This document discusses the key differences between morality and ethics. Morality refers to principles of right and wrong conduct based on a person's internal beliefs, while ethics refers to external rules of conduct established by social groups or institutions. Some key differences include:
- Morality is based on internal, personal principles, while ethics are external rules defined by society or groups.
- A person's moral code tends to be consistent, while ethics can vary between contexts and societies.
- Morality judgments consider whether an act is good or bad, while ethics examines whether an act is right or wrong according to established rules.
- A conflict can arise when a person's internal morals differ from the external ethics of their
This document discusses the key differences between morality and ethics. Morality refers to principles of right and wrong conduct based on a person's internal beliefs, while ethics refers to external rules of conduct established by social groups or institutions. Some key differences include:
- Morality is based on internal, personal principles, while ethics are external rules defined by society or groups.
- A person's moral code tends to be consistent, while ethics can vary between contexts and societies.
- Morality judgments consider whether an act is good or bad, while ethics examines whether an act is right or wrong according to established rules.
- A conflict can arise when a person's internal morals differ from the external ethics of their
This document discusses the key differences between morality and ethics. Morality refers to principles of right and wrong conduct based on a person's internal beliefs, while ethics refers to external rules of conduct established by social groups or institutions. Some key differences include:
- Morality is based on internal, personal principles, while ethics are external rules defined by society or groups.
- A person's moral code tends to be consistent, while ethics can vary between contexts and societies.
- Morality judgments consider whether an act is good or bad, while ethics examines whether an act is right or wrong according to established rules.
- A conflict can arise when a person's internal morals differ from the external ethics of their
This document discusses the key differences between morality and ethics. Morality refers to principles of right and wrong conduct based on a person's internal beliefs, while ethics refers to external rules of conduct established by social groups or institutions. Some key differences include:
- Morality is based on internal, personal principles, while ethics are external rules defined by society or groups.
- A person's moral code tends to be consistent, while ethics can vary between contexts and societies.
- Morality judgments consider whether an act is good or bad, while ethics examines whether an act is right or wrong according to established rules.
- A conflict can arise when a person's internal morals differ from the external ethics of their
Ethics and Morality: Similarities, Differences, Significance
MORALS/MORALITY ETHICS Practice Theory First-order set of beliefs and practices about how to live a good life. Second-order, conscious reflection on the adequacy of our moral beliefs. Customs, Precepts, Actual Beliefs and Practices of Peoples and Cultures Science or study of morality (content) and moral philosophy (process/reflection) Conforming to a standard of right behavior. Choosing principles of conduct as a guiding philosophy. Set of beliefs and practices or moral standards and moral conduct about how to lead a good life. The rational reflection or formal study of those standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy." Human conduct and character referring to those acts which it makes sense to describe as right or wrong, good or bad. Ways of thinking philosophically about morality, and moral judgment Behavior customary in our culture or society that may change as a person moves from one society to the next. Standards of right and wrong that do not change as a person moves from one society to the next. moral is a lesson (good) to be learned about a single principle of right and wrong ethic is a single guiding principle that affects your criteria for determining what is right and wrong
Q? MORALITY ETHICS Etymology? Latin word "mos" meaning "custom" Greek word "ethos" meaning "character" What is it? Good and Bad or Moral and Immoral Right and Wrong What are they? Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. It defines how things should work according to an individual's ideals and principles. The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. It defines how thing are according to the rules. Where do they come from? Individual - Internal Social system - External Why we do it? Because we believe in something being good or bad. Because society says it is the right thing to do. What if we don't do it? Doing something against one's morals and principles can have different effects on different people, they may feel uncomfortable, remorse, depressed etc. We may face peer/societal disapproval, or even be fired from our job. Flexibility? Usually consistent, although can change if an individuals beliefs change. Ethics are dependent on others for definition. They tend to be consistent within a certain context, but can vary between contexts. The "Gray"? A Moral Person although perhaps bound by a higher covenant, may choose to follow a code of ethics as it would apply to a system. "Make it fit" A person strictly following Ethical Principles may not have any Morals at all. Likewise, one could violate Ethical Principles within a given system of rules in order to maintain Moral integrity. Acceptability? Morality transcends cultural norms Ethics are governed by professional and legal guidelines within a particular time and place Ethics and Morality Morality as a personal belief or world view without Ethics which is a scientific study of moral theories and principles has its tendency to disregard the universal and society, and become egoistic, ethnocentric and rationalistic. Likewise, Ethics as a science that do not recognize what is uniquely natural, good and mysterious in every person may turn to legalism, formalism, only theory and conformism. Source of Principles Ethics are external standards, provided by the institutions, groups or culture to which an individual belongs. For example, lawyers, policemen and doctors all have to follow an ethical code laid down by their profession, regardless of their own feelings or preferences. Ethics can also be considered as a social system or a framework for acceptable behavior. Morals may also be influenced by culture or society, but they are personal principles created and upheld by the individuals themselves. Consistency and Flexibility Ethics are very consistent within a certain context, but can vary greatly between contexts. For example, the ethics of the medical profession in the 21st century are generally consistent and do not change from hospital to hospital, but they are different from the ethics of the 21st century legal profession. An individuals moral code is usually unchanging and consistent across all contexts, but can change if the individual has a radical change in their personal beliefs and values. Example of a conflict between ethics and morals One professional example of ethics conflicting with morals is the work of a defense attorney. A lawyers morals may tell her that murder is reprehensible and that murderers should be punished, but her ethics as a professional lawyer, require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities, even if she knows that the client is guilty. Significance Critical. Ethics is a reflective investigation on the basis of assertion, the meaning of the terms good/bad, right/wrong, human act, choices, etc. It inquires on how humans ought to live and where do they ground their actions. Practical. Ethics influences conduct, and leads life. Its moral principles serve as action-guide to be a good person. Everyday, humans are confronted with moral dilemmas; they need to develop and live the discipline of ethics. Necessity: Morality is necessary to preserve our individual human dignity and to preserve our social life. Important Points to Consider in Teaching Ethics by Dr. James H. Toner 1. I believe that we human beings knowinnately, naturally, and inherentlythe difference between good and bad, truth and falsity, right and wrong. 2. To develop leaders, we develop and focus the human potential of our people. So it is, exactly, with ethics education. None of us, not one, is ever done with ethics education until the moment of death. 3. The fact that the boss is ethical does not mean that the organization will be a moral exemplar; and the fact that the boss is corrupt does not mean that everyone in the unit will be infected with ethical disease. 4. Someone once said that there are two kinds of peoplethose who make simple things complex and those who make complex things simple. Military ethics is not a simple matter, which leads to another mistake. 5. The idea that every commander is an ethics teacher is absolutely correct; the idea that every teacher is thereby a competent classroom instructor is absolutely wrong. 6. Get out of the way and let teachers teach. Monitor, sure; sit in, of course; challenge and criticize, certainly. But do not substitute approved curriculum for the spontaneity of lively, creative, dynamic teaching by someone deeply in love with the subject and with an almost desperate need to explain it to others! We must not fear dynamic teaching, and the kind of teaching-by-committee so often used in military circles may drive out precisely the kind of inspired instruction neededespecially in ethics.
Lesson 3
HUMAN ACT. It is the human activity by which human person attains an end he wants to obtain. It is not the animal or acts of man. Being animal in nature, he has some activities common with brutes like feeling, hearing, eating, taste and smell. He is not purely human or spiritual. He makes animal activities, which are called Acts of Man which are not classified as human acts. QUALITIES OF HUMAN ACTS: QUA-KFV 1. KNOWLEDGE: The act must be deliberate. The agent does it consciously; he knows that he is doing the act and aware of its consequences, good or evil. Principle: An agent not conscious of his actions going on is not responsible. Ex: 4 th Class Matino K. Minsan who losts his mind breaks the legs of 3 rd Class Puro de Kumokopya. 2. FREEDOM: The act must be free. The person who is doing the act must be free from external force beyond his control, or from any strong influence. Otherwise, the act is not his own. The act must not be done out of fear. Principle: An agent without freedom of choice (forced) to act is not responsible. Ex: Cadet Pedro de Sinungaling maltreats his underclass man because he is forced by the threats of his 1 st Class Toto O. Suwail 3. VOLUNTARY: The act must be voluntary. The act is done out of the will and decision of the agent. The act emanates from the bottom of his heart. Principle: An agent whose act does not proceed from and depends upon the will is not responsible. Ex: Cadet Matutona Integridad who was designated by her fellow cadets to dance seductively during their program feels that she was sexually harassed. FREEDOM AND WILL. Freedom and will are almost synonymous but are different. Freedom: It is the absence of contriction or the power to be and to act under free will and choice. Principle: Freedom is situated or limited by the rights of others or things. Will: It is mans natural tendency of being attracted (vs. attraction to do) to what is good and beautiful and to repulse the bad and ugly. Principle: The will is free if it acts without any pressure from the outside; free will makes the agent responsible for his act.
HUMAN ACTS AND RESPONSIBILITY/OBLIGATION Responsibility (personal and social) is an internal quality or ability to respond to a need in a situation or to a human law recognized by the mind. It is free and voluntary yet morally obligatory to himself. A moral person feels the obligation that he must do what-ought-to-be-done to the demand of the situation. His conscience tells him from within that he must do something for the situation. Gawin mo ang dapat mong gawin. (Do what you ought to do.). But the agent remains free to do or to refuse the call. SANCTION: It is any motive consideration, or promise which impels one to follow a moral obligation for the preservation of law and restoration of moral order. It can be considered as incentives to keep the law and as deterrent from breaking the law. It is an actual reward or punishment applied as determined by the authority. PUNISHEMENT: It is a physical pain or loss of property inflicted upon convicted person and applied according to the discretion of the court. Its effects are to vindicate the offense, to reform the offender and to set a lesson for all. Lesson 4
COMPONENTS OF HUMAN ACTS: CO-MICE Intention: It is the motive, aim of the act or the end of the agent. It is the active desire for a good after the intellect has convinced the will that this good should be obtained through personal action. Principles 1. A good act for a good intention has an added goodness from the intention, and a bad act for a bad intention has an added badness from the intention; Ex: A cadet who helps his fellow cadets not only to live a good character but also for his mission to put into action his faith in God. 2. A good act for a bad intention is wholly bad if the intention is gravely bad or if it is the whole motive of the act; Ex: A soldier who protects and gives food to troubled girl with the intention of having sex with her later. 3. A good intention cannot make a bad act good; and , Ex: An ideal military officer steals from PDAFs of the rich congressmen and distributes whatever he collects to the Yolanda victims. 4. An indifferent act may become good or bad by its intention. Ex: To study in a military school is an indifferent/amoral/neutral act. It becomes good if the intention is to serve God and country selflessly, and bad if the purpose is to enrich the self thru power and connection.
Circumstance. It consists of the conditions, situation or essential parts of the act. (4Ws and 1 HWho, What, Where, When and How) Means: It is an act, object, instrument employed to carry out the intent of the act. Principles 1. Circumstance may increase or diminish the goodness or badness of an action. Ex: To steal a carabao from a farmer for pulutan is worse than to steal it from a rich a ranch owner senator. 2. Circumstance may change a good or indifferent act into a punishable one. Ex: To sleep is an indifferent act but a cadet sleeping at his post in the barracks and during the class can lead to possible dismissal. 3. Summary: Bonum ex integra causa (The good results from whole perfection); malum ex quocumque defectu (the evil from any defect). a. In order to be good, a human act must be perfect according to the MICE. b. Any deficiency will make a human act bad. a. A circumstance gravely bad destroys the goodness of and makes bad the whole act. (Recitation-Apply-give an example: 1 Bonus pt.) ii. A circumstance slightly bad, which is not the entire morive of a good act, does not destroy its goodness. (Recitation-Apply-give an example: 1 Bonus pt.) NB: Goodness is perfection. We cannot be perfect but we can perfect good action wherein perfection means the degrees of perfection possible in things. End: It is the object (about which something is made), substance, the assumed constant direction, basis, foundation, or perceived good of an intention of an act. End vs. Consequence END (Form) is the perceived good derived from the performance of the act. CONSEQUENCE (matter) is the outcome, actual conclusion or result of the act. It determines whether or not the intent of the act was carried out or the end of the act was successfully realized. CLASSIFICATION/DIVISION OF HUMAN ACTS Moral or Ethical conforms to a standard or norm of morality. Ex: helping the poor, taking UE honestly, leading some followers Immoral or Unethical violates or deviate a standard of morality. Ex: refusing to help the sick, cheating in training, gossiping Amoral or Neutral are non-human acts because they are neither good nor bad. However, depending on the circumstance, they may become human acts. Ex: Sleeping (Circumstance: in class & during duty) is wrong or unethical. Classification Of Moral Or Ethical Acts Elicited Acts emanate from and are completed only in the will (no bodily actions). Commanded Acts carry out elicited in body and mind of the agent. Ex: Elicited: Pedro has the will-act of going to the court to play basketball. Commanded: He walks to the court with the ball in hand to shoot. Paul Glenns Six Elicited Acts Wish is the wills natural inclination towards object possible/impossible to realize. Ex: I wish to become a very good military officer. Intention is will's tendency towards something attainable but not obligatory. Ex: I intend to marry my girlfriend because I love her very much. Consent is the acceptance of the will to implement the agent's intention. Ex: The tactical officers consents (allows) their cadets to visit their families. Election is to choose from among a variety of means which is most effective. Ex: If I go to Zamboanga, I select to go by ship instead of airplane or taxi. Use is to employ of selected means in carrying out the intention. Ex: In order to win her love, I should text her and give her flowers everyday. Fruition is the wills enjoyment for attaining the desired object. Ex: Having stayed awake in class, I now enjoy my graduation with honors. Internal Acts refer to the purely mental faculties under the command of the will. Ex: deliberate imagination to draw pictures, meditation on death External Acts done by the body (acts of man) as commanded by the will (human). Ex: running, swimming walking, writing, eating. Mixed done by both bodily and mental powers. Ex: shooting an enemy, kicking an opponent, encoding a project
Lesson 5
End: Good/Bad and Right/Wrong Human Acts Endtowards which an action tends Principles: 1. Intentionality of actions or human acts always lead towards an end. 2. The end justifies the means. 3. Extrinsic/intrinsic end is for the sake of something external/internal to the action. Kinds: a. Proximatefirst end of which an action is immediately done b. Intermediatesubordinate end sought for another end c. Relatively Ultimateultimate end of a series d. Absolute Ultimatethe crowning or utmost end of all human activity e. Objective: intrinsic end, purpose, object of action f. Subjective: extrinsic end, purpose/intention/motive of the agent 3 principles: a. Every agent that performs an action, acts for the sake of an end or purpose to be attained. b. Every agent acts for an ultimate end c. Every agent has the power of moving for an end which is suitable or good for him. Every agent acts for a good. St. Thomas IDEA Infinite end, good, happiness Summum Bonum (highest good) Good the end that perfects some faculties It is that which satisfies the appetite, GUT the object of our striving, the thing which can confer perfection MIND and satisfaction to our powers or faculties. HEART (It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.) Antoine de Saint-Exupry Happinessthe reality under the name good and end and behind all human experience. different ethical theories spouse different happiness GOOD AND BAD OR MORAL AND IMMORAL RIGHT AND WRONG WHAT OUGHT TO BE WHAT IS PROPER End-If consequence has/has no practical benefit to the agent. End-If consequence has/has no practical benefit to the majority. Good vs. bad is about benefit vs. neglect or harm, and it encompasses a vast continuum of degrees.(Valuation vs. devaluation) Right vs. wrong is about justice: respecting/honoring the rights and entitlements of another vs. denying or violating them. (Right- recognize/protection and Wrong-deny/violation) Good whether intrinsic or extrinsic is refers to the moral quality of a human act. Right appertains to the conformity of a given human act to a moral principle.
Lesson 6
Modifiers of Human Act: MO-FHVIP
Lesson Content
Modifiers of Human Act: MO-FHVIP Principle 1: The greater the knowledge and freedom, the greater the voluntariness and moral responsibility.
A. Fear is an emotional response to a known or definite threat. Ex: Lets say a cadet inside jeepney is travelling a dark street in Manila and the guy beside him points a gun at him and says, This is a hold up. This would likely elicit a response of fear. The danger is real, definite and immediate. There is a clear and present object of fear. Although the focus of the response is different (real vs. imagined danger), fear and anxiety are interrelated. Fear causes anxiety, and anxiety can cause fear. But, the subtle distinctions between the two will give you a better understanding of your symptoms and may be important for treatment strategies. Fear is an actual danger which is associated with a past first or second hand experience. Anxiety is a diffuse, unpleasant, vague sense of apprehension (Kaplan and Sadock). It is often a response to an imprecise or unknown threat. Ex: Lets say a cadet inside a jeepney is travelling a dark street in Manila and the guy beside him points a gun at him and says, This is a hold up. He may feel uneasy and perhaps feel flying butterflies in his stomach. These sensations are caused by anxiety that is related to the possibility that a stranger may jump out from behind a bush, or approach him in some other way, and harm him. This anxiety is not the result of a known or specific threat. Rather it comes from your minds vision of the possible dangers that may result in the situation. Anxiety is about a future. a. Act-out-of-fear when one vacates his home due to an imminently coming strong earthquake, or when one has to kill an enemy to defend himself. b. Act-in-Fear. When a priest goes to preach Christ's gospel in communist lands, he is acting in fear. B. Habit. It refers to repeatable acts of a person done with facility and ease. Repetition or frequency of the performance of the act does not, in any way, affect the voluntariness of such act. The agent is fully aware and free in doing the act that is why he remains responsible and the result of it is imputable to him. Habitual act is a human act because it is voluntary. Good habits are called virtues; bad habits, vices. Ex: Habit: Virtue of Temperance Self-indulgence Excessive indulgence of one's own appetites and desires. Temperance personal restraint. Insensibility Lack of awareness or concern; indifference. Application: Excessive extravagance or pleasure brought about by the drill. Personal restraint in conducting drills expecially if it may sacrifice more essential things. Lack of awareness or concern on the good effects of the drill such as the inculcation of discipline and orderliness
The degree or intensity of the morality of human acts depends upon the presence of certain factors that affect the commission or omission of human acts.
C. Violence. It refers to a physical external force inflicted on a person by a free agent for the purpose of compelling said person to do an act against his will. Some soldiers suffer bodily or even die because they are forced to reveal information. Enemies of the state are tortured to forcibly reveal their locations. The act they perform is against their will because if they do not, violence will be inflicted on them even though the will can exert effort to command the body to resist violence. D. Ignorance. It is the lack of knowledge in man of a certain thing expected to have been known by him. It is ordinarily a negation of knowledge. But intellectual ignorance is more than just a negation. It also means the presence of what is falsely supposed to be knowledge (Glenn: 26). For example, a plebe violated a CCAFP regulation of maltreatment against his fellow plebe not deliberately, because he was not fully aware of it. This is lack of knowledge. But supposedly he knows fully that there is a no maltreatment policy but he thought that such policy is only applicable only to upper class men. This is called mistake or error or a positive ignorance because the mistake can be checked. a. Ignorance in its Object. Relation of ignorance to the knowledge of law, fact, or corresponding penalty. i. Ignorance of law is the absence of knowledge one ought to possess. Ex: A lawyer is expected to be knowledgeable of laws, and as a member of an organization, he is expected to be aware of the organizations rules. ii. Ignorance of fact is the ignorance of the nature or circumstances of an act that is generally forbidden in the community and could have been prevented if it was known. Ex: In an indigenous community where it is unacceptable to offend or disrespect an elder regardless of his possible violation or mistake, an army officer humiliates the elder infront of his people by bull outing him. The community could not accept such act so that some filed a complaint and other relatives joined the rebels to avenge the humiliation of their elder. Had the officer knew of such culture, he could have avoided an unnecessary death threats. iii. Ignorance of penalty is the lack of knowledge of the sanction imposed by the law to violators. Ex: A cadet may not have dared disrespected a faculty civilian had he known that it is a grave offence with a penalty of discharge from service precisely because of such of offence is contrary to constitutional mandate as civilian protectors. b. Ignorance in its Subject. Relation of the ignorance of law, fact, penalty, etc. to the subject. i. Vincible Ignorance is one that can easily be overcome through diligence and exertion of efforts by the subject. Ex: Ignorance of the law on the militarys non-use of the AFP material resources for personal/family use can be known by reading the AFP code of Ethics. ii. Invincible Ignorance is one which the subject concerned cannot possibly overcome due to lack of means, among other factors. Ex: The illiterate indigenous people in the remotest Barrio of Patikul, Sulu cannot overcome their ignorance of the fact that the AFP are the protectors of the Nation who are in pursuit of bandits and lawless elements such as the MNLF known to them as the real soldiers. This is due to their disadvantage in resources, development and education. c. Ignorance in its Result. Relation of ignorance to the end of the act done. i. Antecedent Ignorance precedes the consent of the will. Ex: An American lover lived-in with a Filipina whose community condemns such act as immoral. His ignorance existed even before courting, he being an American. Had he known the law, he would have married the woman first so that his love may not be humiliated. ii. Concomitant Ignorance. When knowledge is wanting, yet so that the action would be done if there were knowledge. The agent has some degree of knowledge of the law, yet he refuses to obey due to an accompanying ignorance. Ex: A cadet knows that he has to attend the drill, but he is not interested to go because he is ignorant of the moral values of discipline and patience thereof An officers knows that he is the protector of human rights but he refuses to respect the cadets human rights because of the ignorance on the fact that human rights are inherent and universal. iii. Consequent Ignorance is affected, if by a direct act, one chooses to remain ignorant, or crass if the means of acquiring the knowledge necessary to act with propriety are neglected. Ex: AffectedAn officers who refuses to know the laws of the indigenous people just because he is a stranger high ranking military. CrassThe officer neglects the opportunity to immerse and learn from the indigenous people language so he could easily educate his men on how they should behave and relate in order to win their support and sympathy. E. Passion or Concupiscence, emotions, affections, feelings, sentiments, desires. It refers to strong tendencies (appetite) towards either possession of something good or avoidance of something bad. Some of this are love, hatred, joy, sorrow, desire, anger, horror, anger, hope, despair, fear, daring, etc. These are amoral or neither good nor bad but changes to moral once they become human acts (under reason). a. Passions maybe called good when ordered by the rational will to help man in the practice of virtue, or in the attainment of what is good. Ex: The fear of being caught prevents a cadet drink in a bar. b. Passions maybe called bad when used by the rational will to accomplish anything bad. Ex: A cadet makes love to another girl only for pleasure but not marriage. c. Passions may arise spontaneously before the previous judgment of reason and the will can control the psychological situation. Ex: When a cadet explodes in anger upon seeing his girlfriend hugging his mistah but realizing later that his mistah is his girlfriends cousin.
Lesson 7
MORAL PRINCIPLES: MODIFIES OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT
Principle 1. Invincible Ignorance makes an act involuntary. For an act to be voluntary, knowledge and freedom must be present, upon which voluntariness depends. But if they are lacking; then, the act is involuntary. Therefore, a person cannot be held morally responsible and accountable for an act done due to ignorance he cannot possibly dispel or overcome, not of his own negligence or fault but due to impossible means or fate. Application: A former cadet, for instance, marries a mistah without any knowledge that they are blood sister and brother. The two cannot be condemned as immoral because they were totally unaware of their blood relation. They were found separately; one at the NAIA terminal and the other at the Peoples Park in Davao City some 22 years ago, the former cadet was adopted by Cruz family and the other, by Santos family.
Principle 2. Vincible Ignorance does not make the act involuntary, but reduces the voluntariness and accountability. Vincible ignorance lessens the voluntariness of the act and renders it less human. It is within the ability of the person to overcome it. If only he exercises effort and diligence, he can acquire the knowledge. But he does not do it despite the fact that he is aware of his ignorance and the capacity to subdue it. His awareness makes him responsible; therefore, he is accountable for the consequence of the act. But the fact of ignorance is still there. So, there must be a corresponding reduction of the accountability. Application: A female plebe was a victim of a sexual misconduct but was unable to report the incident because he was absent during the orientation on the Gray books discipline and conduct. Besides, she knew that she was just following her squad leader who had though her not to squeal no matter what.
Principle 3. Affected or Consequent ignorance may reduce or intensify voluntariness. Affected ignorance has some degree of voluntariness because the agent willfully does not exert effort to dispel it. The fact that there is ignorance, however, means less voluntariness on the part of the agent. Refusal or negligence to cast out the ignorance means blame on the agent, at the same time to be excused accordingly for his ignorance. Ignorance, invincible or vincible, should not be used as a justification for a bad act done. Prevention is better than cure. Ignorance used as an excuse is a poor way of justification. Oftentimes, it is a defense mechanism. Application: An officer violating the human rights of Cadet Cowa Wang is held responsible for his action because ignorance of human rights is not a difficult problem to solve; you can just read it from constitutional books and Commission on Human Rights website, learn from formal education, and discover through reason. He cannot excuse himself by saying that Human Rights are just propaganda of the rebels.
Principle 4. Antecedent passion diminishes voluntarines. Passions are not totally rational acts of the intellect because there is no adequate control of the intellect or will. Antecedent passion occurs as sudden reactions to external stimulants where there is not much involvement of knowledge and freedom required for voluntariness. Application: A soldier 1 st Lt. Sayan K. Nawawa who just came from war and is currently in shock comes home and intends to surprise her wife whom he has not seen in 5 years. Upon reaching home, he goes immediately to their bedroom but to his surprise, founds out her wife naked with another man whom he recognized to be his mistah. Exploding in anger, he confronts them but the 2 angrily argued with him until he unconsciously draws his pistol. His mistah, upon noticing such movement, throws himself and struggles with 1 st Lt. Nawawa but gets himself killed with 3 bullets. The crying soldier turns to her wife and fires all the remaining bullets. Principle 5. Antecedent passion does not eliminate voluntariness. While antecedent passion diminishes voluntariness, it does not altogether eliminate it. The word diminish simply means reduction of its quantity or intensity, implying that voluntariness is still present. The agent is still responsible and accountable, although the imputability (blame) is diminished. Application: A murder done without pre-meditation (Capt. on mission) is given a lighter punishment than a pre-meditated one (Gen. on order). Principle 6. Acts done in fear are voluntary. An agent performing an act with fear is in full control of his act. The act emanates from himself; he does it willfully. There is awareness, freedom and voluntariness in the agent. For this reason, he is responsible and accountable, for the act is truly human. Acting with fear is simply an accompanying circumstance. Application: A cadet was found guilty of murdering his fellow cadet because even if he feared his upper class man who ordered him to do such act, he remains accountable precisely because he could have disobeyed his upperclassman and endured punishmen for not following unlawful order. Principle 7. An act done out of great fear is voluntary but is also regularly conditionally involuntary. An act can also be regularly involuntary if it is done due to intense fear or out of panic. In this case, the act loses its quality of being human. Were it not for the intense fear, the agent would not do the act. Application: A plebe who tortures another plebe admits a crime for fear of same torture or death by his upper class men. Principle 8. External acts which are commanded, performed by a person under pending violence which could be reasonably resisted, are involuntary and, therefore, not imputable (responsibility is not to be attached). It is but instinctive for a human person to resist violence being inflicted to him by an aggressor. It is a moral duty to make resistance. One should not easily surrender without any attempt for self- defense. If resistance is futile, intrinsic resistance by withholding consent is the last resort. Application: Young officers, who were ordered by their seniors to distribute cash, few days before the election, could not be held responsible because they were threatened with rebellion, discharge from military service, and criminal acts against their families. Nevertheless, such pending violence could be reasonably resisted but considering the circumstance where there was massive corruption perpetrated by the highest authorities, it seemed impossible for them to resist.
Principle 9. An agent is responsible for the effect of his indirect voluntary act. The Indirect Voluntary Act. There are acts done for certain specific purposes. But acts when performed can have multiple effects other than those directly intended by the agent. Ex: A soldier is running in pursuit of a rebel in a crowded park. The rebel is holding his gun ready to shoot. The soldier submerges the rebel and before he gets fired, he releases his bullet that kills the culprit. Unknowingly, his bullet passes through the rebel that kills an innocent woman and injures three more. Problem: Is the soldier also responsible for the killing of the woman? Did he intend to kill her? Was he aware that if he shoots the enemy in a crowd, others might be killed, too? Was he under freedom to refrain from shooting? Did he foresee the bad effects of his act? Answer: Assuming the soldier intended the killing of the rebel without any intention of killing the innocent woman, he must have been aware that the bullets from his gun do not select to kill only the enemy. Besides, the stray bullets in a crowd may kill anybody. He should have had the prudence and choice to refrain from doing it, aware of and foreseeing the danger. Hence, the agent is responsible bad effects of his shooting. Principle 10. The Principle of Double Effect An act may result to dual effects, one good and the other evil. An agent is allowed to perform such act but must pass the following: a. The act must be good in itself or at least neutral. b. The good effect must be greater than the bad or at least equally important. c. The act is the only means to attain the good effect. d. The bad effect must be the last to happen. e. The agent must be honest in his intention. Ex: A passenger plane bound for Cebu was on fire. In ten minutes, it would explode. The plane was flying 30,000 feet high above the earth's surface. A skydiver passenger, 1 st Lieutenant Langoyan de Pasisindak, was confronted with two options: to stay in the plane, wait with the hope for non-explosion; or, to jump down to escape death by explosion. But there are no extra parachutes to use for him because he shared his to a kid. Even though to jump down could mean death, he chose to jump down. Problem: Was 1 st Lieutenant Langoyan de Pasisindak, morally right in doing the act? Was his action not a suicide? Did his act pass the last principle? Answer: He was right because all the requirements of such principle were fulfilled. His hitting the ground is not suicide. The act is justified; it was heroic. His jumping is to escape death, not to commit suicide. His priority was to save his life which was good though others see it differently.
Lesson 8
CHARACERISTICS OF MORAL PRINCIPLES
1. Prescriptive- refers to the practical guiding or directing nature of principles which are intended to advise people on what to do and avoid. It influences action under certain rules of conduct. Ex: Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not tolerate dishonesty 2. Impartial- means that ethical rules should be neutral regarding its recipient. Moral standards should apply to everyone regardless of ones status and situation in life and not to advance the interest of the few or one person. They are granted on the reasons of an Ideal observer, an Impartial spectator. 3. Overriding means that moral standards must have hegemonic authority or should tower over all the other standards or norms of evaluation, whatever they may be. They have to be of prime and ultimate importance. 4. Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority means that moral standards should stand on their own logic, independent of the arbitrariness of the majority. Something is right or wrong regardless of what the majority decides or says. We can always challenge on logical grounds the tyranny of numbers and the tide of public opinion on matters of right and wrong. Thus, moral rules are not subject to the whims and caprices of those in power. 5. Public- means that moral principles as impartial and of primordial value must be made public if they are to serve as guidelines to our actions. The principles are made and promulgated to render advice as well as assign praise or blame to certain behaviors. To keep them from public is self-defeating. You do not hide something that you really think is genuinely good and noble. 6. Practical mean that moral rules is workable to a reasonable extent and not be impossible to achieve or else they are but for angels. Standards must not lay a too heavy burden on people. For what practical use is a norm if it is simply impossible for anyone to follow. 7. Binding - means that the people to whom the morality applies ought to obey their moral principle. It is incoherent to claim that some rules apply to some group of people, and yet not to another group of people. This applies to rules of etiquette and manners as well as moral rules. 8. Independent - means that numbers and majority do not decide the rightness and wrongness of moral principles. Moral principles cannot be made by mere votation. You cannot legislate morality. 9. Correct means that moral principles provide often correct answers. Despite many controversies like abortion, euthanasia etc., most people have no trouble using the principles to distinguish good actions or decisions from bad ones. Disagreement only means the need to continue talking in order to arrive at certain points of convergence. 10. End means that a moral principle is an end in itself not just means. People ought to live moral principles because it is what they ought to be. 11. Obligatory means one cannot just decide what moral principles one would like to have. Whether one likes it or not, morality ought to be done. 12. Reasonable means that moral principles need to be settled through arguments to justify ones moral views rather than appeal to feelings. One cannot just not believe in a principle. There must be good reasons to make it worth listening to. 13. Ambiguous means that moral principles are sometimes unclear or ambiguous. This may explain why a number of individuals argue on certain moral issues without ever reaching decisions because of being unsure whether they are right or wrong. There are still certain gray areas that need to be clarified.
Lesson 9
NORMS OF MORALITY: No-LaCoVi
Norms of morality are the standards that indicate the rightfulness or wrongfulness, the goodness or evilness, the value or disvalue of a thing. Obviously, these are qualities that cannot be measured by any mechanical device. They are spiritual qualities that appeal only to reason. Judges in a contest follow a given criteria for deciding the winner. In like manner, for us to decide what action is good or bad, we need a criteria, a set of principles from which we may deduce a conclusion. Morality therefore, consists in the relation of a thing with a norm. a. LAW: It is an ordinance of reason promulgated (officially published) for the common good by one (competent authority) who has care of the community (St. Thomas). It is more permanent and universal compared to an ordinance or mandate (not a decisive command for performance or avoidance), plea or advice (do not demand obedience) and regulation (local ordinance). Reason and not the whim of any authority is the one that dictates the law. The common good (universal happiness) is the sum total of benefits derived by individuals from government and nation. a. Eternal law-is the eternal and absolutely universal plan of God in creating the universe and in assigning to each creature therein a specific nature. It is the divine reason or will of God that the natural order of things be preserved and forbidding that is be disturbed. In order to explain Eternal Law, Saint Thomas Aquinas makes a comparison: just as an artisan conceives a project, such as a stained glass window, or a ruler conceives a law before executing it, so does God, before creating something, conceive in His Divine Wisdom the idea that will serve as a model for the being He wanted to create. And since for God there is no time, He conceived Creation and its laws from all eternity. This is why we call eternal the laws that Infinite Divine Wisdom conceived. Accordingly, says Saint Thomas, Eternal law is nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as directing all actions and movements. b. Natural law-It is nothing else than the creatures participation (extension or corollary of) in the eternal law. Natural law imprinted in the human nature and man has the light of reason (practical judgment) to know it. DO GOOD AND AVOID EVIL. It is unchangeable because mans essential nature can never be lost as long as man is a man. It enables man to recognize self-evident principles. By his natural reason, man perceives what is good or bad for him. He preserves his life, his property; he tends to marry and procreate. At the same time, the fact that he shares the same nature with all men creates a natural link of fraternity to his fellow men. Thus, man perceives the goodness of his life, the legitimacy of his property and the sanctity of his marriage; and he knows that it is bad to kill, to steal someones property or to commit adultery. He also knows the end of each of his acts and how they must be in accordance with happiness on this earth and eternal beatitude. As a consequence, he knows it is wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the finality of that act. For instance, if he did not take some pleasure in eating, an act that is fundamental for maintaining his life and health, he would tend to neglect eating. The same goes for procreation. If some pleasure were not linked to it, it would also be neglected, thereby causing problems for the perpetuation of the human race. But, if man transforms pleasure, which is a means that facilitates the abovementioned acts, into an end in itself, he goes against his own reason that shows it as a disorder. And in doing so he contradicts natural law and violates the objective norm of morality. As further proof to this point, Saint Paul taught the Romans that the natural law is inscribed in mans heart. c. Human Positive Law-(Latin: ius positum) is the term generally used to describe human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit (conceive; assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument). It is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason." It is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory (required, permitted, or enacted by statute) law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. (Wikipedia). According to St. Thomas, it has four essential propertiesshould be in accord with the divine law and natural law, promote the common good, and must have universal character. To Kill a Mockingbird reflects the natural law belief that human beings are sustained and improved by good positive law. Civilization rests on respect for law because good civil law brings with it the moral virtues that reflect the natural law. Individuals are capable of good and evil, and the only real safeguard against the vagaries of human nature is the rule of law. But to be effective, the civil law must conform to the higher moral law. As countless works of literature have shown us, when the two are inconsistent, tragedy and chaos result. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch represents the moral law as that sanctioned by rational thinking and reflected in our constitutional guarantees of equality, justice, fairness, freedom, and respect for the rule of law. However, there coexists a travesty of the moral law because of a disjunction between those democratic principles and the positive law and the social norms of the community in which Atticus lives and works. Harper Lee introduces her story and its intertwining themes, childhood and the law, with an epigram from Charles Lamb, Lawyers, I suppose, were children once. Atticus Finch, the protagonist of To Kill a Mockingbird, is a lawyer, a state legislator, and also a widower who is rearing his two young children, Jem and Scout, in the small southern town of Maycomb, Alabama. Scout narrates this memory tale from her vantage point as a mature woman recalling her childhood. Because of her close relationship with her lawyer father, much of the story revolves around the lawits intricacies, its formalities, its fascination, and its foibles. Both Jem and Scout wrestle with the difficult reconciliation of the official law and the unofficial rules that often govern behavior in their community. The climax of the story is the trial of Tom Robinson, a black man whom Atticus defends when he is wrongly accused of raping a poor white woman in the rural south of 1930s. b. CONSCIENCE: It came from the Latin words cum alia scientia which mean application of knowledge to a specific individual. It is the practical (doing and omitting) judgment of human reason upon an act as good, thus permissible and obligatory, or as bad, thus to be avoided and rejected. It considers the components (MICE) of human acts. It is traditionally known as the inner voice of God telling an agents moral obligation to do or not to do. Its role is to investigate, to judge (to praise or to condemn), and to mass sentence on actions. Abraham Maslow believes that people have an inborn sense of right and wrong. Kinds of conscience 1. Antecedent conscience It is the mind balancing decision regarding a situation before making any action. It approves, commands, advices, warns, or permits doing the act. 2. Consequent conscience It is the mind seeing the morality of an action done. It either approves the act thus promoting a sense of peace, wellbeing, and spiritual joy, or disapproves an act resulting to feelings of remorse or guilt. 3. Right or True conscience It is the mind making correct judgment on an act that was done. It gives the correct subjective judgment of how an act is morally good or morally bad corresponding with the facts of that particular act. 4. Erroneous conscience It is the mind judging good as bad, and bad, good. It is culpable (guilty) if the agent has no fault like when a child kills because his father soldier kills a rebel. It is inculpable (not guilty) if the agent is at fault such as when a 1 st class cadet thinks that cheating is the only way to pass his finals and eventually to graduate. 5. Certain conscience It is the mind absolutely sure, without a trace of doubt in its judgment, of what is morally right or wrong in specific issues. The person is 100% convinced backed with moral norms that an act is either good or bad. 6. Doubtful conscience It is mind undecided whether an action or behavior is good or bad leaving unsure of what to do or not having any peace of mind after performing a certain action. 7. Scrupulous conscience It is the mind constantly seeing an act to be morally wrong or interpreting a venial sin to be a mortal sin which results in having feelings of torment and guilt for no good reason. 8. Lax conscience It is the mind denoting something that is lenient or loose. It signifies having a poor sense of what is morally right or morally wrong. It tends to select the easy way out and make excuses for mistakes. 9. Timorous or tender conscience It is the mind constantly fearing not only of sinning but for whatever it is that may cast at the very least a shadow of sin Education of conscience is very important. c. VIRTUE: The term "cardinal" comes from the Latin cardo or hinge; the cardinal virtues are the basic virtues, required for a virtuous life. These were derived initially from Plato's scheme, discussed in Republic Book IV, 426-435 (and see Protagoras 330b, which also includes piety (hosiotes)); expanded on by Cicero, and adapted by Saint Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas (see Summa Theologica II(I).61). 2. Prudence (, phronsis): also called "wisdom," the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time. It includes assistant virtues such as practical memory and understanding, docility, ingenuity, foresight, circumspection and caution. 3. Justice (, dikaiosyn): also called "fairness," the perpetual and constant will of rendering to each one his right. 4. Temperance (, sphrosyn): also called "restraint," the practice of self-control, abstention, and moderation; tempering the appetition (power of desire); and chastity. 5. Courage (, andreia): also called "fortitude," forbearance, strength, endurance, and the ability to confront fear, uncertainty, and intimidation. Courage is either with pride that does not accept failures and limitation resulting to suicide or with humility that accepts failures thereby facing the danger completely. It can be active or passive.
Lesson 11
Fundamental Concepts of Ethical Theories
UNIVERSALISM VS. NIHILISM
Moral Universalism: The position that some systems of ethics apply to all actions and individuals anywhere at anytime. It is for all existing individuals, regardless of age, culture, race, gender, religion, nationality, preference, or other distinguishing features. A universalist judges all actions against a single standard to determine whether an action is right or wrong, or which of the two actions is better. A universal is the singular property or feature of an object which can exist simultaneously in two places in the same space-time continuum. For instance, the blackness of an object exists independently of the object itself in different locations or other things. Universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. Moral Nihilism: It basically says that there is no such thing as morality. It might say that what looks like moral judgments are just expressions of human feelings. It says that not only is moral knowledge impossible, but that nothing is inherently moral. It is also called amorality in which there is no absolute basis for right and wrong. A person or culture's ethical rules are entirely artificial, created to keep a society run well. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.
UNIVERSALISM VS. PLURALISM
Moral Pluralism: It is the idea that there are many theories about what is right and wrong (moral norms) which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict, incompatible with others and/or incommensurable because there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance. Ethical pluralism is also known as value or moral pluralism. It is related but not identical to the concepts of moral relativism (there exist many moral theories and there is no objective standard by which they may be judged) and cultural relativism (that norms, values, and practices may be understood as sensible within their respective cultural contexts).
ABSOLUTISM VS. RELATIVISM
Moral Absolutism: It is the undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless of circumstances. Is it ok to kill someone without reason? Obviously both ethical standpoints would say no. Assuming that the murderer is a doctor who could kill one patient to save another. In this case both ethical groups still say no. Once we keep with this situation and move to the more extreme case of killing one to save a million people, or perhaps all of humanity. This is when the ethical relativist will feel that it is ok to kill, however, for the ethical absolutist this is still wrong. Moral Relativism: This is basically the opposite of universalism, but still allowing for moral judgments. A moral relativist for example would accept that in a society of cannibals killing might be morally right. Or accepting morality based purely on individual beliefs. Moral relativism is then the position that multiple valid systems of ethics exist against which actions can be compared. A moral relativist sees no conflict in the existence of ethical systems other than their own. Different cultures and individuals have different standards of right and wrong. Moral standards also change over time in the same culture. For example, slavery was considered moral in the United States at one time but not anymore. Moral relativists argue that there is no known universal rule that defines right and wrong. Instead, morality is determined by the standards of a person's own authorities. These authorities might be a government, a religion or even a family member.
SUBJECTIVISM VS. OBJECTIVISM
Moral Subjectivism: Moral judgments describe how we feel and moral principles follow the subjects feelings. 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. Moral objectivism. The truth value of a given moral proposition is determined by objective facts about the world (reality) and is independent of subjective opinion. In other words, there are correct answers to moral questions that do not depend on any persons opinion of the matter.
REALISM VS. IDEALISM
Moral Idealism. It upholds that all of the opinion about the world, and everything in it, is but a creation of our minds and there is no objective reality. It is to believe that all people are to adhere to the same standards as everyone else in a group, society, or globally. It focuses on what is 'right' to do (e.g., anti- slavery stance). It tends to avoid compromises and deals with absolutes. In the epistemological sense this means that one cannot know the existence of things beyond the realm of the intellect. Conscious experience in the now is supposed to be known directly or intuitively, it cannot be explained, and is self- evident and is enough to provide an ultimate theory regarding how we ascertain truth. Moral realism. It is the doctrine that moral judgments, when correct, refer to something that is objective, independent of our opinions, that exists, in some sense, external to human thought. It is a belief that moral facts support many of our moral judgments. It postulates that reality exists independently with human perception and is not dependent on observers to define its objective boundaries. It focuses on what may be accomplished thru negotiations (e.g., do you ignore human rights violations and try to use trade to influence their policies). It tends to avoid absolutes and concentrate on compromises.