Lesson 7

Culture and Moral Development

According to Pekarsky, the title of this discussion, "The Role of Culture in Moral
Development", points to two different, albeit inter-related, questions: first, what role does culture
play in moral development? and second, what is the proper responsibility of a culture in guiding
the moral growth of its members? Since culture influences the moral growth of children. Thus a
community needs to view itself as a responsible agent for the moral growth of its members. The
reasons for this view will emerge through our inquiry into the role that, intended or not, culture
does play in the moral development of its members.
The term "culture" is derived from the Latin word ‘Cultus’ which means care-a care and
attention provided to a human person as s/he grows into a mature person. According to Allan G.
Johnson, culture is the sum of symbols, ideas, forms of experiences, and material products
associated with a social system. It can be used in a fairly intuitive and very broad sense to
denote the totality of the social environment into which a human being is born and in which
he/she lives. Culture in this sense includes the community's institutional arrangements (social,
political, and economic) but also its forms of art and knowledge, the assumptions and values
embedded in its practices and organization, its images of heroism and villainy, it various
systems of ideas, its forms of work and recreation, and so forth.
Culture then in ethical parlance is a dynamic medium through which societies create a
collective way of life reflected in their community’s beliefs, values, religion, and even moral
standards. It is a very powerful force that affects or influences the lives and moral behavior of
the members in a society. It shapes their understanding of good and bad, moral character, and
personality. Culture tells what individuals should do, what not to do, how things are to be done,
and how to relate with other people. Culture can either be material (concrete and tangible things
that man creates and uses like tools, weapons, clothing, artifacts, relics, and others) or non-
material (intangible products like knowledge, laws, teachings, customs, values, moral standards,
and moral behavior). It is with the latter which we would focus on. Although people make
culture, culture would also inevitably make people. It is responsible in setting standards in the
moral development of a person.
Moral development refers to the process through which a human being acquires
sensibilities, attitudes, beliefs, skills, and dispositions that render him or her a morally mature or
adequate human being. Of course, this definition is, at best, a mere shell, empty of content; for it
tells us nothing about what those sensibilities, attitudes, beliefs, skills, and dispositions are that
mark one as a morally adequate human being. The human person as a moral agent acquires
moral consciousness through culture. Culture could be acquired through imitating,
indoctrination, or suggestions and conditioning by culture providers such as family, school,
church, government, and workplace. But because different people come from different social
institutions that act as cultural providers, different cultures are produced. But the question is,
whose culture tells us what is true, what is good, what is beautiful, what is right, and what is
otherwise? This brings us to the idea that culture is relative.
 
Cultural Relativism
Contemporary dilemmas would show the strong influence of cultural norms on decision making
involving ethical considerations. Culture and ethics do not always blend harmoniously. To avoid
judging the cultural practices of groups that are different from ours, we can use the cultural
approach. As defined by Merriam- Webster dictionary, cultural relativism is the idea that the
 person’s beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on the person’s own culture
rather than be judged against the criteria of another culture.  It is very obvious that culture
differs from one place to another. Language, norms, and rituals are basic precepts of a
society wherein a group of people continues to exist and socialize. The identity of a person is
immersed in one’s culture and would suggest its place of origin. Thus, culture makes us
distinct and unique in how we perceive things. Moreover, there is a tendency that we judge
issues and become bias because at the back of our mind we are ruled by what we know as
true and correct as dictated by the culture where we belong.
Relativism in general is the doctrine that knowledge is not always absolute and that it is
always dependent on the subject who endeavors to pursue the truth. The maxim which is
always associated to this is, “What is true to you may not be true to me.” Thus in relativism,
the truth varies and is plural. There is no universal truth in ethics. There are only customary
practices specific to various cultures.  When we speak of cultural relativism, we do not deny
the reality of the diversity of culture. Cultural Relativism suggests that an action is morally
right if one’s culture approves of it. Thus, in cultural relativism, moral rules are valid only for
the society in which they emerge, and it is the society’s approval or disapproval that makes
something right or wrong.
Is killing always wrong? Some cultures think so, while others sanction killing. Those who
do not agree with the death penalty by promoting their religious belief would say that it is
unethical. However, for those who kill others for money, their social group would say that killing
is permissible. Another example is suicide, it is condemned here in the Philippines but for the
Japanese during war, instead of conceding defeat, they would rather commit suicide as to
uphold honor.
Cultural relativism is not judging a culture to our own standard of what is right or wrong
because what is practiced and valued as good in one place may not be good in another.
We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our
own. This is one of the main points stressed by Cultural Relativism—that we should never
condemn a society merely because it is “different.”

1.       We could no longer criticize the code of our own society.Cultural Relativism

suggests a simple test for determining what is right and what is wrong: All we need to do
is ask whether the action is in line with the code of the society in question.

2.       The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.But if Cultural Relativism is correct,
can we legitimately view this as progress? Progress means replacing old ways with new
and improved ways.

3.       Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures. We cannot conclude that the two
societies differ in values just because they differ in customs. We differ in our beliefs, not
in our values.
 
Five Claims of Cultural Relativism

1. Different societies have different moral codes.

2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the
moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action isright, at least within
that society.
3. There is no “universal truth” in ethics—that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all
peoples at all times. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code
as better than another’s.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
 
Humanity is constantly evolving, developing, and adapting. Through cultural relativism,
situated in a very strong influence of globalization, we come to an environment where people
change and cultures change drastically. Cultural relativism eliminates the rigidity that societies
have in place regarding ethics, conduct, and reasoning. The following gives us additional
advantages and disadvantages of taking this theory into consideration.

Strengths of Cultural Relativism

1.        It is a system that promotes cooperation that creates a potentially stronger society
while preserving culture as well.
2.        It creates a society where equality is possible because each person can set his own
standards.
3.        It encourages people to pursue a genuine interest in their own options without
restrictions/ demand.
4.        It encourages respect built into the process of having one’s own specific perspective
and learns from one’s own experiences in a way that works best for one’s self.
5.        It stops cultural conditioning and creates societies that work without fear of judgment
and biases, thus a more authentic existence.
Weaknesses of Cultural relativism

1.        It creates a system that is fueled by personal biases. There would no longer be a
group perspective.
2.        It can create chaos and disorder as there would be no more absolute entities that
would hold people together in order. People would tend to find their own perspective of
what is right or wrong.
3.        It would bring back immorality and lack of discipline as the only standards in place
would be those which are set by the individual/s involved.
4.        It draws people away from one another that limiting moral and even the totality of
human progress.
5.        It turns mere perceptions into truths as each would be holders of their own truths
even moral truths.
For you to think about, would it be better to apply cultural relativism on a large scale or
to keep and embrace the traditions that have embraced over the millennia?
 
 Lesson 8:
Introduction:
People make culture, culture would also inevitably make people. We are products of our
own particular culture. Our moral development therefore also lies in the kind of culture that we
have.  Culture is responsible for setting standards in the moral/ ethical development of a person.
It is, therefore, necessary to understand our culture to be able to understand our moral/ ethical
standards, norms, and stands which we need in moral decision making. In this lesson, we look
into our culture as Filipinos, our value system, and how these values work.
Lesson Proper:
Man as living in a society who possesses culture responds to issues with a background of
his environment. Societies not only create a collective way of life reflected in the community’s
beliefs, values, and moral standards of which we call culture. Culture also becomes a dynamic
medium through which these values are passed and shared. With the growing influence of
globalization, culture is no longer just shared by members within a particular community but is
also adopted by other groups as well. Nonetheless, despite the reality of enculturation and
acculturation, there are some values that are identified to be consistently Filipino.
Filipino moral identity constitutes the Filipino value system that the majority of the
Filipinos have historically held important in their lives. This Philippine values system includes the
ideologies, moral codes, ethical practices, etiquette, and personal values that are promoted by
the society but slightly different individually due to religion, family, school, community, and other
factors. Filipino values center on maintaining social harmony and motivated by the desire for
acceptance and a sense of belongingness within a group. Social approval, group acceptance,
and belongingness are major concepts that help build the Filipino moral character. Sanctions to
deviation from these would bring about “hiya”, roughly translated as “sense of shame, “amor
propio” or self-esteem. Concern about what others might think, say or do to how people act or
say, are strong influences on the social behavior among Filipinos. Filipino values are mostly
social, interpersonal, and natural. Among them are the following:

  

1.  Pakikipag-kapwa tao - This is the shared sense of identity and consciousness of

the “other”.  It means treating others with respect and dignity as an equal, not someone below
the individual.  Filipinos are open to others and feel one with others, regard others with dignity
and respect, and deal with them as fellow human beings.  Pakikipag-kapwa tao is a foundation
of unity.  This is manifested in being helpful and generous in times of need (pakikiramay); the
practice of Bayanihan or mutual assistance and Filipino hospitality.
   

2.  Family Orientation - Filipinos possess a genuine and deep love for family.  The basic
and most important unit of a Filipino’s life is the family.  The Filipinos put a great emphasis on
the value of family and being close to one’s family members.  Family orientation is a source of
personal identity, emotional and material support, and one’s main commitment and
responsibility.  There are honor and respect given to parents; care given to the children; the
generosity towards kin in need; and in great sacrifices, one endures for the welfare of the family.
 The sense of family results in a feeling of belongingness and rootedness in a basic sense of
security.

3.  Joy and Humor - Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its ups
and downs.    It is a pleasant disposition, a sense of humor, and a propensity of happiness that
contributes not only to the Filipino charm but also to the indomitability of the Filipino spirit.  This
famous trait is the ability of the Filipinos to find humor in everything.  It sheds light on the
optimism and positivity of Filipinos in whatever situation they are so as to remain determined in
going through struggles or challenges.  It serves as a coping technique, the same way a child
who has fallen laughs at himself/herself to hide his/her embarrassment.

4.  Flexibility, Adaptability, and creativity - Filipinos can adjust and adapt to circumstances
and the surrounding environment, both physical and social.  Also, Filipinos adjust to whatever
happens even in unplanned or anticipated events.  We possess a tolerance for ambiguity that
enables us to remain unfazed by uncertainly or lack of information.  Studies show that Filipinos
often have an aversion to a set of standardized rules of procedures.  They are known to follow a
Natural Clock or Organic sense of time - doing things in the time they feel is right.  They are
present-oriented, which means that one attends to a task or requirement at the time it is needed
and does not worry much about future engagements.  This allows the Filipino to adapt and be
flexible in doing the tasks at times not bound to a particular schedule or timeframe.  This allows
them to think on their feet and be creative in facing whatever challenge or task they have even
when it is already right in front of them.
 

5. Faith and religiosity - The Philippines is approximately 85% Christians (Mostly Roman
Catholic Christians), 10 percent Muslims,  and 5 percent “other Religions”, including the Taoist-
Buddhist religious beliefs of  Chinese and the “Indigenous” animistic beliefs and some people in
upland areas that resisted 300 years of Spanish and colonial rule.  This is a reflection of the
Filipinos’ strong faith on God as seen in their various practices.  This includes the numerous
Church Holidays they observe, the customary (and obligatory) Sunday Mass, the individual’s
basis of their moral standpoint, the influence of the Church on the minds, actions, and opinions
of the majority, importance of the Sacraments, praying at almost any possible time of the day,
the extreme practices during Holy Week.
 
Filipinos have a deep faith in God.  Our innate religiosity enables us to comprehend and
genuinely accept reality in the context of God’s will and plan.  Religious expressions is very
tangible expressed every day; we relate to God like a human being - threaten, thank, ask
forgiveness, and request for favors.   
 

6.  Ability to Survive (resiliency) -   Filipinos have the ability to survive.  Filipinos make do
with what is available in the environment.  The Filipinos as people who have been constantly
under the rule of numerous powerful countries have over time, developed a sense of
resourcefulness or the ability to survive with whatever they have.  They have the extraordinary
ability to make something out of almost nothing.  If a Filipino was given just a screwdriver,
plastic bags, and some tapes, he would still be able to build a bird tree, especially for the sake
of survival, provided that he be allowed to hunt for some needed surrounding material. 
7.  Hard work and Industry - With resourcefulness comes hard work.  Filipinos are very
determined and persevering in accomplishing whatever they set in their minds.  We have the
capacity for hard work given proper conditions; to raise one’s standard of living and to possess
the essentials of a decent life for one’s family.  We are willing to take risks with jobs abroad and,
while there, to work at two or three jobs.  The result is productivity and entrepreneurship for
some and survival despite poverty for the family.   

8.  Hospitality - Filipinos are very hospitable and friendly people.  They always smile no
matter how they feel. This is the common terminology that describes how Filipinos welcome
foreigners or tourists who visit the country.  Fo Filipinos, it is a pleasure and the country’s honor
to accept foreigners as visitors and build genuine relationships and friendship with them.  
But aside from these values, we also have those long-held values to include:

1. Bahala Na - Bahala Na is a phrase Filipinos use most often. It can mean“living it all up to
God”, “come what may”, “whatever will be will be”, and the list goes on. It is a way of life, an
attitude, a perspective. It is embedded in the Filipino culture and it will never go away. It is not
for everyone, especially to those who like to be in control at all times. 
Bahala na- From Bathala na, there is no direct translation but more or less means “Leave it to
God” or “Come What May”. When I was in school this was taught to me as a negative character
trait of ours- it meant we were defeatist in our attitude to life and were only willing to do as much
as was necessary, preferring to leave the rest up to God’s will. In fact, during my time here, I’ve
been thinking that my Grade One teacher was really right. The Bahala Na attitude got us
nowhere.

2. Utang na Loob - Obligation and responsibility are often viewed in terms of reciprocity
(utang na loob), comprised of debts ( utang), and inner-self-free will ( na-loob). The process
begins with an unsolicited gift and continues going often into to the next generation. According
to Wikipedia: Utang-na-loob (pronounced “u-tang na lo-ob”) is also sometimes translated as a
"debt of gratitude." In the study of Filipino psychology, utang na loob is considered an important
"accommodative surface value," along with hiya (shame) and pakikisama (togetherness). That
is to say, it is one of the values by which the Filipino accommodates the demands of the world
around him, as opposed to confrontative values like "lakas ng loob" and "pakikibaka".
 The essence of utang na loob is an obligation to appropriately repay a person who has done
one a favor. The favors which elicit the Filipino's sense of utang na loob are typically those
whose value is impossible to quantify, or, if there is a quantifiable value involved, involves a
deeply personal internal dimension. This internal dimension, loob, differentiates Utang na Loob
from an ordinary debt("utang"); being an internal phenomenon, utang na loob thus goes much
deeper than ordinary debt or even the western concept of owing a favor. Filipino psychology
explains that this is a reflection of the "kapwa" orientation of shared person-hood or shared self,
which is at the core of the Filipino values system.

3. Hiya- The Filipino concept of hiya, often translated as ‘shame’ or ‘embarrassment’, has

often received ambivalent or negative interpretations. In this article I make an important
distinction between two kinds of hiya: (1) the hiyathat is suffered as shame or embarrassment (a
passion) and (2) the hiya that is active and sacrificial self-control of one’s individual wants for
the sake of other people (a virtue). I borrow and reappropriate this distinction from Aquinas’
virtue ethics. This distinction not only leads to a more positive appraisal of hiya, it also leads to a
 new understanding of associated concepts that are often confused with hiya such as amor
propio, pakikisama and the infamous ‘crab mentality’.
4. Palabra de Honor - Another value of the Filipinos is lack of a “Palabra de Honor” which
means a verbal commitment by one person to another agreeing to do (or not to do) something
in the future.
5. Kupadrino System -Padrino system, or patronage in Filipino culture and politics, is the
value system where one gains favor, promotion, or political appointment through family
affiliation (nepotism) or friendship (cronyism), as opposed to one's merit. The Padrino System in
the Philippines has been the source of many controversies and corruption. It has been an open
secret that one cannot join the political arena of the Philippines without mastery of the Padrino
System. From the lowest Barangay official to the President of the Republic, it is expected that
one gains political debts and dispenses political favor to advance one's career or influence, if
not wealth.
Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures. We cannot conclude that the two societies
differ in values just because they differ in customs. We differ in our beliefs, not in our values.
These values shared with the same worth for all, or at least for almost all people are called
universal values. Some of these universal human values encompass morality, aesthetic
preferences, human endeavors, and the desire for social order. These values are found and
held in common across a great diversity of human cultures in the vast majority of places and
situations, at almost all times whether consciously and explicitly or just expressed in their
behaviors. The concept of human rights emerged from the belief that basic values and
principles are of universal character. Shalom Schwartz (2014) proposed broad value domains
that are universal and fairly comprehensive. These universal values are:

1.       Power- This is the social status and prestige, control, and dominance over people
and resources.
2.       Achievements- Personal success demonstrating competence based on social
standards.
3.       Pleasure- Sensuous gratification for one’s self including the excitement, novelty
brought by the challenges in life.
4.       Self-Direction-This is independent thought-action of choosing, creating, and
exploring.
5.       Benevolence-It is the preservation and enhancement of the welfare of the people
with whom one is frequently in contact with.
6.       Tradition- it is respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that
traditional culture and religion provide.
7.       Conformity- It is the restraint in action, inclinations, and impulses which are likely to
upset or harm others and violate social expectations and norms.
8.      Security- It refers to safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships and of
self and nature as well. It includes the understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and
protection of the welfare of people and nature.
But values are always bi-polar in nature. Just as there are always two sides of the coin, there
are also two poles of values. For you to think about, what could be the good and bad sides of all
these values mentioned above?
 
 Lesson 9:
Introduction:
            There are varied philosophical thoughts and systems but the four main philosophical
schools of thought include idealism, realism, pragmatism, and existentialism. What can be
learned from these philosophical thoughts is relevant in the evaluation of one's own principles in
life. In one way or the other, these schools of thought influence the behavior of human persons.
            In his virtue ethics, Aristotle believed in the excellence of philosophical contemplation
and virtuous actions stemming from virtuous persons (i.e. virtuous actions are what the person
with wisdom would choose because what is good is obvious to such a person). In terms of the
material world, Aristotle believed that organisms continually moved from imperfect to perfect
states in a teleological development, the perfect being innate within the imperfect (ex. a seed
becomes a plant, an embryo becomes a baby which becomes an adult). In this way, he believed
that the essential nature of things lay not at their cause (or beginning) but at their end (telos).
Lesson Proper:
            Why should one know the different schools of philosophy or philosophical schools of
thought? One simple answer is for you to be able to determine where a person is coming from
in his contentions. Another one is for you to be able to figure out how to deal with the concerned
person. For example, when somebody is too angry with capitalism, he/she might have been
influenced by the philosophical dictum of Marxism. A person who is too dubious with human
senses and gives more emphasis to the idea that "knowledge must come primarily from reason
and thought" is, on the other hand, under the influence of rationalism (Scotty, 2017).
            There may be five or more schools of thought in philosophy but we limit the discussion
to the four main philosophical schools of thought according to Narejo (2015). These are the
following:

1. IDEALISM or Rationalism
            Idealism is a philosophical system within the field of Metaphysics.  It claims that reality is
dependent upon the mind rather than independent of the mind.  Thus, as the mind and soul are
unobservable aspect of reality, idealism is a metaphysical system.  There are extreme versions
of idealism. They deny that any world exists outside of our mind. But the narrow version of
idealism claims that our understanding of reality, it reflects the workings of our mind first and
foremost.  That is to say that the properties of the object have no standing independent of the
mind perceiving them.  Idealism is based on the early writings of Plato. It says that ideas are the
only true reality. Every material thing is an idea or a form of an idea. Mental phenomena are
what is fundamentally important and real, all other things reflect ideas. There are different types
of idealism which include subjective idealism, divine idealism, ontological idealism, and
epistemological idealism (https://philosophyterms.com/idealism/).
a. Subjective Idealism
For some idealists, it means that
nothing is truly real other than
consciousness and its contents. That
is, when you look out on the world
what you are really seeing is a world
created by the mind. Perception, in d. Epistemological Idealism
other words, is reality. That doesn’t Maybe it doesn’t actually matter
mean that you’re stuck in your own whether there’s a physical world
mind, though, since we’re lucky beyond the mind. After all, the
enough to have other minds that we mind is our only tool
can communicate with. Thus, the for understanding that world, and
truth may lie somewhere in between therefore all of our perceptions
your mind and mine (but still not in and understandings will be
any external physical world). We can constrained by the structure of
call this intersubjective idealism. the mind. When we try to
b. Divine Idealism understand that structure, we
may not be exploring the most
Alternatively, the world may be seen basic truths of the universe (as
as manifestations of ontological idealists would
some other mind, such as the mind claim); rather, we’re just trying to
of one God. (However, remember understand the human
that all of physical reality would be mechanisms and tools that make
contained in the mind of God on this all understanding possible.
view — so God would have to be a
consciousness outside of the physical
multiverse!)
 
c. Ontological Idealism
 
Others don’t take it quite as far: they
argue that the material world exists,  
but that at its most basic level it’s  
made out of ideas. For example,
some physicists believe that the  
universe, at its most basic level, is
made of numbers. So scientific  
formulas don’t just describe physical
reality; they are the physical reality.
E=MC2, for example, would be seen
as a fundamental aspect of reality
which Einstein discovered, rather
than a description that he invented.
 
     Idealism can be considered as an ontological school of thought
whereas rationalism is an epistemological
one. In idealism you assert that reality is fundamentally made of ideas. This thinking can
be opposed to materialism, according to which reality is fundamentally made up of
matter. It should be clear that there is a necessary relation between metaphysics and
epistemology. Our conception of reality depends on our understanding of what can be
known. Conversely, our theory of knowledge depends on our understanding of
ourselves in relation to the whole of reality.
 
     Idealism flourished in the Ancient Period during the time of Plato. He is well
known for the Platonic Idealism where there exists a perfect realm.  We talked
about this in the forms and ideas.  So, there is this perfect realm in Plato’s mind,
forms and ideas that are world merely contain the shadows of that realm.
      Subjective idealism, according to this system, only ideas can be known or
have any reality.
      Transcendental idealism is developed by Immanuel Kant and he argued that
all knowledge originates and perceived phenomena which is organized by
categories.
      Absolute Idealism, according to this system, all objects are identical with an
idea. They claim that knowledge is itself the system of idea. It is also known as
objective realism.  This sort of idealism is promoted by George Hegel.  Unlike the
other forms of idealism, there’s only one mind in which reality is created.
 
RATIONALISM
 
Rationalism flourished in the Modern Period in the time of Rene Descartes who founded
rational method as applied to philosophical research.  This period in the history of
philosophy came to be known as the age of reason and ideology, the age of modern
philosophy.  What binds all modern philosophers is their common use of critical reason
for the search of truth about God and the world. (Articulo, p. 118).  Descartes believed
that the information one gathered through the SENSES are not accurate.  Through the
application of his “Methodic Doubt,” he maintained that knowledge can be attained not
through experience but through Pure Reason.  In fact, Descartes believed that a strict
application of Pure Reason to all epistemological problems is the only way to attain
knowledge and certainty.
 
Rationalism is the position that reason alone, without the aid of sensory information, is
capable of arriving at some knowledge, at some undeniable truths (Ramos, 266). It is a
philosophical doctrine that holds that knowledge is derived from REASON rather than
experience.  Hence, for the rationalists, reason is the ultimate source of knowledge and
the test of its validity.  Rationalism is characterized by three major theses namely:
1.  Knowledge is derived from intuition (or rational insight) and deductive reasoning,
rather than from sense perception;
2.  The ideas or concepts that constitute the mind’s ability to think are innate; and ,
therefore,
3.Knowledge of a particular thing is innate.

Now what these three points suggest for the rationalist is that, REALITY has an
intrinsically logical structure, which contains certain truths that can be accessed by the
mind. For this reason, the rationalist believed that TRUTHS exist and that the intellect
can grasp them directly.  And for the rationalists, these truths are fundamental so that
 denying them would cause us to fall into contradiction.  In other words, these truths are
self-evidently true and that their negation is self-evidently false.

Consider for example this proposition: “All triangles have three angels.”  Logically
speaking, this proposition is absolutely true.  As long as an object is a triangle, it must
have three angles.  Also, for the rationalist, the knowledge of this proposition is NOT
derived from experience but from REASON.  For sure, we did not resort to experience
in order to say that indeed all triangles have three angles.  Through thinking alone, that
is through the use of REASON, we can arrive at the knowledge that all triangles have
three angles.
 

2. REALISM and Empiricism

            You are looking at a computer screen. Pixels are glowing and changing before
your eyes, creating patterns that your mind transforms into words and sentences. The
sentences and ideas are in your mind (and mine, as I write them), but the computer, the
server, the pixels, and your eyeballs are all real objects in the real world.
            This is the position of philosophical realism: the view that whatever we perceive
is real, truly out there. It’s not an illusion, or “all in our minds”
(https://philosophyterms.com/realism/).

            This is most people’s common-sense view of the world. We use our senses to
gather information about real objects that are around us. Those objects are really out
there, and they have physical properties that we can sense – they reflect light for us to
see, or they emit odor particles for us to smell. Then the mind directly connects with
these objects through memory, thinking, etc. Reality is a collection of objects that we
sense. Idealists reject this picture of the world. They argue that the universe is not a
collection of objects that human minds can perceive, but rather a collection of ideas that
human minds can grasp. All physical objects, they say, are manifestations, or a kind of
physical clothing on top of the idea.
 
            Realism is a philosophical school thought affirming that universals are real—
they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them while. Empiricism,
on the other hand is holds that the only or, at least, the most reliable source of human
knowledge is experience, especially perception by means of the physical senses. To
differentiate further between realism and empiricism, an advocate of realism is
concerned for facts or realities and rejects the impractical and visionary, while an
advocate of empiricism pursues knowledge purely through experience, especially by
means of observation and sometimes by experimentation
(https://wikidiff.com/empiricism/realism).

            In consideration of the above it is good to keep in mind that you can’t be an
Idealist and a Materialist and you can’t be a Rationalist and an Empiricist. On the other
 hand, you can be an Idealist and a Rationalist or an Idealist and an Empiricist. You can
also be Materialist and a Rationalist or you can be a Materialist and an Empiricist. That
is because Idealism and Materialism are statements of ontology which means they are
statements about what you believe is real. Rationalism and Empiricism are statements
of epistemology which means statements about what is the best way to know what is
real (Carreira, 2010).
 
EMPIRICISM

In addition to Empiricism, according to John Locke, all knowledge begins with

experience and that the mind is like a “blank sheet” (tabularasa), which the human
person fills with ideas as the person experiences the world through his/her five external
senses.  The empiricists, therefore, deny the contention of the rationalists that ideas are
innate, that is, humans are born with imprinted ideas, knowledge, and principles.  It
must be noted that there are many types of experience.  For example, we may talk of
inner experience like dreaming, imagining and fantasizing.  However, this type of
experience is not the one dealt with in empiricism.  This is because when we talk of
experience in philosophy, particularly in empiricism, we are specifically and exclusively
referring to “sensory experience.”  In particular, the adherence of empiricism is
interested in explaining the origin of knowledge with emphasis on how the human mind
acquires knowledge and conceptual understanding.
 

3. PRAGMATISM
 
            In popular usage, a “pragmatist” is someone who always thinks about the
practical side of things and doesn’t worry about theory or ideology. In philosophy, the
term has a significantly different meaning
(https://philosophyterms.com/pragmatism/).Pragmatism is based on the thoughts of a
number of nineteenth-century American philosophers like William James and John
Dewey. For a pragmatist, knowledge is subordinate to action. Meaning and truth of
ideas are determined by their relation to practice. Pragmatists believe that reality is
constantly changing and that we learn best through applying our experiences and
thoughts to solve problems.
 
            Even though the pragmatists saw words as vague tools rather than eternal
truths, they still believed in an important “pragmatic” notion of truth. They saw the
human search for truth as similar to a doctor’s search for a diagnosis: the doctor will
never know with absolute certainty what disease you have. But in order to treat you, she
has to make a decision, so she does the best she can with the information available and
then treats you on that basis. Similarly, for the pragmatists, we’ll never know the
absolute truths of the universe — all we can do is try to understand things as best we
 can and then act, even though our information will always be incomplete and there’s
always the real possibility of error (https://philosophyterms.com/pragmatism/).
 

4. EXISTENTIALISM
 
            Existentialism is based on the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. Individual persons
interpret the world from their own perceptions and create their own realities (Narejo,
2015). Accordingly, people have to create their own values in a world in which
traditional values no longer exist. Choices have to be made arbitrarily by individuals who
thus create themselves because there are no objective standards to determine choices.
 
            People who uphold existentialism consider themselves as free persons who
must be in control of their own choices or actions. They don't want much restriction from
social norms for these will inhibit their free will and the development of their potentials.
Thus, an existentialist is prone to "existential crisis". For example, "you identify yourself
as an athlete and have a promising career. Then you have a severe injury and your
career is over. At that point, you would have an existential crisis because you have
defined yourself as an athlete" (https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-
existentialism.html).
 
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

            The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle leads us to knowledge of ethics known

as virtue ethics because of its reference to the concept of virtue. The word virtue
comes from the Greek word aretê which could be translated in English as “excellence.”
Someone has aretê if he/she performs well with the intellectual and moral virtues.
Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a
mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices. We learn moral
virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction.
 
            Each of the virtues is a state of being that naturally seeks its mean relative to us.
According to Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state
between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency: too much and too little are always
wrong; the right kind of action always lies in the mean. Happiness (or flourishing or
living well) is a complete and sufficient good. This implies (a) that it is desired for itself,
(b) that it is not desired for the sake of anything else, (c) that it satisfies all desire and
has no evil mixed in with it, and (d) that it is stable (Aristotle's Nicomachean
Ethics: eudaimonia)
 
 Aristotle begins with the Nicomachean
Ethics by asking "What is the good of man?"
and his answer is "an activity of the soul in
conformity with virtue". To understand ethics,
therefore, we must understand what makes
someone a virtuous person (Rachels, 2003).
 
According to Aristotle, we study Ethics, not
merely to know, but to attain the good and to
live good lives. The good is happiness (most
desired), and the good is reasoning well (by
analogical argument). Aristotle produces his
definition of happiness from those 2 lines of
reasoning (since happiness and reasoning
well must be the same somehow). In short,
happiness is an activity of the
soul (reasoning) in conformity with virtue
(reasoning well).
 
In Book I, Chapter 13 of the Nichomachean
Ethics, Aristotle says, "Since happiness is an
activity of the soul in accordance with perfect
virtue, we must consider the nature of virtue;
for perhaps we shall thus see better the
nature of happiness."
 
Imagine a person who always knows what to say, can diffuse a tense situation,
deliver tough news gracefully, confident without being arrogant, brave but not reckless,
generous but never extravagant.  This is the type of person that everybody wants to be
around and to be liked, someone who seems to have mastered the art of being a
person.  But this seems to be impossible, but Aristotle believed that while rare these
people do exist and they are what we should aspire to be- Virtuous.  When we relate
this topic on Virtue theory, there is no categorical imperative or principle of utility,
instead ethical theory emphasizes an individual’s character rather than following a set of
rules just to be a good person.  Aristotle reasoned that if we can just focus on being
good people, the right actions will follow, effortlessly.  Meaning, become a good person
and you do good thing.  There is no book needed.  But why should you become a
virtuous person?  It is because of EUDAIMONIA.
Virtue theory says that you should become virtuous because if you are, you can
attain the pinnacle of humanity.  It allows us to achieve what’s known as EUDAIMONIA
- a Greek word that means “a life well lived” or translated also as “human flourishing.”  
And a life of Eudaimonia is a life of striving.  It’s a life of pushing yourself to your limits
and finding success.  A Eudaimonistic life will be full of happiness that comes from
achieving something really difficult, rather than just having it handed to you.  Choosing
to live life in this way also means you’ll face disappointments, and failures. Eudaimonia
doesn’t mean a life of cupcakes and rainbows.  Eudaimonia is a fulfilled
accomplishment and satisfaction through hard work.  This is morality for Aristotle, being
the best person you could ever be and honing your strength while working on your
weaknesses.  And for Aristotle, the kind of person who lives like this is a kind of person
who will do good things. 
Virtue theory reflects the ancient assumption that humans have a fixed nature on
the essence and the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature.  Aristotle described
this in terms of what he called “Proper Functioning” (everything has a function and the
thing is good to the extent that it fulfills its function and bad to the extent that it doesn’t). 
People grow like the animals and plants and be healthy and fertile.  As “rational animal,”
and a social animal, our function also involves using reason and getting along with our
pack.  Well, Aristotle has a strong influence of Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory
that God made us with a tool we need to know what is good.  But for Aristotle, this is not
all about God’s plan, it is just about nature.  Aristotle argued that nature has built into us
the desire to be virtuous.   But what exactly does it mean to be virtuous?  Aristotle said
that having virtue just means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in
the right amount, toward the right people.  This sounds vague, but there’s no need to be
specific, because if you’re virtuous, you know what to do all the time.  You know how to
handle yourself and how to get along with others.  You have good judgment, you can
read a room, and you know what’s right and when.  Aristotle developed virtues that man
must be developed that will lead to predictably good behavior.  You can think of virtue
(golden mean) as the midpoint between two extremes which Aristotle called vices
(excess and deficiency).  For example, the virtue courage can be the midpoint of these
two extremes such as cowardice and recklessness.  Being courageous doesn’t mean
rushing ahead to the danger or getting rid of a situation because of fear, rather a
courageous person will assess the situation.  They’ll know their own abilities, and they’ll
take action that is right in the particular situation.  Aristotle also argued that part of
having courage is being able to recognize when , rather than stepping in, you need to
find an authority who can handle a situation that’s is too big for you to tackle alone. 
Basically, “courage is finding the right way to act.”  So, Aristotle believed that all right
actions are always the midpoint between extremes.
 
Aristotle identifies 11 moral virtues, all governed by one intellectual virtue, prudence or
good deliberation. These virtues are the following: courage, temperance, generosity,
magnificence (generosity with wealth), magnanimity (proper pride), right ambition, good
temper, friendliness, truthfulness, with, and justice. All except justice are mean between
two extremes. As mentioned earlier, the virtue of courage is the mean between being a
coward and being rash. For instance, when running into battle, the coward lags behind,
and the brash or rash person runs ahead. The courageous person keeps with his or her
mates. Prudence, the intellectual virtue that finds the mean, tells us that being
courageous is more like being rash than it is like being cowardly. In fact, all the virtues
depend on prudence for their existence. We couldn’t discover the moral virtues without
skillful deliberation.
 
 According to Aristotle, Virtue is a skill, a way of living, and that’s something that
can only really be learned through experience.  Virtue is a kind of knowledge that he
called Practical Wisdom.  Aristotle said your character is developed through habituation
- If you do a virtuous thing over and over again, eventually it will become part of your
character.  So, virtues are attained or acquired by practice and habit. We become just
by doing just acts, generous by generous acts, temperate by temperate acts, etc. Moral
virtues are purposive dispositions, lying in a mean determined by reason. To possess a
virtue is to hold a complex mental framework of the right feelings, attitudes,
understanding, insight, experience, etc. Thus, virtue involves knowing the act, choosing
it for its own sake, and a consistent state of character.
 
With regard virtue and self-control, Aristotle contrasts self-controlled or continent
people, who have unruly desires but manage to control them, guided by good judgment
(right reason); temperate people, whose reason and desires have become harmonized
—second-nature—and choose that which is good for them; and, weakness of will
(akrasia) occurs when right-thinking people cannot keep their desires under control
(discussed in NE, Bk VII).
 
To sum it up, Nicomachean Ethics is a philosophical inquiry into the nature of the
good life for a human being. To discover the nature of human happiness it is necessary
to determine what the function of a human being is, for a person's happiness will consist
in fulfilling the natural function toward which his/her being is directed. This natural
function must be something which is specific to human beings, which is essential to
being human. A person is primarily his/her intellect. While the spirited and desiring parts
of the soul are also important, the rational part of the soul is what one can most properly
consider a person's identity. The activity which only human beings can perform is
intellectual; it is activity of the highest part of the soul (the rational part) according to
reason. Human happiness, therefore, consists in activity of the soul according to
reason. In practical terms, this activity is expressed through ethical virtue, when a
person directs his actions according to reason. The very highest human life, however,
consists in contemplation of the greatest goods (https://www.gradesaver.com/aristotles-
ethics/study-guide/summary).
 
Lesson 10:

Introduction:
Natural law deals with the qualities ingrained in the whole of creation which leads us on our way
home with the Creator (translated as LIKAS NA DAPAT). Natural law even precedes Christianity
and has its origins in Ancient Greece. It has also its roots in the Bible when nature is considered
a source of moral enlightenment. In Romans 1:20, you can read: “Ever since the creation of the
world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and
seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse". Some important questions
then that one could ask are: How do we read nature? How do you know what is natural?
 Kantian Ethics uses a deontological approach to ethics. It gives emphasis to the proper motives
in one's actions. For Immanuel Kant, the "good will" refers to the will that acts for the sake of
duty alone, that is, acting out of respect for the moral law. It involves categorical and not
hypothetical imperatives. The possible problems that one has to deal with Kantian Ethics,
however, have something to do with overemphasis on moral autonomy, the act of ignoring
legitimate concern for consequences, vagueness in formulating maxims, and rationality with
ethics.
Lesson Proper:
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was dubbed “the dumb ox” by his fellow students, for being large
and quiet. He was apparently quiet because he was busy thinking; he became the Catholic
Church’s top theologian, a title he still holds today, without dispute. During the Middle Ages,
many of Aristotle’s works were lost to Western Europe, beginning in the first few centuries AD.
Aquinas merged Aristotle with Christianity after the recovery of his philosophy via Muslim
scholars in the 12th and 13th centuries. The ‘purposiveness’ or ‘end-directedness’ of nature in
Aristotle is identified by Aquinas with God’s purposes.
Aquinas conceives of creatures, according to types, as governed by final causes or ends which
they naturally seek. These ends are implanted in them by the Creator. Most creatures actively
seek their proper ends out of instinct. Although human beings too have proper ends, we do not
always act as we should. Our actions are often determined counter to nature and natural law by
our appetites. When reason rules in the human soul, we choose what accords with nature.

            Reason in human beings is capable of

apprehending certain general principles
implanted in human nature. The first principle
of the natural law is "good is to be done and
pursued, and evil avoided" (q94, a2, p. 47). All
other precepts of natural law rest upon this.
What then are the basic principles of the
natural law which everyone should know?
Consider the following:
1. Natural law is an eternal moral law revealed to all people through human nature.
2. Natural law influences (but cannot save) even fallen and sinful humanity.
3. Natural law is the proper basis of political authority.
4. Natural law authorizes society to establish a government.
5. Governments are themselves subject to the natural law.
6. Each society’s laws should apply natural law to that society’s particular circumstances.
Two Strains of Interpretation of Natural Law
Order of Nature Order of Reason
Source of Moral norms - “Written” in nature Source - human experience taken in all its
  complexity / relationships
Knowledge - observe the way nature works; Knowledge - Reason – whatever would promote well-
presumes only one reading of natural law being of humans
Stoics (3rd Century BC) - They are the earliest to Aristotle (384-322 BC) – He did not develop a natural
develop the notion of natural law. The emphasis is to law theory.
“conform to what is given in nature” because the world Nature is the cause or source of activity in a being;
is interconnected.  Don’t fool with Mother Nature! the specific nature of humans is rationality.  Morally
 Ulpian (228 AD) - Jus naturale - the rule of action
common to humans and to animals; natural law good actions are those rationally directed toward the
became identified with animal instincts; separated NL full actualization of human potential.
from law proper to humans. Romans - They stressed the “law” of natural order
  because they are interested in establishing political
order throughout the Roman empire.
Cicero (43 BC) - Natural Law is the innate power of
reason to direct action. To live according to the law
given in nature is to live according to what reason
commands
Gaius (180 AD) - Natural law refers to international
law; regulates relationships between legally
autonomous territories.
 
 
 
 
By the time of Thomas, two strains of interpretation were already firmly established: the order of
reason and the order of nature. Today, in the official teachings of the Church, the order of
nature and the order of reason are still subject to some debatable issues.
Natural Law Today: Body in Official Church Teachings
Order of Reason
Order of Nature
Gaudium et Spes (1965) – see-judge-act method
Casti Connubii (1930), Humanae Vitae (1968) - teachings
CST after Vatican II
against artificial contraception
Declaration on Euthanasia – allows for a cessation
Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986) –
of disproportionate means of prolonging life.
teaching against same-sex relations
Not a Violation of Natural Law:
Violations of Natural Law:
Cessation of disproportionate means of prolonging
Artificial contraception, homosexuality, sex change
life
Thomas Aquinas is obviously coming from an essentialist foundation, that is, essence is prior to
existence. The human person, being an image of God (imago Dei), exists within the divine mind
even before creation. Thus, natural law is objective, foundational, and absolute. It is good when
it fulfills one's essence. It becomes evil with the privation of goodness. Christians believe that
before the world and human beings were created, from nothing (ex nihilo), by God, there existed
within the divine mind an idea, or essence, of what is to be fully human. Humans realize the
'image and likeness of God' when they fulfill this essence by living a life according to God's plan
which may be understood by reason reflecting on nature, and being guided by the Bible
(revealed word of God). Sin is understood as a 'falling short' of this idea, or essence, through
the misuse of free will.
The five primary principles of Thomas Aquinas are: to live, to learn, to reproduce, to live in an
ordered society, and to worship God. Aquinas believes that for human beings: life is the
supreme good as it is the basis for all other goods; education makes it possible for people to
become independent and fully adult; reproduction would ensure the continuation of the human
race; law and order would ensure that justice is upheld and that individuals are able to interact
without fear of oppression; and, worshipping God, the creator and sustainer of the world and
humanity offers fulfillment and love.
Is Natural Law Applicable for Today?
Issues such as being transgender, same-sex marriage, artificial contraception, in vitro
fertilization, and the like are debatable to many people. For example, according to Pope Pius
XII, masturbation is unnatural self-abuse and it is sinful as every sperm is sacred. On the
contrary, Sigmund Freud would say that masturbation is normal for healthy adolescent sexual
development. Pope Paul VI said that In Vitro Fertilization is interfering with God-given nature;
however, Lord Winston also said that using reason to meet infertile couple's natural desire to
become parents is not a sinful act.
So, dear students, given some of these pressing issues in our society today, from which sides of
the coin are you, based on your personal decision? Look at the following pictures and take
some moments of reflection and be ready to defend your argument according to what your
conscience tells you.  

              
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the philosophers in the modern period or in the Age of
Reason and Enlightenment. His categorical imperative is an outstanding contribution to Ethics.
According to Rachels (2003), like a number of other philosophers, Kant believed that morality
can be summed up in one ultimate principle, from which all our duties and obligations are
derived. He called this principle the Categorical Imperative. In the Foundations of the
Metaphysics of Morals (1785), he expressed it like this: "Act only according to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without
contradiction."This is what Kant called the Universalizability Principle. By unpacking what Kant
is saying, a maxim is just a rule or principle of action and universal law is something that must
always be done in similar situations.  So, as a Kantian, before I act, I would ask myself, “what’s
the maxim of my action?”  In other words, what’s the general rule that stands behind the
particular action I’m considering?  Let’s say you forgot your wallet in your dorm this morning.
You don’t have time to get it between classes and you’re really hungry.  Near a store, you
noticed that the student working at the store was much focused talking to someone else and
you could easily get a snack and be on your way.  The question is that, is it okay, morally, for
you to do that?  Well, the particular action we are dealing with here by taking a snack without
paying for it is stealing.  And if you approve of the maxim of stealing, which you’re doing,
whether you admit it or not, then what you’re actually doing is universalizing that action.  You’re
saying that everyone should always steal.  If you should be able to do it then everyone should
be able to do it.  The thing is, this leads to a contradiction.  And remember Kant’s word
specifically says that moral actions cannot bring about contradiction.  The contradiction here is,
no one would say that everyone should steal all the time because if everyone should always
steal then everyone should be stealing each other’s property and things from each other.
Therefore, stealing isn’t universalizable.  So what Kant is really saying is that, it’s not fair to
make exceptions for yourself.  You don’t really think stealing is okay and by imagining what it
would be like to universalize it, which becomes clear.  Now, Kant’s view that moral rules apply to
everyone equally sounds nice and fair.  But it can sometimes lead to some pretty counter-
intuitive results.

Let’s say, one morning, Elvira and Tony are having breakfast.  Then a stranger comes to the
door and asks where Tony is, so he can kill him.  Obviously, Elvira’s impulse is to lie and say
that Tony isn’t around right now in order to protect him from this would-be murderer.  But Kant
says she can’t lie, not ever, not even to save Tony’s life.  Here’s the reasoning:  Suppose she’s
at the front door, talking to the stranger.  At the time, she thinks Tony’s in the kitchen, where she
left him.  But it turns out he was curious about the caller, so he followed her into the living room,
and heard the stranger make his threats.  Fearing for his life, Tony slipped out the back door.
Meanwhile Elvira, in her desire to save him, tells the stranger that Tony isn’t here, even though
she thinks he is.  Based on her lie, the stranger leaves and runs into Tony as he rounds the
corner heading away from the house and kills him.  Had she told the truth, the stranger might
have headed into the kitchen looking for Tony, which would have given Tony time to escape.
But she didn’t.
Now, by Kant’s reasoning, Elvira is responsible for Tony’s death, because her lie caused it.  Has
she told the truth, only the murderer would have been responsible for any deaths that might
have occurred?  Now, she could have refused to answer the stranger altogether or tried to talk
him out of it.  But one thing she is never permitted to do is to violate the moral law, even if
others are doing so, even for a really good cause.

So, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is about the universality of our actions.  But
the second formulation focuses on how we should treat other people.  Kant also gave another
formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Later in the same book, he said that the ultimate
moral principle may be understood as saying: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
own person or that of another, always an end and never as a means only." (Rachels, 2003,
p.131). Likewise, it goes this way: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in that of another, always as an end, and never as a mere means.” Again, we have to define
some terms here to figure out what this is all about.  To use something as a “mere means” is to
use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit of the thing you’re
using.  Now, we use things as mere means all the time.  I use this mug to hold my coffee, and if
it would stop benefitting me, like if it got a crack in it and started leaking, I wouldn’t use it
anymore.    It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means, but not humans.  This is because we
are what Kant called ends-in-ourselves.  We are not mere objects that exist to be used by
others.  We’re our own ends.  We’re rational and autonomous.  We have the ability to set our
own goals and work toward them.  Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers.  Humans exist for
themselves.  So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself means to recognize the humanity of the
person you’re encountering, to realize that she has goals, values, and interests of her own, and
you must, morally, keep that in mind in your encounters with her.  Now, Kant pointed out that we
do use people, all the time, and that’s ok.  Because, most of the time, we use other people as a
means for something, but not as a mere means.  We still recognize their humanity when we use
them, and they agree to being used.  So, for example, you are using me right now to get
information about Kantian ethics.  I am using Nick and Nicole to help me get that information to
you.  Kant said that you and I, and Nick and Nicole, we all deserve to not be used as mere
means, because of our autonomy.  Unlike other things in the world, we’re self-governed.  We’re
able to set our own ends, to make our own free decisions based on our rational wills.  We can
set goals for ourselves and take steps to realize those goals.  This imbues us with an absolute
moral worth, Kant said, which means that we shouldn’t be manipulated, or manipulate other
autonomous agents for our own benefit. And this means that things like lying and deception are
never okay because if I’m being deceived, I can’t make an autonomous decision about how to
act, and my decision is based on false information.
For instance, I might agree to loan you money so you can buy books for schools, but I
wouldn’t agree to loan you money so that you can get a new Xbox.  So, when you lie to me
about what you’re going to be doing with the money you’re asking for, you rob me of my ability
to autonomously decide to help you.  You’ve treated me as a mere means to accomplish your
goals, with no thought to my own goals and interests.  And that’s a violation of Kant’s second
categorical imperative. So, Kant argued that proper, rational application of the categorical
imperative will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents.  No God
required.  Of course, not everyone agreed with him.  
Immanuel Kant provides a formulation of fundamental moral principles that, though exceedingly
formal and abstract, are based upon the twin ideals of equality and moral autonomy.
Human rights are rights we give to ourselves, so to speak, as autonomous and formally equal
beings. To act out of a "good will" for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or
'duty'. Kant answers that we do our moral duty when our motive is determined by a principle
recognized by reason rather than the desire for any expected consequence or emotional feeling
which may cause us to act the way we do.
Difference between Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative
Imperatives are instructions; they tell us what to do. Kant distinguished between two types of
imperative: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives tell you what to do in order to
achieve a particular goal. It is subjective and conditional as it suggests if I wanted to buy clothes
I should find a job, or if I don't want to go to prison then I should not steal. Morality, according to
Kant, isn’t like this. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that we want to achieve
a particular goal, e.g. staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Moral behaviour isn’t about
staying out of prison or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical imperatives.
Categorical imperative means a command to perform actions that are absolute moral rules that
do not consider consequences. According to Kant, this meant that moral statements could only
be known through reason because they are a priori and so there must be a method to work out
if a statement is true or false. This helps us know what our duty is and is applied universally,
and what you must do regardless of your goals.  This is manifested in the Ten Commandments.
For some, the commandments that say “you should not steal, you should not kill, and others are
examples of commands.  Kant points these as imperatives.  So, morality in general is telling
what we should be doing, what we ought to be doing or what we ought not to be doing.  We
have duties to do certain things and duties to refrain from doing certain things.

          The categorical imperative is a moral absolute. It is

expressed in three distinct formulations. In the first
formulation, Kant is giving content to morality, defining what is
right and wrong. He describes it as a “compass” that we can
use to distinguish between right and wrong. He said that an
act is wrong if its maxim cannot be willed (by others and  
yourself) into becoming universal law. Whatever can be
universally agreed to is what is right or wrong without  
contradiction. The second formulation suggests that we
should treat other rational beings as ends in themselves,  
never as a means to an end. He is saying that the identity of  
a person is tied to the rationality of their actions, not their ego.
A person’s rationality is definitive of what we are made up of,  
our absolute worth. Kant's third and final formulation of the
categorical imperative is the principle of autonomy–the  
autonomy of will. It outlines that every rational being is able to  
reason through to the necessary conclusions to act morally,
as a "maker of laws in the kingdom of ends" This principle of
autonomy allows the first formulation of the categorical
imperative to make sense. (studocu.com)

To summarize, here are the main points of Kant’s theory (Fieser, 2017):
 Motives behind true moral choices are not those of selfish inclination but instead those of
a rational duty conforming to the categorical imperative.
 Hypothetical imperatives have the form “If you want something, then you must do some
act”; the categorical imperative mandates, “You must do some act.”
 The general formula of the categorical imperative has us consider whether the intended
maxim of our action would be reasonable as a universal law.
 Specific formulations of the categorical imperative focus on a particular feature of human
rationality, such as the absence of contradiction, free choice, and inherent dignity.