Ethics

Foundations of Moral Valuation

Lesson 1
 Objectives

Chapter I: The Ethical

Dimension of Human
Existence
• Value
• Sources of Authority
• Senses of Self
After reading this chapter, you should be
able to:
• Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of
ethical thinking;
• Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical
thinking; and
• Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining
certain commonly-held notions on ethics
▪Ethics, generally speaking, is
about matters such as the
good thing that we should
pursue and the bad thing
that we should avoid; the
right ways in which we could
or should act and the wrong
ways of acting.
▪Ethics as a subject for us
to study is about
determining the
grounds for the values
with particular and
special significance to
human life.
 Kinds of Valuation
There are instances when we make value
judgements that are not considered to be
part of ethics.
▪ Aesthetics – from the Greek word
“aisthesis” which means “sense” or
“feeling” and refers to the judgments of
personal approval or disapproval that we
make about what we see, hear, smell, or
taste.
Kinds of Valuation

▪Etiquette – concerned with

right or wrong actions, but
those which might be
considered not quite grave
enough to belong to a
discussion on ethics
 Kinds of Valuation

▪Technique/ Technical
– from the Greek
word “techne” and
refers to a proper
way—(or right way)
of doing things
▪ The distinction between what belongs to ethics and what does not is not
always clearly defined.
▪ Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows
us to have a rough guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics.
▪ Therefore matters that concern life and death such as war, capital
punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being such
as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included discussions of
ethics
 Ethics and Morals
“Morals” may be used to refer
to specific beliefs or attitudes
that people have or to
describe acts that people
perform. We also have terms
such as “moral judgment” or
“moral reasoning,” which
suggest a more rational
aspect.
 Ethics and Morals
“Ethics” can be spoken of as
the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human
behavior and ideal ways of
thinking. Thus, ethics is
acknowledged as an
intellectual discipline
belonging to philosophy.
 Ethics and Morals
Ethics – is the branch of
philosophy that studies
morality or the rightness or
wrongness of human conduct.
Morality, speaks of code or
system of behavior in regards
to standard of right and wrong
behavior.
Descriptive and Normative
▪ A descriptive study of ▪ A normative study of ethics, as
ethics reports how
people, particularly
groups, make their
moral valuations
without making any
judgment either for or
against these valuations.
is often done in philosophy or
moral theology, engages the
question: What could or should
be considered as the right way
of acting? In other words, a
normative discussion prescribes
what we ought to maintain as
our standards or bases for moral
valuation.
Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

A situation that
calls for moral
valuation can be
called a moral
issue.
Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

▪When one is placed in a

situation and confronted by
the choice of what act to
perform, s/he is called to
make a moral decision
 Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

When a person is an
observer making an
assessment on the
actions or behavior of
someone, s/he is
making a moral
judgment.
Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

▪When one is torn

between choosing one of
two goods or choosing
between the lesser of
two evils, this is referred
to as a moral dilemma.
Only Human beings can be Ethical
A. Only human beings are
rational, autonomous, and
self – conscious.
B. Only human beings can act
morally or immorally.
C. Only human beings are part
of the moral community.
 Reasoning
▪ What reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is
either right or wrong?
▪ A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him/her a
reason for acting in a certain way.
▪ The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us
to act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness
of a certain way of acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit.
▪ Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation—our
decisions and judgments—to be based on a principle.
 SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
▪ Law
- It is supposed that law is one’s guide to
ethical behavior. In the Philippines,
Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws
of the land as stated in the country’s
criminal and civil codes. The law cannot
tell us what to pursue, only what to
avoid.
▪ Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing us with an
objective standard that is obligatory applicable to all.
▪ However, there are some problems with this. Can one simply identify ethics
with the law?
➢One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. (the law does not
tell us what we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts
that we should not do.)
➢Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative
perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important
aspect of a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were
not required of us by the law.
▪ In line with this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are
not forbidden by the law, but are ethically questionable to us.

▪ For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to give its employees benefits
may do so within the parameters of the law. The company can do so by refusing to hire
people on a permanent basis, but offering them six-month contracts.
▪ In view of all this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a way that does not
simply identify it with the obedience of the law.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
▪Religion
- The divinity called God,
Allah, or Supreme Being
commands and one is
obliged to obey his/her
Creator (Divine Command
Theory).
▪ Taking religion as a basis of ethics has the advantage of providing us
with not only a set of commands but also a supreme authority that can
inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can.
▪However, there are some problem with this. First, on the
practical level.
▪ each faith demands differently from its followers which would
apparently result in conflicting ethical standards
▪Second problem, on what may be called a more conceptual
level
▪ Where one requires the believer to clarify her understanding of the
connection between ethics and religion.
▪Our calling into question of the divine command theory is
not a calling into question of one’s belief in God; it is not
intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an
invitation to consider whether there may be more creative
and less problematic ways of seeing the connection
between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what
is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by
God.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
▪ Culture
- Our exposure to different societies and
their cultures makes us aware that there are
ways of thinking and valuing that are
different from our own, that there is in fact
a wide diversity in how different people
believe it is proper to act. Therefore, what is
ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
relative to, or that is to say, dependent on
one’s culture. This position is referred to as
cultural relativism.
▪ Taking cultural relativism as basis of ethical standards teaches us to
be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we
are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice
of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable.

▪ However, there are problems in cultural relativism as shown in a

classic exposition by James Rachels. His criticisms regarding to
cultural relativism.
▪ First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of
difference.
▪ Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one
moral code is the right one.
▪ Second under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to
render any kind of judgement on the practices of another culture?
▪ What if the practice seems to call for comment?
▪ Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong?
▪ Would we be satisfied with concluding that we cannot judge another culture?
▪ Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render
judgement on the practices of even our own culture.
▪ If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say
that something within our cultural practice was problematic.
▪ Fourth, perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural
relativism is that we can maintain it only by following presumption of culture
as a single, defined substance or as something fixed and already determined.
▪ It is always possible to find examples of a certain culture having a unique practice or
way of life but it is also becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly
defines one’s culture
 SENSES OF THE SELF
Ethical Subjectivism
- the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing
more. On this view, there is no such thing as ʺobjectiveʺ right or wrong.
▪A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea:
▪ “No one can tell me what is right or wrong”
▪ “No one knows my situation better than myself”
▪ “I am entitled to my own opinion ”
▪ “It is good if I say that it is good”
▪There is something appealing about these statements
because they seem to express a cherished sense of
personal independence. But a close look at these
statements may reveal problems and in seeing these, we
see the problems of subjectivism.
▪They refer only to people’s attitudes, but not into actual
objective moral facts.
Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism
▪What is Egoism?
▪A doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of
all actions and all forms of egoism require explication of
“self-interest”
 Psychological Egoism Ethical Egoism

(WE ‘DO’ ACT IN OUR OWN SELF-
INTEREST)
STATES THAT PEOPLE ALWAYS ACT
OUT OF SELF-INTEREST
(WE ‘SHOULD’ ACT IN OUR OWN
SELF-INTEREST)
STATES THAT ANY CONSEQUENCE
BROUGHT ON BY AN ACTION THAT
BENEFITS THE DOER IS ETHICAL