Gay's essay that some of the questions that
concerned Hume on the nature of virtue are addressed. For example, Gay was curious about how to explain our practice of
approbation and disapprobation of action and character. When we see an act that is vicious, we disapprove of it. Further,
we associate certain things with their effects, so that we form positive associations and negative associations that also
underwrite our moral judgments.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) is generally thought to have been the one of the
earliest 'moral sense' theorists, holding that we possess a kind of "inner eye" that allows us to make moral discriminations.
This seems to have been an innate sense of right and wrong, or moral beauty and deformity.
Like Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson was very much interested in virtue evaluation. He also adopted the moral
sense approach. However, in his writings We also see an emphasis on action choice and the importance of moral deliberation
to action choice. Hutcheson, in “An Inquiry Concerning Moral Good and Evil,” fairly explicitly spelled out a utilitarian
principle of action choice. (Hruschka, 1991) notes, however, that it was Leibniz who first spelled out a utilitarian decision
procedure.
The Classical Utilitarians, Bentham and Mill, were concerned with legal and social reform. If anything could be
identified as the fundamental motivation behind the development of Classical Utilitarianism it would be the desire to see
useless, Corrupt laws and social practices changed. Accomplishing this goal required a normative ethical theory employed
as a critical tool. What is the truth about what makes an action or a policy a morally good one, or morally right? But
developing the theory itself was also influenced by strong views about what was Wrong in their society. The conviction
that, for example, some laws are bad resulted in analysis of why they were bad. And, for Jeremy Bentham, what made them
bad Was their lack of utility, their tendency to lead to unhappiness and misery without any compensating happiness, If a
law or an action doesn't do any good, then it isn't any good.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was influenced both by Hobbes account of human nature and Hume's Account of
social utility. He famously held that humans were ruled by two sovereign masters--pleasure and pain. Bentham also
Promulgated the principle of utility as the standard of right action on the part or governments and individuals, Actions are
approved when they are such as to Promote happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of when they have a tendency to cause
unhappiness, or pain. Bentham viewed liberty and autonomy as good but good instrumentally, not intrinsically. Thus, any
action deemed wrong due to a violation of autonomy is derivatively wrong on instrumental grounds as well.
On Bentham's view the law is not monolithic and immutable. Since effects of a given policy may change, the moral
quality of the policy may change as well. A law that is good at one point in time may be a bad law at some other point in
time. Thus, lawmakers have to be sensitive to changing social circumstances. To be fair to Bentham's critics, of course, they
are free to agree with him that this is the case in many situations, just not all and that there is still a subset of laws that reflect
the fact that some actions just are intrinsically wrong regardless of consequences. Bentham is in the much more difficult
position of arguing that effects are all there are to moral evaluation of action and policy.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a follower of Bentham, and, through most of his life, greatly admired Bentham's
work even though he disagreed with some of Bentham's claims, particularly on the nature of happiness. To this end, Mill's
hedonism was influenced by perfectionist intuitions. There are some pleasures that are more fitting than others. Intellectual
pleasures are of a higher, better, sort than the ones that are merely sensual, and that we share with animals.
Like Bentham, the good still consists in pleasure, it is still a psychological state. There is certainly that similarity.
Further, the basic structures of the theories are the same (Donner, 1991). While it is true that Mill is more comfortable with
notions like rights', this does not mean that he, in actuality, rejected utilitarianism. The rationale for all the rights he
recognizes is utilitarian.
Mill's version of utilitarianism differed from Bentham's also in that he placed weight on the effectiveness of internal
sanctions-emotions like guilt and remorse which serve to regulate our actions. According to Mill, we are the sorts of being$
that have social feelings, feelings for others, not just ourselves, we care about them, and when we perceive harms to them
this causes painful experiences in us. When one perceives oneself to be the agent of that harm, the negative emotions are
centered on the self. One feels guilt for what one has done, not for what one sees another doing. Like external forms of
punishment, internal sanctions are instrumentally very important to appropriate action.
Mill also held that natural features of human psychology, such as conscience and a sense of justice, underwrite
motivation. The sense of justice, for example, results from very natural impulses. Part of this sense involves a desire to
punish those who have harmed others, and this desire in turnis a spontaneous outgrowth rom two sentiments, both in the
highest degree natural...; the impulse of self-defense, and the feeling of sympathy."
Like Bentham, Mill sought to use utilitarianism to inform law and social policy. The aim of increasing happiness
underlies his arguments for women's suffrage and free speech. We can be said to have certain rights, then but those rights
are underwritten by utility. If one can show that a purported right or duty is harmful, then one has shown that it is not
genuine. In Utilitarianism, Mill argues that virtue not only has instrumental value, but is constitutive of the good life. A
person without virtue is morally lacking, and is not as able to promote the good.

Utilitarian Philosophy
Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve
choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral
codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of
actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being
evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. N the language of utilitarians, we should
choose the option that maximizes utility, i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.
Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the best. There
are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right
action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility
in maximizing happiness or Pleasure as stummed among all people. It is, then, the total utility of individuals Which is
important here, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utility, after which the doctrine is named, is a
measure in economics of the relative satisfaction from, or desirability of the consumption of goods. Utilitarianism can thus
be described as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to ethics.
Utilitarianism starts from the basis that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically valuable, that pain and suffering are
intrinsically invaluable ana that anything else has value only in its causing happiness or preventing suffering or as means to
an end. This focus on happiness or pleasure as the ultimate end of moral decisions, makes it a type of Hedonism (and it is
sometimes known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism).
Utilitarians support equality by the equal consideration of interests, and they reject any arbitrary distinctions as to
who is worthy of concern and who is not, and any discrimination between individuals. However, it does accept the idea of
declining marginal utility, which recognizes that the same thing furthers the Interests of a well-off individual to a lesser
degree than it would the interests of a less well-off individual.
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the number of good things (such
as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the number of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject
moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders
or supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution
to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.
Since the early 20th century utilitarianism has undergone a variety of refinements. After the middle of the 20th
century, it has become more common to identify as a ‘Consequentialisť since very few philosophers agree entirely with the
view proposed by the Classical Utilitarians, particularly with respect to the hedonistic value theory. But the influence of the
Classical Utilitarians has been profound- not only within moral philosophy, but within political philosophy and social policy.
The question Bentham asked, "What use is it?" is a cornerstone of policy formation. It is a completely secular, forward-
looking question. The articulation and systematic development of this approach to policy formation is Owed to the Classical
Utilitarians.
 CHAPTER 6: FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES
Lesson 1: Righteousness and Equality
Learning Objective:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Differentiate justice from fairness;
2. Critique justice and fairness;
3. Make use of justice and fairness; and
4. Understand the ethical principles of taxation.

Introduction:
Whatever can be demanded on the ground of Law is a Civil Obligation but, in so far as moral grounds are to be
observed, it is a Duty. The word 'duty' is frequently used of legal relationships. Legal Duties are defined as perfect and
Moral Duties as imperfect because the former must be done, and have an external necessity, while the latter depend on a
subjective will. But one might, with good reason, invert this classification in as much as the Legal Duty as such demands
only an external necessity, in which the disposition is not taken into account, or in which we may even have a bad motive.
On the contrary, for a Moral Duty both are demanded, the right deed as regards its content and, likewise according to form,
the subjective side, the Good Intention.
Law, in general, leaves the disposition out of consideration. Morality, on the other hand, is concerned essentially
with the intention and demands that the deed should be done out of simple regard for Duty. So too the legally right conduct
is moral in so far as its moving principle is the regard for the right.
With legally right conduct the moral aspect should also be essentially connected. It may, however, be the case that
with legally right action there is no sentiment of Law present: nay, more, that an immoral intent may accompany it. The
legally right act, in so far as it is done out of regard for the Law, is, at the same time, also moral. The legally right action,
associated at the same time with a moral disposition, is to be carried out unconditionally before there can be room for the
moral action in which there is no legal command, that is, legal obligation. Men are very ready to act from a merely moral
ground, for example, to give away with an air of generosity rather than pay their honest debts; for in a generous action they
congratulate themselves on account of a special perfection, while, on the contrary, in the performance of just action they
would only perform the completely universal act which makes them equal with all.
Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law (Vice, 1997). Some
maintain that justice stems from God's will or command, while others believe that justice is inherent in nature itself. Still
others believe that justice consists of rules common to all humanity that emerge out of some sort of consensus. This sort of
justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to
violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it "unjust."

Justice and Fairness

The definitions of "fairness" and "justice" are very similar but are not identical something like fraternal (non-
identical) twins. Justice is often about overriding principles and fairness is more commonly about how those principles are
applied to a specific set of circumstances or a particular situation. Just as philosophy is about overriding principles and
ethics is about how those principles are applied.
When it comes to how we expect to be treated and how others expect us to treat them, there is broad agreement that
"fairness" should be the standard for addressing those situations. The fairness question is often raised when people differ
over how they believe a situation should be addressed or resolved, or when decisions are being made regarding the
distribution of benefits and burdens.
In an organizational context, fairness usually comes down to applying the same rules, standards and criteria in
similar situations. The purpose is to reduce the role of bias in one's decision making, thus, leveling the playing field. Fairness
is concerned with actions, processes, and consequences, that are morally right, honorable, and equitable. In essence, the
virtue of fairness establishes moral standards for decisions that affect others. Fair decisions are made in an appropriate
manner based on appropriate criteria.
We tend to think and speak in terms of fairness when we are dealing with the behavior of individuals and everyday
interpersonal relationships. We talk about justice and equity in the context of broader social issues and institutional
obligations to individuals. Yet all three words apply to virtually any situation where we want to judge whether an action
contributes to a good, rational, caring society. Fairness and fair play are less lofty terms than justice or equity yet, on the
level on which most of us operate, the desire to be treated fairly and the duty to be fair and play fair are far more relevant.
The moral obligations arising from the core ethical value of fairness are almost always associated with the exercise
of power to render judgments that bestow benefits or impose burdens. Almost everyone has the power to give or withhold
benefits (including approval, praise, honor, and support) and to impose burdens (including disapproval, criticism, blame,
and condemnation). Parents, teachers, employers, college administrators, building inspectors, and innumerable others make
daily judgments that significantly affect our lives. The moral duty to be fair places constraints on our judgments and actions.
There are two aspects of fairness: fair results (substantive fairness) and fair procedures (procedural fairness).
Principles of Fairness
Fairness requires that we:
1. Treat all people equitably based on their merits and abilities and handle all essentially similar situations similarly and
with consistency.
2. Make all decisions on appropriate criteria, without undue favoritism or improper prejudice.
3. Never blame or punish people for what they did not do, and appropriately sanction those who violate moral obligations
or laws.
4. Promptly and voluntarily correct personal and institutional mistakes and improprieties.
5. Not take unfair advantage of people's mistakes or ignorance.
6. Fully consider the rights, interests, and perspectives of all stakeholders, approach judgments with open-minded
impartiality (setting aside prejudices and predispositions), conscientiously gather and verify facts, provide critical
stakeholders with an opportunity to explain or clarify, and carefully evaluate the information.
Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or
her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also
been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of
rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests;
fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and
specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of desert is crucial to both justice and fairness.
In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety
of one's fellows (Rescher, 1982). While justice in the broader sense 1s often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness
is more context-bound. Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt
procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens
and adhere to a system of "fair play."
People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of justice and fairness to explain their
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the organizations they are part of, as well as their state or government (Tyler et. al, 1995).
They want institutions to treat them fairly and to operate according to fair rules. What constitutes fair treatment and fair
rules is often expressed by a variety of justice principles but saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves
does not take us very far. How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to
determine what is due to this or that person?

Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice, one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle
more than two thousand years ago is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally." In its
contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: “Individuals should be treated the same, unless they
differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Pedro and Juan both do the same
work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the
same wages. And if Jack is paid more than jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice-
a form of discrimination-because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. The principles of justice and
fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play" for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal
laws or ones that are more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which the various types of justice are carried
out. For example, principles of distributive justice determine what counts as a "fair share" of particular good, while
principles of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to activity that violates a society's rules of "fair play."
Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and also that people play by the rules.
Rawls identified two principles of justice, namely (Wolff, 1977):
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar
system of liberty for all. This principle is mainly concerned with distribution of rights and liberties, the basic liberties of
citizens are the political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom
of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest. However, it is a matter of some debate whether freedom of contract
can be inferred to be included among these basic liberties.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity.
 These principles are lexically ordered, and Rawls emphasizes the priority of liberty. The first principle is often
called the greatest equal liberty principle. The second, until (a), the difference principle and the final addendum in (b) the
equal opportunity principle.
On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people different
treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the
basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery
when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works
gets the million-peso contract to install a new building adjacent to the municipal hall despite lower bids from other
contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or
she had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered. And the people involved in the "brown lung hearings"
felt that it wasn't fair that some diseases were provided with disability compensation, while other similar diseases weren't.

Different Kinds of Justice

There are different kinds of justice, namely:
1. Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed
among society's members in ways that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in
unjust ways, there isa strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution
of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people differently
on the basis of race.
2. Retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In
general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of
the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant Criteria such as race. It would be barbarously unjust, for
example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and
without negligence injured another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much
more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies suggest that
injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.
3. Compensatory justice. Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries
by those who have injured them just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind
of justice that was at stake in the brown lung hearings. Those who testified at the hearings claimed that the owners of the
cotton mills where workers had been injured should compensate the workers whose health had been ruined by conditions
at the mills.
The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As
the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society-or any group, for that matter– depends upon the extent to
which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that
they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members
of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their
institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal
in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever
individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human
dignity is violated.
Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In evaluating any
moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference
in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle
to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds
of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each
other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community, we must treat
each other as equals.

Lesson 2: Political Doctrines

Introduction
In theory, "equal justice under law" is difficult to oppose. In practice, however, it begins to unravel at several key
points, beginning with what we mean by "justice." In conventional usage, the concept seems largely procedural. "Equal
justice" 1S Usually taken to mean "equal access to justice," which in turn is taken to mean access to law. But as is frequently
noted, a purely procedural understanding by no means captures our aspirations. Those who receive their "day in court" do
not always feel that "justice has been done," and with reason. Money often matters more than merits, in all the ways that
Marc Galanter described in his classic article on "why the haves come out ahead" (Galanter, 1974). Substantive rights and
procedural obstacles can be skewed, and even those who win in court can lose in life, given post-judgment power relations.
These difficulties are seldom acknowledged in bar discussions of access to justice, which assume that more is better, and
that the trick is how to achieve it.

Egalitarian Justice
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People
should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this
last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or
enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons
are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition
is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally.
Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be
treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term
"egalitarian" is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality
of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.
As a view within political philosophy, egalitarianism has to do both with how people are treated and with
distributive justice. Civil rights movements reject certain types of social and political discrimination and demand that people
be treated equally. Distributive justice is another form of egalitarianism that addresses life outcomes and the allocation of
valuable things such as income, wealth, and other goods. To judge two things equal, we must also specify the relevant
qualities they have in common. Therefore, egalitarianism is the belief that all humans share an essence or quality that makes
them equal. Although all egalitarians believe equality, they often differ in their understanding of the qualities all humans
share.
Every form of egalitarianism is cosmopolitan and inclusive. Those who See only the members of their own group
as equal are not egalitarian. Because Egalitarianism is always based on a theory of universal human commonality and
because such universal human qualities are difficult to define, their essence is often unspecified by egalitarian thinkers.
Nonetheless, anyone who believes all humans quality in are equal must also believe all humans have some kind of essence
or common, because without commonality there can be no equality. The term is derived from the French word "égal",
meaning "equal" or "level", and was first used in English in the 1880s, although the equivalent term "equalitarian" dates
from the late 18th century.

Types of Egalitarianism
1. Economic Egalitarianism (or Material Egalitarianism) is where the participants of a society are of equal standing and
have equal access to all the economic resources in terms of economic power, wealth and contribution. It is a founding
principle of various forms of socialism.
2. Moral Egalitarianism is the position that equality is central to justice, that all individuals are entitled to equal respect,
and that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.
3. Legal Egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or
group or class having special legal privileges, and where the testimony of all persons is counted with the same weight.
4. Political Egalitarianism is where the members of a society are of equal standing in terms of political power or influence.
It is a founding principle of most forms of democracy.
5. Luck Egalitarianism is a view about distributive justice (what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods in
a society) espoused by a variety of left-wing political philosophers, which seeks to distinguish between outcomes that are
the result of brute luck (e.g. misfortunes in genetic makeup, or being struck by a bolt of lightning) and those that are the
consequence of conscious options (e.g. career choices, or fair gambles).
6. Gender Egalitarianism (or Zygarchy) is a form of society in which power 1s equally shared between men and women,
or a family structure where power is shared equally by both parents.
7. Racial Egalitarianism (or Racial Equality) is the absence of racial segregation (the separation of different racial groups
in daily life, whether mandated by law or through social norms).
8. Opportunity Egalitarianism (or Asset-based Egalitarianism) is the idea that equality is possible by a redistribution of
resources, usually in the form of a capital grant provided at the age of majority, an idea which has been around since Thomas
Paine (1737-1809).
9. Christian Egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ, and specifically teaches gender
equality in Christian church leadership and in marriage.
Socialism (Socialist Justice)
In contrast with libertarians, socialists take equality to be the ultimate political ideal. In the Communist Manifesto
(1848), Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) maintain that the abolition of bourgeois property and
bourgeois family structure is a necessary first requirement for building a society that accords with the political ideal of
equality. In the Critique of the Gotha Program (1891), Marx provides a much more positive account of what is required to
build a society based upon the political ideal of equality. Marx claims that the distribution of social goods must conform, at
least initially, to the principle from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her contribution. But when the
highest stage of communist society has been reached, Marx adds, distribution will conform to the principle from each
according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need.
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on the public Ownership (also known as collective or
common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools and factories used to produce
goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.
Socialism’s mantra is "From each according to his ability, to each according to Is contribution." Everyone in the
society receives a share of the production based on how much each has contributed. That motivates them to work long hours
if they want to receive more. Workers receive their share after a percentage has been deducted for the Common good.
Examples are transportation, defense, and education. Some also define the common good as caring for those who can't
directly contribute to Production. Examples include the elderly, children, and their caretakers. Socialism assumes that the
basic nature of people is cooperative. That nature hasn't yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced
people to be competitive. Therefore, a basic tenet of socialism is that the economic system must support this basic human
nature for these qualities to emerge.
In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions e made by the government, and
individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines output and pricing levels
of these goods and services. Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more
equal distribution of goods and services, and a more equitable society.

Origins and Development

Socialism developed in opposition to the excesses and abuses to liberal individualism and capitalism. Under early
capitalist economies during the late 18th and 19th centuries, western European countries experienced industrial production
and compound economic growth at a rapid pace. Some individuals and families rose to riches quickly, while others sank
into poverty, Creating income inequality and other social concerns. The most famous early socialist thinkers were Robert
Owen, Henri de Saint- Simon, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. It was primarily Lenin who expounded on the ideas of earlier
socialists and helped bring socialist planning to the national level after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Following
the failure of socialist central planning in the Soviet Union and Maoist China during the 20th century, many modern
socialists adjusted to a highly regulatory and redistributive system, sometimes referred to as market socialism or democratic
socialism.

Advantages
1. Workers are no longer exploited, since they own the means of production. All profits are spread equitably among all
workers, according to his or her contribution. The cooperative system realizes that even those who can't work must have
their basic needs met, for the good of the whole.
2. The system eliminates poverty.
3. Everyone has equal access to healthcare and education. No one is discriminated against.
4. Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If society needs jobs to be done that no one wants, it offers
higher compensation to make it worthwhile.
5. Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.

Disadvantages
1. The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. It negates those within
society who are competitive, not cooperative. Competitive people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt society for
their own gain.
2. It doesn't reward people for being entrepreneurial and competitive. As such, it won't be as innovative as a capitalistic
society.
3. The government set up to represent the masses may abuse its position and claim power for itself.
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities own the factors of production. The four factors are
entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and
entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. The individual owns his or her labor. The only exception is slavery,
where someone else owns a person's labor. Although illegal throughout the entire world, slavery is still widely practiced.
Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world
since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and
income distributed largely through the operation of markets.

Characteristics of Capitalism
1. Two-class system: Historically a capitalist society was characterized by the split between two classes of individuals-the
capitalist class, which owns the means for producing and distributing goods (the owners) and the working class, who sell
their labor to the capitalist class in exchange for wages. The economy is run by the individuals (or corporations) who own
and operate Companies and make decisions as to the use of resources. But there exists a "division of labor" which allows
for specialization, typically occurring through education and training, further breaking down the two class system into sub-
classes (e.g., the middle class).
2. Profit motive: Companies exist to make a profit. The motive for all companion is to make and sell goods and services
only for profits. Companies do not exist solely to satisfy people's needs. Even though some goods or services may satisfy
needs, they will only be available if the people have the resources to pay for them.
3. Minimal government intervention: Capitalist societies believe markets should be left alone to operate without
government intervention. However, a completely government-free capitalist society exists in theory, only. Even in the
United States--the poster child for capitalism, the government regulates certain industries, such as the Dodd-Frank Act for
financial institutions. By contrast, a purely capitalist society would allow the markets to set prices based on demand and
supply for the purpose of making profits.
4. Competition: True capitalism needs a competitive market. Without competition, monopolies exist, and instead of the
market setting the prices, the seller is the price setter, which is against the conditions of capitalism.
5. Willingness to change: The last characteristic of capitalism is the ability to adapt and change. Technology has been a
game changer in every society, and the willingness to allow change and adaptability of societies to improve inefficiencies
within economic structures is a true characteristic.

Advantages
Capitalism results in the best products for the best prices. That's because consumers will pay more for what they
want the most. Businesses provide what customers want at the highest prices they'll pay. Prices are kept low by competition
among businesses. They make their products as efficient as possible to maximize profit. Most important for economic
growth is capitalism's intrinsic reward for innovation. This includes innovation in more efficient production methods. It also
means innovation of new products. As Steve Jobs said, "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give
that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."

Disadvantages
Capitalism doesn't provide for those who lack competitive skills. includes the elderly, children, the developmentally
disabled, and caretakers. 0 keep society functioning, capitalism requires government policies that value the family unit.
Despite the idea of a "level playing field," capitalism does not promote equality of opportunity. Those without the proper
nutrition, support, and education may never make it to the playing field. Society will never benefit from their valuable skills.
In the short term, inequality may seem to be in the best interest of capitalism's winners. They have fewer competitive
threats. They may also use their power to "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry. For example, they will donate to
elected officials who sponsor laws that benefit their industry. They could send their children to private schools while
supporting lower taxes for public schools. In the long term, inequality will limit diversity and the innovation it creates. For
example, a diverse business team is more able to identify market niches. It can understand the needs of society's minorities,
and target products to meet those needs.
Capitalism ignores external costs, such as pollution and climate change. This makes goods cheaper and more
accessible in the short run. But over time, it depletes natural resources, lowers the quality of life in the affected areas, and
increases costs for everyone. The government should impose Pigouvian taxes to monetize these external costs and improve
the general welfare.
Capitalism and Private Property
Private property rights are very important in capitalism. Most modern concepts of private property stem from John
Locke's theory of homesteading, in which human beings claim ownership through mixing their labor with unclaimed
resources. Once owned, the only legitimate means of transferring property are through trade, gifts, inheritance or wages.
Private property promotes efficiency by giving the owner of resources an incentive to maximize its value. The more valuable
a resource, the more trading power it provides the owner. In a capitalist system, the person who owns property is entitled to
any value associated with the property.
When property is not privately owned, but shared by the public, a market failure can emerge, known as the tragedy
of the commons. The fruit of any labor performed with a public asset does not belong to the laborer, but is diffused among
many people. There is a disconnect between labor and value, creating a disincentive to increase value or production. People
are incentivized to wait for Someone else to do the hard work and then swoop in to reap the benefits without much personal
expense. For individuals or businesses to deploy their capital goods confidently, a system must exist that protects their legal
right to own or transfer private property. lo facilitate and enforce private property rights, capitalist societies tend to rely on
Contracts, fair dealing and tort law.

Lesson 3: Taxation
Introduction
The power of taxation is inherent power of the State. It rests upon necessity, the significance of which stems from
the recognition that since governments have been established to promote and protect the general welfare, it is necessary that
government should be provided with the means by which it could carry out its exercise the power of taxation. Government
financial operations are well-nigh impossible without taxation. Apart from this, taxation can be a powerful means in order
to achieve the goals of social progress and the objectives of economic development. Taxation is very important to maintain
the society we live in. People are always criticizing the government for this but it is very important.

Meaning of Taxation
Taxation is the supreme power of a sovereign state through its law-making body, to impose burdens or charges
upon persons, property or property rights for public purpose. It is the power vested upon the legislature for the purpose of
raising revenues to finance government expenditures and for the general welfare and protection of its citizens. Henceforth,
taxation is a state power that is exercised only through the law-making body of the State or the Legislature. Neither the
President nor the Judiciary has the power to impose taxes. Taxes are levied by Congress by means of laws. Taxation is the
method of apportioning the cost of government among those who, in some measures are privileged to enjoy its benefits and
must therefore, bear its burden. (Cooley, n.d.). Taxation does not confine itself on government expenditures. It also regulates
the flow of income in our economic system. When there is too much money in the system, the government withdraws some
of this money to check inflation.

Philosophical View of Taxation

In the Philippines, the proportion of the economy controlled by the state has grown enormously over the last century,
and pressures on the state are sot tot as people live longer, meaning that tax will Continue to rise for the great majority of
the population. What are the rights and wrongs of asking so many people to nay so much? To answer this question, let us
use the arguments from political philosophy, and the following three approaches to ethics:
1. Utilitarianism, which tells us to aim for the greatest total happiness the population. In the economic sphere, we can
interpret happiness as the across satisfaction of our desires; and so, utilitarianism is aiming for maximum satisfaction of
desires.
2. Deontology, which bases ethics on the idea of duty.
3. Virtue ethics, which focuses on the virtues we should have, and on what constitutes a virtuous life. A broad conception
of the virtues must be used here, encompassing not only virtues such as honesty, but also virtues such as using one's talents
and leading a fulfilled life.
For a utilitarian the most important economic goals are to ensure that goods and services are available to allow
everyone to have a decent life, and to ensure that these resources are distributed widely enough for all or most people to
enjoy them. A true utilitarian would only care about total satisfaction, not about the evenness of its distribution, but with
taxation we're discussing the distribution of resources. If each person has modest resources, that should generate more
satisfaction in total than if the same total resources are concentrated in the hands of a few people. Taxation plus government
spending is an obvious way to achieve redistribution to ensure that everybody gets something.
 However, taxation and spending help to achieve wide resource distribution, but high rates of tax reduce investment
and incentives, which makes it hard to generate sufficient total resources. Too much redistribution may thus mean too small
a pie to share out. Utilitarians must therefore strike a balance. Economists, rather than philosophers, are the ones to advise
them on how to do this balancing of interest to get the most productive result. This is not surprising. Utilitarianism merely
lays down a computational rule. Utilitarians need experts from other disciplines to do the computations for them.
Unlike the utilitarian, the deontologist does not tell us to make computations. Instead, he or she lays down absolute
duties. One common such duty is to respect other people's property rights. This could be interpreted to mean that there
should be no tax at all, because tax is the forcible transfer of property away from taxpayers. But it is difficult to make this
argument watertight. Is it realistic to ask people to opt out of using public roads if they don't want to pay tax? They would
have to move to a wilderness somewhere. But why should they be made to do that, when they already own their homes?
Deontology therefore does here what it often does. It offers arguments which pull in opposite directions, and leaves us
completely uncertain about what to conclude.
Virtue ethics can be a bit more helpful on the question of the justice ot taxation. Several virtues seem more likely
to be exercised if tax rates are moderate than if they are very high. One should use one's talents to the full. Financial
incentives can encourage people to use their talents, but very high taxation dampens down those incentives by reducing
take-home pay. Another virtue is charity, either in cash or in time. The more take-home pay people have, the more Likely
it is that they will feel able to afford charitable donations; and the higher peoples' pay rates, the easier it will be for them to
take time away from paid work to perform charity work or other forms of civic service, as school governors or magistrates
for example. A third virtue is independence. It is good to earn what one needs rather than to depend on subsidies from
others. Lower rates of taxation make independence more easily achievable.

Are Taxes Moral?

One of the arguments against the existence of special government powers such as the power to tax is that taxing is
no different from theft. Since theft is wrong, so is taxing. A careful examination of this argument shows that it assumes that
there is no moral difference between an individual under government and an individual without government. There is good
reason to believe that this assumption is false, and that taxation is sometimes morally acceptable if our relationship with the
common good of our society must be fair.
The argument against the morality of special government powers claims that if 1 (as a person in society) protected
my neighbors from criminals I could not demand that they pay me for the service. I could not take money from them if they
refused to pay, nor could I kidnap them until they did pay. If I did any of these things, I would be acting immorally. I agree.
In this specific situation, I would be acting immorally were I to do any of these things. And if this were similar to the
government's actions on taxation, then the government would be taxing Immorally. But this is not analogous to the real acts
of government (Torgler, 2007).
First, suppose that there was no government at any level. Suppose that a strong man agreed to protect himself and
his neighbors from criminals and Predators as a full-time job. Before doing so, he requested some basic assistance from his
neighbors. This included enough money to buy weapons and maintain d Standard of living similar to that of his neighbors.
All of his neighbors agreed 0 do so. One of them disagreed. (This is the local anarchist.) Is it acceptable tor he neighbors to
set the local anarchist an ultimatum: either pay assistance (or help perform the assistance) or leave the neighborhood? I say
yes. If it is, then it is this situation that is similar to government. By beginning this process, the neighbors are establishing a
government. By agreeing to take on the responsibility of protecting the community from criminals, an element of the
common good is being entrusted to this person.
In our situation, the common good has already been entrusted to governments. So, our situation is not similar to a
state prior to all governments, Individuals in that state are different from individuals in our state. So, when we imagine a
person who protects neighbors from criminals, we imagine a person in our state doing so. If such a person were to demand
compensation, then it would either take the form of a contract or be theft. Since government is cannot be justified by contract,
such a situation could never justify a government. But individuals without a state are different from individuals with a state.
Therefore, the analogy of the anarchist is flawed.
The analogy brings us from a situation in which we have a government, supposes that a third party assists in the
duties of government and demands payment for that assistance. Since we agree that this is wrong, this simply means that
third parties may not demand assistance for performing the duties of government. But it has nothing to do with the actual
justification of government powers whether special or not. The true situation is the one given above or one like it.

Legitimate Objective of Tax

Tax can be used for all sorts of purposes, and it is often clear what ethicists of any particular kind would say about
these purposes. We can start with the provision of law and order and the more extensive public services such as healthcare
and education. Utilitarians will approve of taxation for these things because they allow more goods and services to be
produced, and they also allow more non-materialistic desires to be satisfied. Virtue ethicists will approve because these
services enhance people's opportunities to use their talents and to lead flourishing lives.
 When we turn to aid to the poor, utilitarians will approve because transferring resources from rich to poor increases
the happiness of the poor more than it reduces the happiness of the rich. Virtue ethicists will approve because with
redistribution the poor can be helped to flourish and develop virtues, and because looking after the less fortunate is itself a
virtue (although voluntary charity may a greater virtue than forced payment), And deontologists can recognize a duty to
care for the poor. The greatest of all deontologists, Immanuel Kant, certainly believed in duty to the poor, although he did
not have a tax-funded welfare state in mind as a response. However, none of this means that any kind of ethicist would favor
unlimited provision of any of these good things through the tax system. As we have already seen, one has to consider the
consequences of the overall level of taxation.
A more controversial objective is the promotion of equality, in the sense of equality of economic outcome example
wealth, rather than of equality of opportunity. Taxation can very easily be used to make the distribution of incomes and
wealth more equal, either by transferring cash from the rich to the poor, or by providing the same state services to everyone
while taxing the rich more than the poor in order to pay for them. Greater equality may also be an accidental outcome of
using the tax system to do other things. But it can also be a goal in itself (Baron 2012).

Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance

Most taxpayers pay their taxes, without fuss. But not all taxpayers act in this way. So lastly let's look at whether
two other forms of behavior can be ethically acceptable: tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax evasion involves knowingly
misreporting the facts: for example, declaring an income of P1,000,000.00 when the true figure is P5,000,000.00; or
declaring that an asset is owned by one company in a group when it's really owned by another, so paying less tax. The tax
code is extremely complex, so it’s not a surprise when mistakes are made on tax returns. That's not a crime but purposefully
under-reporting income or claiming deductions you're not entitled to receive is tax evasion, and it’s a serious offense.
Unlike tax evasion, tax avoidance does not involve concealing information or lying. Instead, it involves structuring
business transactions to ensure that less tax is payable than one might otherwise expect. The most ethically challenging
examples in this area are to be found in the complex schemes used by some groups involving networks of companies and
partnerships in several countries. lax avoidance works through compliance with the precise letter of the law, not through
breaking the law. That is to say, tax savings achieved may be accord with the words of the law, but it is clear that if
Parliament or other legislative bodies in other countries had thought about such schemes, it would have passed different
laws in order to defeat them.

Benefits of Paying Taxes

The word tax comes from the Latin word taxare meaning “to estimate or value” but the Romans were not the first
civilization to impose taxes on their citizens. We know the ancient Greeks and Egyptians levied taxes on their own people
and foreigners, as did the Hebrews. Other civilizations also left records of tax-keeping, along with many names for the fees
they assessed.
The direct benefit of paying taxes for everyone is that they are used to pay 1OT services that governments provide
to communities. In a modern society a government needs administrators and clerks, police forces, emergency forces such
as firefighters, engineers and maintenance workers for streets and buildings, politicians, and to pay for property used and
goods consumed by the government services. In ancient times, there were fewer government specialists but all of these basic
needs had to be met.
As large cities developed in the ancient world rulers and their communities had to devise ways to compensate the
people who delivered services to the communities. We don't know what the earliest forms of government revenue were but
the options were few until money was developed. As an example, if a city of 30,000 people needed to pay someone to clean
the streets, they might rely on community donations of food and shelter. Temples became centers of collection for food and
other donations and so in many early civilizations the temples were the leading institutions of the cities.
Taxes are classified as regressive if they affect poor people more than wealthy people and as progressive if they
affect wealthy people more than poor people. Progressive taxes have been popular throughout history, probably because
wealthy people were easier to tax and the taxes would weaken their ability to raise their own armies.
The benefit of paying taxes is to ensure that everyone in a community enjoys the services provided by government.
Whether the taxes pay for defense, infrastructure, education, or public safety the intention is that they create a safe and
stable environment in which people can live.
In practice this does not always happen. In fact, we can easily find many examples where "poor" neighborhoods
receive less benefit from taxation than "wealthy" neighborhoods but the reasons for these disparities in government services
are complex. The distribution of taxation benefits is not directly tied to the purpose for which taxes exist. In a perfect world
we would only pay enough taxes to ensure that everyone receives equal benefits from their communities. In reality we pay
taxes because that is the most efficient way to provide services, safety, and infrastructure to large populations.

Basic Principles of a Sound Tax System

A sound tax system has the following basic principles namely:
1. Fiscal adequacy. This means that the source of revenue should be sufficient to address the demands of public expenditures.
2. Equality or theoretical justice. This means that the tax burden should be proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay.
3. Administrative feasibility. This means that the tax should be capable of convenience, just and effective administration.

Essential Characteristics of Taxation

1. It is an enforced contribution. All citizens are required to pay their taxes. Failure to do so is subjected to penalty
provided by law.
2. It is generally payable in money. Payments of checks, promissory notes, or in kind are not accepted. The taxpayer must
pay their taxes in terms of prevailing currency.
3. It is proportionate in character. Collection of taxes is based upon the income and the property of the taxpayer. The
higher the income, the higher the tax and the lesser the income, the lesser the tax.
4. It is levied on persons, property or property rights. A person who receives an income based on skills and practice of
profession are required to pay their taxes. He is also taxed based on acquired properties deemed as taxable.
5. It is levied by the state, which has jurisdiction over the person or property. In real property taxation, the rule is: "the
place or state where the property subject to tax is located has authority and jurisdiction to impose tax." In movable property,
the rule is: “mobilia sequntur personan,” a Latin phrase which means "movables follow the law person." (Black Law
Dictionary, 5th ed., 2002).
6. It is levied by the legislative branch of the state. There must be a law enacted by Congress before assessment and
collection may be implemented. The power of taxation may be delegated by Congress to local government units subject to
conditions and terms prescribed by law.
7. It is levied for public purposes. It is intended to raise revenue for public purposes. It is considered for public purpose if
the proceeds thereof are used for the support of the government, or for the welfare of the community.
 CHAPTER 7: GLOBALIZATION AND THE MILLENNIALS
Lesson 1: Origin and Nature of Globalization
Learning Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. identify the important moral challenges of globalization;
2. discuss the pros and cons of globalization;
3. construct a plan for coping with the challenges of globalization;
4. state the qualities of Fillennials; and
5. compare responses to shared moral dilemmas of baby boomers and millennials.

Introduction
Globalization has been in the air. It has now come to be one of the most frequently used terms in Politics and
Economics. It is being projected as the common objective of the whole humankind.
This current wave of globalization has been driven by policies that have opened economies domestically and
internationally. In the years since the Second World War, and especially during the past two decades, many governments
have adopted free-market economic systems, vastly increased their own productive potential and created myriad new
opportunities for international trade and investment. Governments also have negotiated dramatic reductions in barriers to
commerce and have established international agreements to promote trade in goods, services, and investment. Taking
advantage of new opportunities in foreign markets, corporations have built foreign factories and established production and
marketing arrangements with foreign partners. A defining feature of globalization, therefore, is an international industrial
and financial business structure.
Gen Y, more known as the millennials, has their ups and downs in today's world. The millennials are a generation
that is deserving and commendable sometimes. It's no doubt that they accomplish their goals based on their term and use
the resources that were given to them. They continue to climb up the success ladder and show their hard work and can
change the views on how other generations see them. They need to come together as generations and make sure they teach
the upcoming generations everything they have learned and ultimately continue to grow and push forward towards a better
future.
Globalization implies the continuing expansion and intensification of economic, political, social, cultural and
judicial relations across borders. It is furthered by reductions in transportation and communication costs, the rise of new
information technologies, such as the internet, and liberalizations in the markets for goods, services, labor, capital, and
technology. Although it also occurs within existing legal structures, globalization in many cases involves political decisions
about deregulation, free trade, and the integration of markets. It changes the life styles and living conditions for people
around the world, presenting new opportunities for some, but risks and threats to others. Individuals, firms, governments,
and transnational organizations that are lifted out of the framework of the nation state, like the World Bank, United Nations,
the European Union, and multinational firms all face challenges of how to respond to globalization.

What is Globalization?
Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of
different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process
has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human
physical well-being in societies around the world.
Globalization is seen as a conscious and active process of expanding business and trade across the borders of all the
states. It stands for expanding cross-border facilities and economic linkages. This is to be done with a view to secure an
integration of economic interests and activities of the people living in all parts of the world. The objective of making the
world a truly interrelated, inter-dependent, developed global village governs the on-going process of globalization.
Globalization represents the desire to move from national to a global sphere of economic and political activity". It seeks to
transform the existing international economic system into a unified system of global economics. In the existing system,
national economies are the major players. In the new system, the globalized economic and political activity will ensure
sustainable development for the whole world.
Technology has been the other principal driver of globalization. Advances in information technology, in particular,
have dramatically transformed economic life. Information technologies have given all sorts of individual economic actors-
consumers, investors, businesses valuable new tools for identifying and pursuing economic opportunities, including faster
and more informed analyses of economic trends around the world, easy transfers of assets, and collaboration with far-flung
partners.
To find the right balance between benefits and costs associated with globalization, citizens of all nations need to
understand how globalization works and the policy choices facing them and their societies.
 “Globalization is both an active process of corporate expansion across borders and a structure of cross border
facilities and economic linkages that have been steadily growing and changing.” – Edward S. Herman
“Globalization is the process whereby social relations acquire relatively distance-less and borderless qualities.” –
Baylis and Smith

Reasons for Globalization

There are several key factors which have influenced the process of globalization:
1. Improvements in transportation – Larger cargo ships mean that the cost of transporting goods between countries has
decreased. Economies of scale mean the cost per item can reduce when operating on a larger scale. Transport improvements
also mean that goods and people can travel more quickly.
2. Freedom of trade – Organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) promote free trade between countries,
which help to remove barriers between countries.
3. Improvements of communications – The internet and mobile technology have allowed greater communication between
people in different countries.
4. Labor availability and skills – Countries such as India have lower labor costs (about a third of that of the UK) and also
high skill levels. Labor intensive industries such as clothing can take advantage of cheaper labor costs and reduced legal
restrictions in LEDCs.

Historical Background of Globalization

The progress of industrial revolution in the 20th century was accompanied Dy a replacement of the police state by
a welfare state. The state came to be an active actor in the economic life of the society. In the socialist states, state ownership
of means of production and distribution became the rule.
State-controlled command economies were operationalized and regarded as the best means for rapid socio-
economic development. In several other countries, nationalization of key industries and enterprises was undertaken with a
view to provide goods and services to the people. State began performing several socio-economic functions.
Several other new states, adopted a mixed economic model. Ownership and control over key industries was
entrusted to the public sector. It was deemed essential for securing a better mobilization of resources and for providing
better services to the people. State regulation of economy and industry was practiced and the public sector was patronized
by the state. Private sector was given a lesser role in the economic system.
However, the experience with the working of command economy and mixed economy models was found to be
inadequate slow and unproductive. By 1980s economies of socialist countries began collapsing. In 1990s, the world
witnessed the collapse of socialist economies, in particular the Soviet economy and political system. In 1991, the USSR
suffered a disintegration. The weaknesses of all socialist economies became fully clear and all socialist countries began
witnessing a process of overthrow of socialist systems.
Liberalization of politics and economy came to be recognized as the necessity of the day. All countries of the world
began realizing the merits of the market economy, free trade, privatization, liberalization, delicensing and deregulation of
trade, industry and business.
In 1991, the several states decided to go in for liberalization of economy. A new economic policy was formulated
and implemented with an emphasis upon new economic reforms. These were governed by the principles of liberalization,
privatization, market economy, free trade, deregulation and delicensing. These reforms paved the way for initiating the
process of liberalization and globalization of several states' economy. Similar changes were adopted by other states including
the Philippines.
At the international level, all the states agreed to freely develop financial, business, trade and industrial relations
among their people. Adoption of new trade and tariff agreement leading to the establishment of World Trade Organization
made. Globalization became the order of the day.

Salient Features of Globalization:

Hereunder are the general characteristics of globalization:
1. Liberalization. It stands for the freedom of the entrepreneurs to establish any industry or trade or business venture, within
their own countries or abroad.
2. Free trade. It stands for free flow of trade relations among all the nations. It stands for keeping business and trade away
from excessive and rigid regulatory and protective rules and regulations.
3. Globalization of Economic Activity. Economic activities are governed both by the domestic markets and the world
market. It stands for the process of integrating the domestic economies with the world economy.
4. Liberalization of Import-Export System. It stands for liberalization of the import-export activity involving a free flow
of goods and services across borders.
5. Privatization. Globalization stands for keeping the state away from ownership of means of production and distribution
and letting the free flow of industrial, trade and economic activity among the people and their corporations.
6. Increased Collaborations. Encouraging the process of collaborations among the entrepreneurs with a view to secure
rapid modernization, development and technological advancement is a feature of Globalization.
7. Economic Reforms. Encouraging fiscal and financial reforms with a view to give strength to free trade, free enterprise
and market forces of the world. globalization stands for integration and democratization of the world's culture, economy
and infrastructure through global investments.

Effect of Globalization on State Function

In the era of globalization, the functions of the State began undergoing a change. With the increasing disinvestment
of public sector, privatization was encouraged. Public sector was made to compete with the private sector, and as a whole
open competition, free trade, market economy and globalization were practiced. The role of state began emerging as that of
a facilitator and coordinator, in place of an owner and controller. In fact, the process of globalization involves a change in
the role of the state. However, this does not in any way mean re- adoption of laisses faire or reversion to the principle of
police state.
Globalization has necessitated a change in the role of state. The state continues to be a welfare state performing all
the protection functions as well as several social functions. It continues to act as a facilitator and coordinator of economy.
The State continues to act as a welfare state, a natural and necessary institution performing protection and social welfare
functions with some role in protecting and improving economic life of the people.

Lesson 2: Challenges to Globalization

Introduction
The term globalization' generally refers to the opening of international borders to flows of free trade, immigration,
direct investment, information technology. International organizations such as the International Monetary Fund IMF), the
World Bank, and the World Trade Organization work to promote globalization's benefit and address its risk in the world
economies, with particular focus on helping the poorer countries. Globalization has many obvious benefits to consumers
and businesses in rich and poor countries alike. But globalization also has critics.

Positive Consequences of Globalization

There is substantial evidence, from countries of different sizes and different regions, that as countries "globalize"
their citizens benefit, in the form of:
1. access to a wider variety of goods and services,
2. lower prices,
3. more and better-paying jobs,
4. improved health, and
5. higher overall living standards.
6. Globalization is merging historic distinct and separate national markets into one huge global marketplace.

Negative Impacts of Globalization

Critics of globalization have listed down some of its negative impact that include groups such as environmentalists,
anti-poverty campaigners and trade unionists.
Some of the negative impacts are:
1. Globalization operates mostly in the interests of the richest countries, which continue to dominate world trade at the
expense of developing countries. The role of Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) in the world market is
mostly to provide the North and West with cheap labor and raw materials.
2. There are no guarantees that the wealth from inward investment will benefit the local community. Often, profits are sent
back to the More Economically Developed Countries (MEDC) where the Transnational Corporation (TNC) is based.
Transnational companies, with their massive economies of scale. may drive local companies out of business, if it becomes
cheaper to operate in another country, the TNC might close down the factory and make local people redundant.
3. An absence of strictly enforced international laws means that TNCs may operate in LEDCs in a way that would not be
allowed in an MEDC. They may pollute the environment, run risks with safety or impose poor working conditions and low
wages on local workers,
4. Globalization is viewed by many as a threat to the world's cultural diversity. It is feared it might drown out local
economies, traditions and languages and simply re-cast the whole world in the mold of the capitalist North and West. An
example of this is that a Hollywood film is far more likely to be successful worldwide than one made in India or China,
which also have thriving film industries.
5. Industry may begin to thrive in LEDCs at the expense of jobs in manufacturing in the UK and other MEDCS, especially
in textiles.
Anti-globalization campaigners sometimes try to draw people's attention to these points by demonstrating against
the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization is an inter-government organization that promotes the free
flow of trade around the world.
Ethical Issues on Globalization
Clearly the expansion of the global economy is an important part of globalization. At one level it is just a fact
whether we like it or not and it has various impacts on development. But at another level, normative issues are involved.
Some of the ethical issues identified are as follows:
1. Reduction of protectionism is unfair unless applied fairly. Protectionism is the economic policy of restricting imports
from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government
regulations.
2. Inequality of power, example with no or few trade unions leads to massive exploitation by multinationals.
3. The gap between rich and poor in the world is still very large. The bottom 2.5 billion, 40% of the world's population live
on less than $2 a day and receive only 5% of the world's income.
4. Economic globalization marginalizes the poor, destroys the environment and damages cultures. A Globalization increases
inequality and further impoverishes the poor.
5. Many of the global problems are by-products of the expansion of the global economy such as pollution or resource
shortages; global warming; expansion of global tourism; the spread of AIDS and other health hazards facilitated by global
transport; Internet fraud; and terrorism.
6. Poverty. There are still too many people who die because they are too poor to live. Aid and a fairer trading system are
crucial. As we will see, it can be an enormous help to poor countries. It can start them on the first steps of the ladder of
progress. Tremendous changes are also occurring in the richer countries.
7. Income gaps have widened both within countries and between countries. A recent UN study by ILO called for a fair
globalization. They show that global trade increases wealth but the trade benefits are uneven. Like most economic changes
there are winners and losers. What is a fair division of the growing pie? This raises ethical questions.
8. About 820 million people lack adequate nutrition, more than 850 million are illiterate and almost all lack access to basic
sanitation. In rich countries, less than one child in a hundred dies before the age of five. In the poorest countries, one child
in five dies. Every day three hundred thousand young children die from preventable causes. Life expectancy in rich nations
averages 77 years whereas in sub-Sahara Africa, it is 48 years.
9. The World Trade Organization (WTO) does ignore labor rights and the environment. It is most certainly not democratic.
10. International trade and technological change create a significant decline in demand for unskilled, semi-skilled and
traditionally skilled workers.
11. Brain drain – The brain drain'" effect of globalization is another ethical issue; it refers to talented or educated people in
Third World countries who leave their countries of origin for better opportunities in First World countries. This leaves Third
World countries lacking homegrown, educated professionals such as doctors and engineers.
12. Natural Resources – According to the State of the World 2006 Report, "The world's ecological capacity is simply
insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India, Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the
rest of the world in a sustainable way." Tropical rainforests around the world, predominantly in Brazil, Indonesia and Papua
New Guinea, are being felled for fuel and cattle-grazing pastures. Apart from wildlife concerns, this reduction in rainforests
will have a huge effect on oxygen levels for the entire planet.

Solutions to Ethical Problems of Globalization

The world has simultaneously benefited from globalization and failed to manage the inherent complications
resulting from the increased integration of our societies, our economies, and the infrastructure of modern life. As a result,
we have become dangerously exposed to systemic risks that transcend borders. Some of the solutions to the problems of
globalization are:
1. Countries must accept shared responsibility for managing the risks that it has engendered. Rich countries should assist
poor countries for them to propel economic growth and development;
2. Coordinated action is required to address the problems of poverty and malnutrition worldwide. The nature of the response
needs to be tailored to the problems.
3. In the case of pandemics, the key is to support countries where outbreaks occur and help those most at risk of infection.
4. Widespread dangers, such as climate change or a new financial crisis, can require the cooperation of dozens of countries
and a broad range of institutions. In nearly every case, an international effort is needed.
5. In confronting dangers such as the Islamic State, Ebola, financial crisis, climate change, or rising inequality, long-term
political expediency is required.

Ethical Challenges for Business Working in a Globalized World

Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied- ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical
principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct
and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations. It aims at inculcating a sense of value orientation
within company's employee as to how to conduct business responsibly (Velasquez, 2009).
In the present world having severe and all-pervasive deterioration of values, practices of hypocrisy in pursuit of
self-interest, corruption, egoism, violence and pursuit of material wealth is prevalent everywhere. Everyone is on a wild
race to acquire more and more, mostly by shortcut means. There is no end of desire. Further criminalization of the fractured
polity, relationship with the underworld fellows, unethical exploitation of religion, corruption, prevalence of terrorism and
trade union militancy are pointers to the burning need of steering a value-based course to the existing cause and effect
syndrome. It is in this context that values and ethics have its significance.
Ethics is needed to business for several reasons as stated below (Chavan, 2010):
1. Ethics creates credibility with the public: A company perceived by the public to be ethically and socially responsive will
be honored and respected even by those who have no intimate knowledge of its actual working. There will be an instinctive
prejudice in favor of its products, since people believe that the company offers value for money. Its public issue will attract
an immediate response. Ethics gives management credibility with employees: Values are supported to be a common
language to bring leaderships and its people together. Organizational ethics, when perceived by employees as genuine,
Create common goals, values and language (Kumar, 2014).
2. Ethics helps better decision making. Another point of great importance is that an ethical attitude helps the management
make better decisions, example, decisions which are in the interest of the public, their employees and the company's own
long-term goal even though decision making is slower. This is so because respect for ethics will force the management to
take various aspects like economic, social and ethical into consideration in making decisions.
3. Ethics and profits. Ethics and profits go together. A company which is inspired by ethical conduct is also a profitable one.
Value-driven companies are sure to be successful in the long run though in the short run they may lose money.
4. Law cannot protect society, ethics can. Ethics is important because the government, law and lawyers cannot do everything
to protect society. Technology develops faster than the government can regulate. People in an industry often know the
dangers in a particular technology better than the regulatory agencies. Further, government cannot always regulate all
activities which are harmful to society. Where law fails, ethics can succeed. An ethically- oriented management takes
measures to prevent pollution and protection of workers' health even before being mandated by law.
5. Ethical influence of globalization on stakeholders. Business ethics propels the stakeholders of company towards higher
level of performance. Globalization provides an enabling environment in this endeavor. Shareholders, employees,
customers, suppliers, competitors, government and civil society are considered as stakeholders of businesses.

Conclusion
What makes the ethics and values in business special relevant and topical in the present-day context in the world is
the fact that we are on the threshold of environmental changes of far-reaching consequences. Business ethics presents
pertinent solutions to the concerns and dilemmas faced by global organizations. Ethical leadership is essential for the long-
term survival and success of any Organization. In the era of globalization, business ethics considerably influences
shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, government and civil society. Organizations should focus on
the ethical issues faced by them in various functional areas like marketing, finance, human resources, production, ICT etc.
The commendable work done by global corporations in inculcating and practicing business ethics underscores the
importance of value-based leadership in international business scenario.

Lesson 3: Millennials Fillennials

Introduction
In recent years, the proverbial generation gap has become more visible in the Philippines due to changing mores,
styles, and spending habits. Marga Manlapig finds out more about the differences among the Silent Generation, Baby
Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z, and the young leaders known as Generation T "You just don't
understand!" Over the years, these words have been the battle cry (or the broken-hearted wail) of young people against the
strictures and policies imposed by their elders. It is a cry usually followed up with a bracing statement that invariably begins
with "When I was your age, we did things differently!"

Millennials: Ethical Challenges and Responses

Millennials generally refers to the generation of people born the term between the early 1980s and 1990s, according
to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Some people also include children born in the early 2000s. The Millennial Generation
is also known as Generation Y, because it comes after Generation X those people between the early 1960s and the 1980s.
The publication Ad Age was one of the first to coin the term "Generation Y" in an editorial in August 1993. But the term
didn't age well, and "Millennials" has largely overtaken it. But the terms basically mean the same thing (livescience.com).
This age group has also been called the Peter Pan or Boomerang Generation because of the propensity of some to move
back in with their parents, perhaps due to economic constraints, and a growing tendency to delay some of the typical
adulthood rites of passage like marriage or starting a career.

The Positive and Negative Characteristics of Millennials

Millennials have been characterized in a number of different ways. On the negative side, they've been described as
lazy, narcissistic and prone to jump from job to job. The 2008 book "Trophy Kids" by Ron Alsop discusses how many
young people have been rewarded for minimal accomplishments such as mere Participation in competitive sports, and have
unrealistic expectations of working life. A story in Time magazine said polls show that Millennials "want flexible work
schedules, more 'me time' on the job, and nearly nonstop feedback and career advice from managers." Another Time story
in May 2013, entitled “The Me Me Me Generation," begins: "They're narcissistic. They're lazy. They're coddled. They're
even a bit delusional. Those aren't just unfounded negative stereotypes about 80 million Americans born roughly between
1980 and 2000. They're backed up by a decade of sociological research." The article also points out that Millennials may
be simply adapting quickly to a world undergoing rapid technological change A 2012 study found millennials to be "more
civically and politically disengaged, more focused on materialistic values, and less concerned about helping the larger
community. "The trend is more of an emphasis on extrinsic values such as money, fame, and image, and less emphasis on
intrinsic values such as self-acceptance, group affiliation and community." The study was based on an analysis of two large
databases of 9 million high school seniors or entering college students. They have also been described in positive ways.
They are generally regarded as being more open-minded, and more supportive of gay rights and equal rights for minorities.
Other positives adjectives to describe them include confident, self- expressive, liberal, upbeat and receptive to new ideas
and ways of living.

The Filipino Millennials (Fillennials)

You may have seen the word millennial in social media or heard it on TV. You're puzzled, clueless as to what this
word means. In the Philippines, Filipino millennials or "Fillennials" is now a thing. Let us tell you who "millennials" are,
what do they do, and why they are called as such. In the Philippines, millennials make up one-third of the total population.
They're the ones politicians talk to. The ones marketers try to entice and persuade. The ones companies want to hire. They
are a force to be reckoned with.
Millennials in the Philippines are described as those who are social media- dependent and also, the "'selfie"
generation. Many things describe what a millennial According to The Week, millennials are usually spendthrifts. Millennials
in the Philippines are known to usually spend for luxury goods which leave their bank accounts shaken-the reason why they
are also described as "broke." Millennials are also described as narcissist, making them known as the "Me, Me. Me
Generation." However, there are also good attitudes which millennials possess: being politically and socially-engaged.
Compared to other generations, millennials have their say about issues and are more involved with politics.
When it comes to entertainment, millennials in the Philippines are usually spending time online, watching YouTube
videos. Millennials usually have seen the latest apps, watch the latest TV series, and are into the latest hits. According to a
Philippine Star article, millennials in the Philippines do not usually read newspapers. Instead, they have Google for
information or Waze for road directions. Another set of description that best fits millennials are upbeat, lazy, narcissistic,
materialistic, self-expressive, fun-loving and liberal. They also have a short attention span. But if you talk to them about the
things that interest them for example, tattoos, trivia, gaming, movies and the likes, they're really one to talk.
They're also known to be career-shifters, jumping from one field to another, seeing making career as "self-
discovery." According to Mr. Jos Ortega, of Havas Media Ortega, millennials are characterized in different identities. "Who
they are on Facebook may not necessarily be who they are in real life, on Instagram, or on Twitter," said Ortega. Diversity
is what makes a millennial and they have different versions of themselves depending on what they want to show to the
world. The defining and guiding values of members of the millennial generation include optimism, confidence, high self-
esteem, diversity, civic duty, ethical consumption, achievement, morality, change, multi-view and a global perspective.
Millennials are the most confident, open-minded, expressive and optimistic generation ever born. Their desire for
recognition gives way to so many of them extending a helping hand during emergencies and disasters. Just look at the
number of pictures posted during the aftermath of "Yolanda," of these kids packing goods, venturing to typhoon-stricken
places, and all sorts of relief efforts (lifestyle.inquirer.net/).
They are more open in accepting all kinds of people no matter what the color of their skin is, how they dress, or
what their religion is. Millennials are more accepting whatever differences people may have. They are growing up in a
world that is creaking under the strain of our lifestyles, and they are daily made aware of the fragile environment. So, it is
no surprise that they are emerging as ethical consumers who want to change the world (Codrington, 2008).
The common notion that millennials all over the world share the same youth culture might be somewhat applicable
in the case of the Philippines. However, like any other nation, the Philippines has a unique history which influences and
shapes the attitudes, beliefs, preferences, and value systems of the Filipino millennials. In this ever-changing world, it may
be true that Filipino millennials generally experience life in a similar way that the millennials of other countries do, since
various global events have been taking place. Nonetheless, Filipino millennials Still differ from other millennials in a sense
that their personalities are still affected and shaped by Philippine culture and society.
Filipino millennials as the same with the general notion of millennials, also embody traits such as being optimistic,
career driven, socially active and civic-oriented. As it is the millennial generation which is exposed to issues such as
globalization, terrorism, migration and other national, international, transnational issues of the world, they are perceived to
be the most active and reactive among all generations as of this date. Despite of the common stereotypes attached to Filipino
millennials which are primarily based from how they conduct themselves, there 1s still a huge potential that this generation
will be able to contribute to the general welfare of mankind.

The Generation Gap

The concept of the generation gap-- that all-encompassing phrase used to describe the conflict between older people
and the youth- has been presented in so many ways over the years. It has served as the gist of films, popular music, and
television shows, as well as a starting point of discussion for many sociopolitical issues. It is a concept that has been played
for both laughs and copious amounts of tears, but all of that is but the tip of an iceberg of conflicting yet correlated issues
and points of view regarding anything and everything.
However, it is most notable that this conflict, so to speak, between generations has become more noticeable in recent
years. Sociologists, psychologists, and cultural scholars have noted the increasing disparity among Baby Boomers,
Generation X, and the so-called Millennials with regard to fashion, finances, and general morality.
Contrast this with millennials in the workplace. Everyone who graduates from college is highly driven and
ambitious. Regardless of their generation, every fresh grad jumps into the job-pool with high hopes for immediate
advancement. Millennials, however, have taken this optimism and turned the knobs up to 11. Likewise, due to having grown
up in a completely wired environment where they can get answers at the touch of a button (a click of the mouse, as it were),
they want instant appreciation, quick growth, and easy advancement up the corporate ladder. This is not an attitude that
endears them to their elders, of course, but one commendable when you realize that they're thinking about their future.
In between Generation X and the Millennials, however, Philippine Tatler has noted a niche group: Generation T.
These are people between the ages of 25 and 40 who are filled with potential: a whole new generation of influencers, creative
visionaries, and upcoming leaders who are making names for themselves and are changing the very face of the nation. A
bright mix of youth, idealism, and a wisdom beyond their years, Generation T is redefining what it means to lead and to
affect change in society.

Fillennial Morality
Children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect their elders, and love talking
instead of exercise." These were the words the Greek philosopher Socrates in a tirade against Athenian youth during his
Ene, but many older adults in this modern age would use the very same words when railing against the youth.
Millennials are perceived by their elders as having a rather tenuous grip on morality. While they are more open-
minded with regard to issues regarding sexual identity, pre-marital relations, and the concept of having and raising children
out of wedlock, they are also seen as a little too sensitive when it comes to reacting o socio-civic issues. The use of social
media through which to air their views has been considered by many as a coward's way out: many people air scathing
opinions online instead of in public, protected, as they are, by a sense of virtual anonymity.
According to Jos Ortega, chairman and CEO of digital media agency Havos Media Ortega, the last thing a millennial
wants to hear is to be told that he or she will be unable to do something. "To them, that is violating the very being of what
they stand for," he explained during a discussion on the millennial market with the Philippine Association of National
Advertisers (PANA). "[Life] for millennials is a journey of self-discovery."
But this drive towards self-discovery is not without consequences. Older generations see them as willful and
disrespectful to others; highly interactive online but completely lacking in interpersonal skills in the real world; overly
dependent on technology; narcissistic and overly materialistic; even fatalistic as many millennials do not seem to have a
solid foundation for their future or even a sense of where to go next.
Exposure to other ways of thinking thanks to being connected to the world online has also made many millennials
drift away from traditional religion, with some veering into becoming agnostics and others into all-out atheists. Ironically,
many baby boomers who once shunned organized religion find themselves seeking spiritual solace in the faith they left
behind as they grow older. Even Generation X cynics have found new life, so to speak, in their respective churches: a sort
of refuge and backlash against the wanton behavior they see proliferating among the young.
There are various aspects of the generation gap that can be opened for discussion. Corporate and financial issues,
particularly those involving the balance of power in the workplace or proper investing, are one; changing values are another.
In the end, it is up to all of us to coexist in mutual respect and some modicum of understanding. Perhaps the one question
we need to answer is "Why can't we all just get along?"

Loosening Values of Fillennials

Millennials are growing up differently from how the previous generations. For one thing, the computer is the new
nanny and it trains millennials to be self-centered and selfish. Rentoy also called the millennials as the multi-tasking
generation that suffers from the inability to focus during lectures, classes, conversations studying and writing. The level of
information may be going up but their level of knowledge is going down.
He added that today's generation has to contend with religious indifference, divorce, alcoholism, softness (can't deal
with life's difficulties), drug addiction and moral relativism. Instead of looking up to their parents as role models, their
heroes and standards of excellence are celebrities, rock stars, athletes, and influencers.
Rentoy also reported a severe loosening of moral values among adult Filipinos, such that young people don't seem
to know what's right and wrong. As a consequence, about half of them do not see anything wrong with casual sex, premarital
sex, sex with a prostitute, getting drunk, gambling, hazing, abortion, and suicide (McCann-Erickson Youth Studies of 2000
and 2005).
Teen pregnancies are on the rise with 6000 cases in Tarlac in 2014; 26,606 cases in Metro Manila and 28,605 cases
in Cavite-Laguna-Batangas-Rizal.

Reasons Why Fillennials are Broke

Millennials, those who were born between 1980 and late 1990's, make up about % of the country's overall population
today. With a median age of 23 years, the population in the Philippines is considered among the youngest in the world.
Since many Filipinos are relatively young and belong to the so-called Millennial generation, the country is in the best
position to reap the demographic advantage of millennials: a more productive (and income generating) workforce. Although
the millennials, also known as Generation Y, are considered an exceptional generation, the economic and social climate of
today has not spared them from financial problems. The paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle has never been more apparent than
the current lifestyle led by this group of young people.
This can be attributed to the following common reasons (Adrian, 2017):
1. Lacks financial literacy – Contrary to what most millennials think, they aren't as financially savvy as they perceive
themselves to be. According to a data presented by The Global Filipino investor, The Philippines is one of the 30 least
financially literate countries in the world, with only 0.7% of the population investing in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and
government securities.
Despite the Philippines having about %of its population in the millennial age group, the ratio of those who are
financially literate to the entire population aren't even close to a fraction of the millennial population in the country. Although
the millennials make up a large segment of the country's workforce, they aren't financially literate.
Another survey debunked how most millennials see their generation as more entrepreneurial than baby boomers
and generation X. According to that survey, most millennials think staying at one company is the best way to advance their
career than starting their own business. Surprisingly, only 22% think that starting their business is the way. However, to be
fair, they do think that business is the best way to advance a country's economy as a whole. Despite that though millennials
see the importance of personal finance and many of them think it should be taught in schools, according to the research
done by Wells Fargo, 79% of millennials think it "should be taught in high schools."
2. Financially vulnerable – According to the survey done by Manulife, despite being cautious with spending, four out of
10 Filipino investors carry debt, majority of which are below 35 years old. The research was conducted on middle class to
affluent investors who are 25 years old and above. Most of them are also primary decision makers in their household and in
their business. Despite having a strong grasp of real-life financial discipline, many of them are burdened with high levels of
personal debts, not including mortgages. According to the survey, 41% of Filipino investors carry debts, 7% of which are
burdened with P25,000 and above worth of debt, while the rest are indebted between P5,000 and P24,999. When a person
is unprepared for any unexpected and emergency financial situations, he or she is obviously financially vulnerable.
3. Burdened with more financial responsibilities – While millennials may be generally pictured as affluent young
professionals by many – an image highly influenced by the western culture, it is far from the truth in the Philippines. The
country is overpopulated by young adults, who are neither affluent nor the stereotypical millennial, generalizing them as
such is a mistake.
Not all Filipinos who fall under that age group or generation fits description. They're usually the breadwinners of
their family and even Supporting their parents financially, or financing the education of their siblings Many of them just
fall under the age requirement, but many are nothing like the affluent youth, who just worries about ticking off their next
travel goals or those who live a hipster lifestyle because they can. More and more young Filipinos are burdened by financial
responsibilities simply by inheriting them from their parents, such as family debts, tuition expenses of their younger siblings,
and even the retirement of their parents, to name a few. Although in upscale cities like Metro Manila, millennials can be
seen flocking hipster cafes and living in high rise condominiums, they don’t necessarily present the majority of the
millennials in the Philippines.
4. Stagnant income – The findings of the National Youth Assessment Study 2015 are also instructive. The study, sponsored
by the National Youth Commission, profiles the needs, attitudes, and economic state of Filipino youth aged 15-30 years
old.
Seven out of 10 respondents reported that their household income on average is less than P10,000, while 18.8% of
households are recipients of 4Ps, which means they are indigents. Close to half (42.5%) of surveyed youth are hoping for a
job within the next five years. Among those who are employed, 26.2% indicated that their occupation poses some form of
hazard to their health. These basic economic data suggest that many of our youth are not as upwardly mobile as we thought
they were. Many of them even have a very limited lifestyle.

How to overcome them

The good news is the solutions to financial dilemmas aren't really age dependent. Whether you're a millennial or
not, getting around your finances is quite universal. It will only depend on how persistent you are in pursuing the following:
1. Be thrifty but not cheapskate – Another way to boost one's income is to cut expenses to ramp up your savings. Though
you don't really have any control of your salary most of the time, how much you save is completely within your hands.
According to LA Times, millennials have already become less interested in traditional status symbols like wearing name
brands, and even cars! They tend to be thriftier in their purchasing decisions than what we think. Instead, they embrace old
school frugality by fully adopting the motto of our generation of grandparents: "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do
without!"
2. Side hustle – If you want to get ahead financially, you need to start playing to win, instead of playing not to lose. Start
boning up on how to earn extra income, with the wide availability of online based jobs and even ride hailing services such
as Uber and Grab, there's never a shortage of earning opportunities. You can also venture in stocks and other legit investment
products to Create a channel for passive income. You can start out small and eventually grow your profile
3. Bargain for a raise – Though a single raise can only boost your salary by so much, when properly managed, that few
hundred or thousand pesos can result in hundreds of thousands in savings during your entire working life.
4. Educate yourself or better yet, find a mentor – It's never too late to learn, especially financial management. With the
abundance of information online, self-education about personal finance is easy. However, if you want to take it seriously
and put it into practice, it helps to have a mentor or at least an advisor who will guide and carry you throughout the process.
A family member or a friend would be an ideal mentor, but if you don't know anyone close to you who could teach
you a thing or two about personal finance, you can always approach insurance and wealth management companies for
starters.
Whether it's part of our culture or simply an economic matter, at the end of the day, it's the attitude towards financial
management that will save a generation from the cycle of financial dilemmas. The baby boomers and the generation before
the millennials, despite not having easy access to all the relevant information on the internet, are immensely more financial
savvy than the millennials. Though, they're not exempted from the usual financial struggles that all of us go through, basing
on statistics, they're more financially resilient than the millennials.
Not everyone may be born affluent, but becoming one is a choice. Economic Climate may be tough, but financial
literacy can make it more manageable to navigate
 CHAPTER 8: ETHICS THROUGH THICK AND THIN
Lesson 1: Ethics and Religion
Learning Objectives:
At the end of the chapter, the students will be able to:
1. Identify the different challenges to ethical behavior in today's world;
2. Justify the need for meaningful research on universal values;
3. Discuss the characteristics of the pluralist and fundamentalist in today’s world.

Introduction
When academics talk about ethics, they are typically referring to decisions about right and wrong. As noted, the
study of ethical behavior goes back thousands of years to ancient Greece. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that investigates
questions such as "What is good and what is bad?" "Is it just to reward one group with more benefits than another?" "What
action should an individual or organization take if a client mistreats him/her/it?" In practice, ethics is decision-making tools
that try to guide questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, virtue and vice,
justice and crime, etc. Often, religion and ethics are treated as the same thing, with various religions making claims about
their belief systems being the best way for people to live, actively proselytizing and trying to convert unbelievers, trying to
legislate public behaviors based around isolated religious passages, etc. Of course, not all religions are the same, some are
more liberal than others and some more conservative, but in general, all religious traditions believe that their faith represents
a path to enlightenment and salvation.
Ethics involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. A central
aspect of ethics is "the good life'", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers
to be more important than traditional moral conduct (Singer, 1993). Most religions have an ethical component, often derived
from purported supernatural revelation or guidance. Some assert that religion is necessary to live ethically. Blackburn states
that there are those who "would say that we can only flourish under the umbrella of a strong social order, cemented by
common adherence to a particular religious tradition.

Ethics and Religion

Ethics and religion are cornerstones in society. The importance of Ethics is becoming recognized in all aspects of
everyday life. A strong background in Ethics and Religion is important for many careers today, as well as a crucial discipline
for all people.
Ethics is universal decision-making tools that may be used by a person of any religious persuasion, including
atheists. While religion makes claims about cosmology, social behavior, and the "proper" treatment of others, etc. Ethics is
based on logic and reason rather than tradition or injunction. As Burke suggests of the "hortatory Negative" of the "Thou
Shalt Not's" found in many religious traditions that tell people how to behave by "moralizing," ethics includes no such
moralizing. If something is bad, ethics tells us we should not do it, if something is good, obviously there is no harm in doing
it. The tricky part of life, and the reason that we need ethics, is that what is good and bad in life are often complicated by
our personal circumstances, culture, finances, ethnicity, gender, age, time, experience, personal beliefs, and other variables.
Often the path that looks most desirable will have negative consequences, while the path that looks the most perilous for an
individual or organization will often result in doing the best for others. Doing what is "right" is a lot harder than doing what
is expedient or convenient.
There is a spectrum of views about how religion and ethics are related – from the view that religion is the absolute
bedrock of ethics to one that holds that ethics is based on humanistic assumptions justified mainly, and sometimes only, by
appeals to reason. These two extremes tend to be argued in a way that offers little room for compromise or pragmatic
solutions to real issues we face every day.
The relationship between religion and ethics is about the relationship between revelation and reason. Religion is
based in some measure on the idea that God (or some deity) reveals insights about life and its true meaning. These insights
are collected in texts (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and presented as "revelation." Ethics, from a strictly humanistic
perspective, is based on the tenets of reason: Anything that is not rationally verifiable cannot be considered justifiable. From
this perspective, ethical principles need not derive their authority from religious doctrine. Instead, these principles are upheld
for their value in promoting independent and responsible individuals- people who are capable of making decisions that
maximize their own well-being while respecting the well-being of others.
Even though religious and secular ethics don't derive their authority from the same source, we still must find a way
to establish common ground between them, otherwise, we're condemning ourselves to live amidst social discord and
division. It is believed we can accommodate the requirements of reason and religion everyday ethical by developing certain
qualities that we would bring to our discussions. Aristotle said that cultivating qualities he called them "virtues" like
prudence, reason, accommodation, compromise, moderation, wisdom, honesty, and truthfulness, among others, would
enable us all to enter the discussions and conflicts between religion and ethics- where differences exist-with a measure of
moderation and agreement. When ethics and religion collide, nobody wins; when religion and ethics find room for robust
discussion and agreement, we maximize the prospects for constructive choices in our society.
A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by
many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral codes. The ancient Greeks called it eudaimonia or happiness.
Ihe ancient Greeks believed happiness was brought about by living one's life in accordance with virtue positive traits of
character. Virtue in the highest sense, in dh adult who has been brought up well, will not just involve good personal habits
ouen as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual virtue. The essence of virtue is in the
wholeness of the person brought about by integrity
The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a basic requirement of ethics. We ought
to be virtuous and do our duty, he said. Kant believed virtue should be rewarded by happiness, and it would be intolerable
it it were not so. Since it's clear that virtue often does go unrewarded in the present lite, Kant argued that the soul must be
immortal. Virtue must receive its due recompense in a future life, and there must be a God guaranteeing that it is so rewarded.
The existence of God and the immortality of the soul were what Kant called the postulates of practical reason - the
assumptions without which, so he claimed, ethics and a moral life would not be possible.
If religion has a role in moral decision-making, then what should be that role? For many individuals, their religion
is a centrally defining characteristic of who they are, such that they would be nearly incapable of making ethical decisions
independently of their religious beliefs.
Further, some of our most basic moral sentiments are directly connected to religious ideology. For example, most
people agree that things like murder and adultery are always wrong, regardless of circumstances. Most major world religions
echo these sentiments, and it can be argued that the ancient codes of conduct these traditions embody are actually the original
source of our social intuitions. At a minimum, we. do seem to regard religion as a good source of basic moral guidance,
making it unwise to argue that there ought to be no connection between religion and ethics.
The link between religion and morality is best illustrated by the Golden Rule. Virtually all of the world's great
religions contain in their religious texts some version of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would wish them do unto
you". In other words, we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. This is the basic ethics that guides all
religions. If we do so, happiness will ensue.

The Inseparableness of Ethics and Religion

There is an old philosophical view that if there's no God, there is no morality. As children, many of us learn about
ethics in the context of religious instruction. And as adults, the ethical or moral judgments of many of us are often shaped
by our religious background, whether consciously or not. Sometimes religion is even given as the justification for our ethical
ideas.
In the parlance of contemporary philosophy, ethical properties have a certain special or queer status. That is, we
cannot see wrongness in killing in the way that we see the whiteness of a stone. The only kind of support there can be for
ethical beliefs must come from somewhere else, from some transcendent source. In effect, if killing is Wrong, it can only
be because God or some divine order regards it as wrong (Mackie, 1977).
There is also the view attributed to Dostoevsky's character Ivan Karamazov according to which, if God does not
exist, everything is permitted. One finds pretty much this same Karamazovian position in the words of the Senator and
Democratic candidate in 2000 for US Vice President Joseph Lieberman who denied that "morality can be maintained without
religion."
The 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who is less well known, gives an interesting twist to the
matter. In agreement with the Karamazovian position, Nietzsche also thought that morality which, as he understood it, is a
mode f valuation rooted in the contrast between good and evil, is intimately bound to the belief in a transcendental realm
(Weberman, 2013).

Religion and Ethics in Decision-Making

When making ethical decisions, no one stands outside a social and cultural world. Each of us judges human reality
according to a set of adopted and adapted moral criteria based on such factors as nationality, education, social class,
professional occupation, and, of course, religious affiliation. Being with God is to inhabit a universe of meaning, as well as
a religious community extended in time and space. To be in a faith tradition is to participate actively in a whole world of
thought and action, of motive and image, of attraction and intuition. Religion is a multicultural society bound together by a
professed faith (the creed); a common religious practices and an allegiance to Jesus Christ, whom we acknowledge as Lord.
This fundamental identity determines, to a great extent, an approach to ethics.
The Art of Choosing Well. Ethics has to do with our choices and actions, which form our character even as they
express it. Ethics depends on that human habit of reflection that takes into account our interests and values- as well as those
of others- in the process of deciding and doing. Since it calls on perceptive thought, analytical and intuitive reasoning, and
prudential judgment, ethics is perhaps more art than science- the art of choosing well and wisely for the good of self and
others.
 Fortunately, we do not need to re-create the ethical wheel in every new Situation. We systematize our ethical insights
and share them with others, for we are inherently conservative creatures.
A careful weighing of the practical outcomes of people's choices leads to the elucidation of moral norms. These are
established and enforced by members of a social order because of their perceived truth and applicability for the common
good. The handing on of such moral law can be compared to a family's history: Much is different in each succeeding
generation; yet, too, there is much continuity-not only hair and eye color or a family name but, more subtly, certain Character
traits and moral habits that combine to shape the pattern of our lives. For the human family, what remains factual on the
ethical plarne is the desire tor happiness, community, love, and a general integrity of thought, word, and deed. What changes
today more radically than ever before is the social context within which we strive for happiness.
In a world marked by rapid innovation, ethical judgments allow us to sift the evidence, name our values, and choose
our means of achieving the best possible results. Established law does not afford an efficient answer to every moral dilemma,
precisely because new situations oblige us to imagine and enact new moral laws or at least to make new applications of
existing moral certitudes about such 1Ssues as the dignity of human life, the value of honesty and fairness, and the protection
of the weak. In this never-ending process, circumstances force us to choose between Competing claims on our will. How
do we orient ourselves in order to judge cases well? what ought we retrieve from the past? And under what form? This is
where faith comes in.
Faith-based ethics considers the moral challenges of our times against the background of those fundamental norms
and values that undergird our lives. The natural law tradition from scholastic theology provides a means of placing these
values in dialogue with new problems and new challenges (Spohn, 1995).
Everyday millions and millions of people interact with each other, socially, physically, and mentally. To some
extent, the choices and decisions we make on a day-to-day basis are all in some aspect subconscious, especially the tiny
things. Humans have free will, but the question is how much religion actually affects our decision and choice making skills?
Religion and choices both play big roles in our everyday life, without some type of idea about spirituality, whether
it be the lack-thereof or the idea of a certain of God and religion, humans would be lost. It's the same thing with choices,
without making important choices in life, and even to some extent small choices, you won't get anywhere. To make a
decision on a choice you need some type of foundation, but what could that be? Mostly in more black and white situations
we 11se rational thinking, but what about in more stressful situations? People use their inner values and morals, Religion
and the search for a higher power are all very sensitive and personal topics. Everyone is different, but is it fair to say that
religion actually has an influence on our decisions?

Lesson 2: Challenges to Ethical Behavior

Introduction
Paving attention to ethics makes good business sense. We create goodwill for our companies and enhance our
chances of success when we meet our obligations and treat customers, colleagues, and subordinates fairly and honestly.
Ethical behavior is important in the workplace, whether it's an office, a factory, boardroom, or a construction site.
Everywhere business is conducted, ethics matters. When we hear the word ethical, several ideas come to mind, most notably
good (versus bad) and right (versus wrong). Many professions and corporations have developed codes of ethics to address
their unique business situations. By developing a code of ethics, an organization makes it clear that employees and members
cannot claim ignorance as a defense for unethical conduct. In general, the proper role of corporate management in promoting
business ethics involves clarifying and enforcing expectations, listening and respecting diverse views on various issues,
acting consistently over time, and creating an atmosphere free from harassment and inequality. A professional code of ethics
sets a standard for which each member of the profession can be expected to meet. It is a promise to act in a manner that
protects the public's well-being. A professional code of ethics informs the public what to expect of a company and its
employees.

What is Ethical Behavior?

What is ethical behavior? Is it based in religion or is it based only in the secular world? Let's look at some definitions
from various sources and then go from there. Dictionary.com defines ethics as a system of moral principles: the ethics of a
culture. The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture,
profession etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics, etc.
So, according to the dictionary, ethics is not necessarily based in religion but can be based there. Certainly, different
faiths, whether one is Jewish, Christian or Islam or some other faith there are beliefs in moral principles that could be
considered ethical behavior. Black's Law Dictionary defines ethics as "a consensus of expert opinion as to the necessity of
professional standards." They (Black's) also define ethics in terms of behavior and guidelines among the members of a
profession/professional organization and their duties towards one another, clients and the public. This would be a definition
that we are all familiar with in our professional lives. But is there more to it than that? Let's look at what others throughout
history have said.
Aristotle defined ethics as "practical wisdom". Why practical? Because it involves an action (behavior) - both at the
individual and societal/corporate level. Aristotle also believed that ethics related to what should or should not be done with
regard to the things are good or bad for an individual. He also said "we are not studying in order to know what virtue is. but
to become good, for otherwise there would be no profit in it." In other words, we have to "practice" it for lack of a better
term. It requires action on our part.
Ethical Behavior at Work
The term "ethical" can be nebulous and open to interpretation. Many people say that it’s one of those things that
you know when you see it or the lack of it. Because it can be difficult to define, it's essential for leaders to be specific when
they say that they expect ethical behavior from their employees. More defined guidelines can help everyone get on the same
page.
Generally, ethical behavior is doing the right thing and adhering to professional standards. While this definition is
a good start, it doesn't give specific guidance. That why it's essential to have a codified set of ethical standards for your
business. This code can help to provide employees examples of moral quandaries they may face and ideas about how to
handle these situations. If you are part of a professional association in your industry, this can be a great resource. Many of
these organizations have guidelines that you can use. However, you may need to embark on a do-it-yourself journey for
your ethical guide.

Creating Your Own Code of Ethics

If you can't find an industry-specific code of ethics or you don't agree with what you see, you can build a code of
ethics yourself. Consider why you want to record your standards in the first place. If you keep in mind that this document
should help guide employees in difficult situations, outline repercussions for ethical violations and create a positive company
culture, you can write a code of ethics that will help your business thrive.
While your industry may have unique ethical considerations, there are a few Lings almost all codes should address.
For example, your written system should help employees decide what to do if a conflict of interest arises. Furthermore, your
guidelines should discuss topics like social media, client privacy, privacy for colleagues, proprietary information, handling
cash and submitting expenses.
Your code of ethics should also clearly outline a protocol for when things go wrong. All employees should know
who to tell if they witness unscrupulous behavior. Furthermore, they should know what will happen after they report it to
you and that you will protect them from retaliation. Be transparent about how she processes will work. Be sure to involve
your human resources team in these decisions.
Don't expect to come up with everything on your own. Instead, seek input from people throughout the organization.
Any employee may have the ideas you need to make the right code of conduct. Once you have your code of conduct, don't
be afraid to revise as necessary. Setting aside time each year to revisit your goals and rules can help keep your company
ethical.

How to Teach Employees Ethical Behavior

While defining your expectations in a written code of ethics is an excellent start, it is not the only thing great leaders
should do. Unfortunately, 60 percent of unethical conduct in the workplace involves a manager. Since both company culture
and behavior come from the top down, it's essential to turn this trend around, All managers within your organization should
display ethical behavior whether or not someone is watching.
1. Ethical behavior starts with you. It can be downright impossible to get your employees to act morally if they see that
you do no such thing. After all, it is difficult to take someone's advice seriously when she doesn't take it herself.
2. Regular training for all employees. Sometimes, you may not have the expertise to address a specific ethical question.
You can hire people who spend their lives studying and teaching these subjects. Furthermore, ongoing training can provide
updated insight as the world changes. For example, the rise of social media has caused new ethical considerations for people
in healthcare and other information-sensitive industries. With the new potential for HIPAA violations and information leaks,
social media has become a hot topic in the business ethics world.
3. Enforce your rules. Employees who violate your company's ethical standards should face appropriate repercussions.
Sometimes, that may mean redirection or a verbal warning. For extreme violations, like sexual harassment or theft, you may
need to let the person go or even take legal action. Either way, sticking to the consequences outlined in your code of ethics
shows how serious it is to your business.
4. Recognize integrity when you see it. Sometimes, it can be difficult to make the right decision or even know what the
ethical choice is. When you see an employee choose that path in the face of adversity, be sure to praise her, even if it's only
in a private conversation.
5. Open and honest communication is key to creating an ethical business. If you find your business at a crossroads or if
expectations change, leaders should make sure to talk to subordinates about the evolving situation. Similarly, managers
need to ensure that all employees feel comfortable reporting unethical behavior that they witness. Since about half of all
professionals see improper behavior each year, this practice can help you identify problems.
 If these standards are new to your business, don't try to drop it all on everyone all at once. Instead, try making
incremental changes that are more likely to stick. For example, you can offer incentives through 'nudge" programs. These
plans last for a specified time limit, like a month or a quarter, and reward employees who exhibit certain behaviors in that
time. Nudge programs can help everyone build new habits and feel like they are working toward something.
How to Hire Ethical People
Perhaps the best way to ensure that your organization keeps high standards is to hire people with good moral scopes
in the first place. While you can't always be sure that someone is going to perform according to your standards, there are a
few things to look for in an interviewee.
First, look for people who tend to prioritize the needs of customers. When you ask him about his previous
experiences, does he talk about how he ensured customer satisfaction or does he only talk about himself? Research shows
that customer-centric people tend to have more ethical business practices.
People who are assertive also tend to help create ethical company cultures. You may also ask questions in the
interview about how she would handle specific moral issues that she may face in the position.

Examples of Unethical Behavior

Corrupt behavior can take many forms, but there are a few immoral behaviors that come up frequently. Perhaps the
biggest culprit is the misuse of company time. Some people may not realize that checking social media and making personal
calls while on the clock is an ethical violation, but it can be. Furthermore, some people search for new jobs or work their
side hustle while on the job.
Unfortunately, abusive behavior is also a common immorality in the workplace. This behavior can take many
upsetting forms, such as racism, misogyny, sexual harassment and emotional abuse. If you see this taking place in your
business, it's important to address it immediately. You should contact in your lawyer to learn about your options for recourse.
You can avoid some of these problems with regular training and a zero-tolerance policy.
Theft is another all-too-popular form of unethical behavior. Whether the employee takes products, forges cheques
or lies about their travel expenses, it is theft. Furthermore, employee theft is criminal. Open communication can help ensure
that witnesses to these crimes feel comfortable coming forward.

Downfalls of Unethical Behavior

Business owners who allow unethical behaviors to run rampant risk ruining their businesses. While some effects
are obvious and immediate, others take time and destroy the company slowly. For example, you may stop employee theft
from immediately costing your business money, but an abusive employee can cost you even more in the long run.
One-way unethical behavior can hurt your business is by causing legal troubles. If you ignore blatant abuse, for
example, you could end up facing a negligence lawsuit from the victim. Likewise, an accountant who cooks the books might
save the business money initially, but that action could lead to significant legal trouble for all involved.
Immoral behaviors can also affect your employees in ways that hurt the bottom line. After all, the best employees
with high moral standards will often leave a company that does not meet those standards. As such, breeding a negative and
unscrupulous culture can keep top talent out and give the business high turnover. Furthermore, the employees who do stay
may feel defeated and unmotivated, which can suppress productivity.
If news gets out that a company has sketchy professional practices, it can spell disaster for the bottom line. With
more consumers paying attention to company ethics, one news story about improper behavior can sink a small business
(Mackenzie, 2018).

Lesson 3: Obstacles to Ethical Behavior

Introduction
Every organization strives to have companies understand that good ethical practices are in actuality good business
practices, other people and organizations are studying how ethical lapses can occur. In an article in the April edition of the
Harvard Business Review, entitled, "Ethical Breakdowns" authors Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel explored the
question of why good people allow bad things to happen in the business setting. They begin their article by noting that they
believe "the vast majority of managers mean to run ethical organizations" and while there are some "out and out crooks,"
the majority of ethical lapses in companies occur because of either the blinders of leadership or that business leadership
may "unknowingly encourage" unethical behavior in their companies.
Barriers of Ethical Behavior
According to Fox (2011), there are five barriers to conduct business in ethical manner. Each barrier is analyzed and
corresponding suggestions on possible remedies are given. compliance on policies and procedures to implement business
ethics is important, and even the best-intentioned [compliance] program will fail if it does not take into account biases which
can blind management and employees to unethical behavior. Hereunder are the barriers to ethical behavior:
1. Ill-conceived goals. This barrier is a goal or incentive that promotes change or a behavior that encourages a negative one.
Example is the Ford Pinto where the Ford Motor Company discovered in pre-production crash tests the "potential danger
of ruptured fuel tanks." Ford then engaged in a thorough and exhaustive cost-benefit analysis on the costs of lawsuits from
a defective product and 'determined that it would be cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to make repairs." It was noted that "a
host of psychological and organizational factors diverted the Ford executive's attention from the ethical dimensions of the
problem.
As a remedy the authors suggest that business leaders must understand the incentive systems which their company
has in place and the effect that it has on the workforce. They suggest "brainstorming unintended consequences when devising
goals and incentives." Management should also consider alternative goals may be important to the reward.
2. Motivated blindness. It is understood that people most often see what they want to see. But they suggest that this is
something further, the companies will overlook unethical behavior when it is their interest to do so. They cite the example
of the failures o of the credit rating agencies which contributed to the economic downturn. These credit rating agencies
provided AAA Credit ratings to “collateralized mortgage securities of demonstrably low quality” and they believe this
helped drive the crisis in the housing market. The motivated blindness came from the fact that the credit rating agencies
were paid by the same companies that they rated so that they "made their profits by staying in the good graces of the
companies that they rate."
These conflicts of interest can be quite powerful, even if a company or an individual employee is aware of them.
The company should "root out conflicts of interest" because awareness of them may not be enough to protest a company
from such ethical lapses. Executives should look to "remove them from an organization entirely, looking particularly at the
existing incentive systems.
3. Indirect blindness. Unfortunately, a company will often overlook unethical behavior in other companies. This is the
classic situation where a company with strong ethical values employs an agent or other third-party representatives whose
conduct may not meet a company's ethical standard. In this barrier, an example of the drug company Merck which sold two
cancer drugs to the company Ovation. Soon after the sale, Ovation raised the prices on the two cancer drugs by "about
1000%" while Merck actually kept producing the two drugs. It can be assumed that Merck sold the two drugs to Ovation so
that Ovation could raise the price and not Merck. This is a deplorable outsourcing of unethical "dirty work". Even if Merck
did not know that Ovation would increase the price so dramatically, it is believed that any amount of due diligence on
Ovation would have revealed that "it had a history of buying and raising the prices on small-market drugs." Any company
which has such a business representative should understand whom it is doing business with and that it cannot outsource
unethical behavior or assign a task which might invite unethical behavior.
4. The slippery slope. Every law student is taught how to argue down the slippery slope. You start at Point A and pretty
soon you have come to the end of western civilization as we know it. This means that companies often fail to "notice the
gradual erosion" of ethical standards. An example is company auditors who find minor violations by their client company
over several years and which by the final year, it became a large violation or error. As the outside auditors overlooked it all
along, they might well overlook it when it becomes a violation.
As a remedy for this barrier, vigilance is necessary. Managers should be on the look-out for even trivial-seeming
infractions but the real key is to address them immediately and not let them drag out. Additionally, there should be some
type of inquiry to determine if a change in behavior has occurred.
Overvaluing outcomes. It is believed that many companies will "reward Results rather than high-quality
decisions." This can lead to companies rewarding unethical decisions because such decisions have a good outcome. But, as
the authors note, this can be "a recipe for disaster over the long term." The authors believe that companies will judge their
employees' actions on whether any harm may follow from an action, rather than focus on the ethicality of the decision or
action. This problem can be overcome by having the possible outcomes of any decision or action analyzed for both good
and bad ethical implications. Focusing on the process of decision making is much more important than simply accepting
the outcome. Companies should examine behaviors which "drive good outcomes, and reward quality decisions, not just the
results."
It can be concluded that companies should not simply employ "surveillance and sanctioning systems" but train
leaders to avoid the types of biases which can lead to the barriers listed in this article. In the end, take note that each employee
should be trained to ask the following question, "What ethical implications might arise from this decision?" And this advice
may be the most important take-away from the article (Fox, 2011).
REFERENCES:

Abundo, Cecil. Filipino Customs and Traditions. www. Vigattintourism.com

Adrian, Marc. (2017). Reasons Why Millennials Are Broke And How To Overcome Them; www.imoney.ph.
Ahn. D. and H. Ergin. (2006). Framing Contingencies. Working Paper, University of California Berkley and MIT.
Baier, Annette. (1987). "Hume: The Woman's Moral Theorist?" in Women and Moral Theory, Kittay, Eva Feder, and Meyers, Diana
(ed.s). U.S.A.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Barnes, Jonathan ed. (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Becker, Lawrence; Ethics, Chicago University of Chicago Press Journal.
Blakeslee, Sandra and Matthew Blakeslee. (2007). The Body has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do
(Almost) Everything Better (New York: Random House.)
Bradley, Denis. (1997). Aquinas on the Twofold Human Good: Reason and Human Happiness in Aquinas' Moral Science. Washington:
Catholic University of America Press.
Brandt, Richard. (1959). Ethical Theory; The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. p. 153.
Bretzke, James SJ. (2004). A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology, (Philippines: Jesuit Communications
Foundation.
Broadie, Sarah. (1991). Ethics With Aristotle. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brubaker, R., M. Loveman and P. Stamatov. (2004). Ethnicity as Cognition. Theory and Society, 33(1): 31-64.
Byrd, B. Sharon and Joachim Hruschka, 2010. Kant's Doctrine of Right': A Commentary, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carey, Benedict; "Study Finds Brain Injury Changes Moral Judgment," The New York Times (Mar.21,2007 online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/health/21cnd-brain.html. For the development of empathy and rational thinking, see Michael
Schulman and Eva Mekler, Bringing Up a Moral Child: A New Approach for Teaching Your Child to be Kind, Just, and Responsible
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1985).
Carmel, S., P. Werner, and H. Ziedenberg. (2007). Physicians "and Nurses" Preferences in Using Life-sustaining Treatments. Nursing
Ethics 14 (5)
Chavan S.V. (2010). "Ethics and Management - Towards a Spirituality of Business, AIMS International Conference on Value-based
Management August 11-13.
Codrington, G. (2008). Detailed Introduction to Generational Theory. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrowtoday.uk.com/articles/
article001_intro gens.htm
Craig, William Lane. (1994). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.
Darwall, Stephen. (2005). The Second-person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dawkins, Richard. (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press.
De Waal, Frans; quoted in Evan Thompson, Mind in Life.
DeYoung, Rebecca Konyndyk; McCluskey, Colleen; Van Dyke, Christina. (2009). Aquinas's Ethics: Metaphysical Foundations, Moral
Theory, and Theological Context. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Dumaraos, Gelyka; 11 Things You Should Know About Filipino Culture, updated April 18, 2018; www.culturetrip.com
Durant, Will and Ariel Durant. (1968). The Lessons of History. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ellis, Elizabeth. (2012). Kant's Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Flikschuh, Katrin and Lea Ypi (eds.). (2014). Kant and Colonialism, New York: Oxford University Press.
Follesdal, Andreas and Reidar Maliks (eds.). (2014). Kantian Theory and Human Rights, New York: Routledge.
Gay, John. (1731). A Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle and Immediate Criterion of Virtue in Frances King's An Essay
on the Origin of Evil, London.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. University of California
Press, Berkeley, USA.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA., USA.
Hewitt, John P. (3009). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Höffe, Otfried. (2006). Trans. Alexandra Newton. Kant's Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, (eds.). (2000). Choices, Values and Frames, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kleiman, Lowell; Philosophy: An Introduction Through Literature. New York: MacMillan.
Kompridis, Nikolas. (2000). "So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean", International Journal of Philosophical Studies Vol 8.
Kraut, Richard, "Aristotle's Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition).
Kumar Shravan, GinnaPrudvi Reddy &G.Ramaiah, "The Importance of Business Ethics in Globalization", International Journal of
Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 3, Issue 4, April-2014.
Ladd, John(ed.). (1973). Ethical Relativism. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Laski, H.J. (1935). The State in Theory and Practice, London.
Lemmon, E.J. (1962). "Moral Dilemmas," The Philosophical Review, 70: 139-158; reprinted in Gowans, 1987.
Lewis, C.S. (2003). The Case for Christianity. New York: MacMillan.
Light, Andrew and Holmes Rolston Il. (203) "Introduction: Ethics and Environmental Ethics," in Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston
IIl, eds., Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Manebog, Jensen, DG; Moral and Non-Moral Standard; http://ourhappyschool.com/node/824
Midgley, Mary. (1983). Animals and Why They Matter (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.
Nielsen, Kai. (1973). Ethics Without God. London: Pemberton.
Palispis, Epitacio. (2007). Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology, (Manila: Rex Bookstore, Inc.
Paton, H. J. (1947). The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy, London: Hutchinson's University Library.
Pervin, Lawrence. (1994). "A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory," Psychological Inquiry 5.
Potter, Nelson and Mark Timmons (eds.). (1985). Morality and Universality; D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Rachels, J. (1999). "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., New York: Random House.
Rachels, James. (1999). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. USA: MeGraw-Hill College, 3rd ed.
Rescher. Nicholas. (1982). Distributive Justice. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc.
Robertson, D.W. (1996). Ethical theory, ethnography, and differences between doctors and nurses in approaches to patient care; Journal
of medical ethics. 22.
Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg (ed.). (1980). Essays on Aristotle's Ethics; Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scarre, Geoffrey. (1996). Utilitarianism; London: Routledge.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Dover. Volume I.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). (1994). 'Are there Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues,
50 (4).
Sen, Amartya. (1999). 'Democracy as a Universal Value'. Journal of Democracy, 10 (3).
Shön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.
Slote, Michael. (1993). "Virtue Ethics and Democratic Values", Journal of Social Philosophy, 14.
Smith, E. R., Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social Psychology (Third ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.
Spohn, William C. (1995). What Are They Saying About Scripture and Ethics.; N.Y.: Paulist Press.
Storch, J.L. and N. Kenny. (2007). Shared moral work of nurses and physicians. Nursing ethics 14(4).
Thompson, Evan. (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Timpe, Kevin. (2008). "Moral Character [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]."
Torgler, B. (2007). Tax Compliance and Tax Morale: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Camberley: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions; Journal of Business, 59(4), pt.2.
Tyler, Tom R. and Maura A. Belliveau. (1995). "Tradeoffs in Justice Principles: Definitions of Fairness," in Conflict, Cooperation, and
Justice, ed. Barbara B. Bunker and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Velasquez. M.G. (2009). Business Ethics, Sixth Edition, Prentice Hall Inc.
Vice, James. W. (1997). "Neutrality, Justice, and Fairness," Loyola University Chicago.
West, Henry R. (2004). An Introduction to Mill's Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, Robert Paul. (1977). Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of A Theory of Justice. Princeton, New Jersey.

Internet:
www.sonnenbergonline, retrieved May 21, 2018.
www.liveboldandbloom.com, Character Traits that Impact Happiness, retrieved May 21.
www.britannica.com Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development
www.wikipedia.com
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsteemit.com%2Fhive-131369%2F%40larapambuan%2Ffilipino-tradition-
101-bayanihan-a-spirit-of-cooperation-and-
camaraderie&psig=AOvVaw3WWtiEwcPv3tzpxk_bEbTN&ust=1738426463207000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=
0CBcQjhxqFwoTCLictsqtoIsDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
https://josephscollege.ac.in/lms/Uploads/pdf/material/IncomeTax1Notes.pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vecteezy.com%2Ffree-vector%2Ftwo-
paths&psig=AOvVaw3HodowGAfZjx6GWfdzQAgb&ust=1738491122517000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBc
QjhxqFwoTCJChsLWeoosDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/15426900-concept-of-choice-between-hard-and-easy-way