SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
A. ETHICAL RELATIVISM
• the view that ethical or moral values and
beliefs are relative to the various individuals
or societies that hold them. Thus, according
to the ethical or moral relativists, there is no
2. Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism
objective right and wrong.
• This means that what is right for one person
is not necessarily right for another or what is
right in some circumstances is not
necessarily in another
Two Forms of Ethical Relativism
1. Personal or Individual Ethical Relativism
- holds that ethical judgments and beliefs are
the expressions of the moral outlook and
attitudes of individual persons.
- Hence, for the individual ethical relativists,
there is no objective standard of right and
wrong in as much as the Individual person"
is the basis of moral judgments.
- The ethical relativist may, therefore, say “I
have my own view and you have yours.
Neither my view nor yours is better or more
correct.”
- Example: Senicide or geronticide— the
abandonment to death or killing of the
elderly
o There was a common belief that
during famines or other extremely
difficult situations, the Inuit or the
indigenous people of Northern
America would leave their elderly on
the ice to die.
o If this is indeed the case, the
individual relativist would say that no
one, especially the outsiders of this
culture, has the right to say that the
Inuit are wrong because the morality
of such action depends entirely on
the individual Intuit beliefs.
o Hence, in individual ethical relativism,
any person has no right to say that
others are correct or incorrect since
to do so would assume an objective
standard of right and wrong
o This example is considered an
individual or personal ethical
relativism because it is the individual
that is the basis of moral judgment.
- Social or cultural ethical relativism holds
that ethical values and beliefs vary from
society to society and that the basis of
moral judgment lies in these social or
cultural views.
- Thus, in determining the rightness or
wrongness of human actions, one must
base it on the norms of a particular society.
- Example: The ancient Indian practice of --
Sati or Suttee.
o As is well known, the ancient Indians
had the practice of burning the wife
alive in the funeral pyre of her
deceased husband. Whatever the
reasons behind this practice, the act
was seen as heroic.
o In fact, records show that some wives
willingly allowed themselves to be
burnt alive on their husbands' funeral
pyre. Indeed, if an outsider is to judge
this act, she may view this as
immoral, especially if she is a
Christian.
o But for the social ethical relativist,
that might be the right to do in that
culture. This is because, for the social
ethical relativists, no society's view is
better than any other in a
transcultural sense.
o Hence, no society has the right to say
that culture of a certain society is
wrong. From what we have just
presented above, we can draw three
possible reasons that support ethical
relativism.
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 1

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
Possible Reasons to Support Ethical Relativism
1. Diversity of Moral Values
- The ethical relativists may have argued that
the presence of disagreements on many
ethical issues or even on basic moral
values or principles will prove the point that
we cannot attain objective truth. Hence, the
idea of objective right and wrong is
inconceivable for ethical relativists.
2. Moral Uncertainty
- Because of moral uncertainty, the ethical
relativists would have argued that because
there is great difficulty in knowing what the
morally right thing is to do or believe, then
again, we cannot attain objective right or
wrong.
3. On Situational Differences
- For the ethical relativists, the situations and
life world of different people vary so much
that it is difficult to believe that same things • The indisputable reality of cultural diversity has
that would be right for one would be right
for another. Hence, what is right or wrong
for one may not be necessarily right or
wrong for another.
Arguments for Ethical Relativism
There are quite a good number of reasons for
believing and accepting that what Ethical
Relativism holds is true. In what follows, we will
present the most mentioned reasons or arguments,
which in one way or the other favor and support the
belief in the philosophy of Ethical Relativism.
1. Cultural Differences Argument
• One of the most often cited reasons to support
Ethical Relativism is the actual existence of
moral diversity amongcultures. Throughout
history many societies have held beliefs and
practices about morality that are strikingly
different from our own.
• For centuries, people have pointed out those
different societies or cultures at least appear to
have vastly different moral codes (See
Barcalow 1998:48-49; Curd 1992:171; De
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
Castro 1995:127-130; Montemayor 1985:6;
Pojman 1999:28-29).
• Indeed, it is uncontroversially true that people in
different societies have different customs and
different ideas about right/good and wrong/bad.
There is no universal or transcultural consensus
on which actions are right and wrong, “even
though there is a considerable overlapping with
regards to this” (Warburton 1995: 56-60).
• Noted American anthropologist Ruth Benedict
(1887-1948), a pioneering scholar in the field, in
her book Patterns of Culture (first published in
1935), claims that “careful study of the cultural
practices of different peoples supports the idea
that what is and is not behaviorally normal is
culturally determined.”
• Thus, “acquaintance with the wide diversity of
moral beliefs across societies” may lead us to
deny that there really is only one correct moral
code that applies to and binds all societies
(Barcalow 1998:48).
been tremendously influential; it has persuaded
a lot of people to adopt a skeptical stance as to
the whole idea of an objective and universal
moral truth (Curd 1992:99). Given the wide
disparities of practice and belief, it seems that
Ethical Relativism is consistent with the facts of
cultural diversity.
Critical Evaluation: Cultural Differences
• Because of cultural diversity, many people think
morality is, just as obvious as it is relative to
culture. If people differ in the clothes they wear,
the kind of food they eat and the language they
speak, why cannot they also differ in their moral
beliefs? If the former is not universal, why
should morality be universal?
• No doubt, there is an enormous fact of cultural
diversity, and many societies have radically
different and sometimes conflicting moral
codes. Cultural relativism is indeed a
sociological and anthropological fact. And facts
can never be disputed.
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 2

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
• Arguing though that cultural relativism is an
indisputable fact, “it does notby itself establish
the truth of ethical relativism” (Pojman 1999:38)
• The point or rather the whole question here is
this: Does the fact of cultural relativism
necessarily imply ethical relativism? Is the fact
that cultures vary in beliefs and practices
tantamount to say that there is no morally right
or wrong conduct and practices in the objective
sense of the term?
• Cultural diversity as a sociological and
anthropological fact is in itself neutral to making
any value or moral judgment. It does not
necessarily deny the objectivity of moral values.
What merely it is saying is that cultures do vary
in so many ways. It does not categorically say
whose or what culture or cultures is/are doing
and practicing what is right.
• “The problem with the reasoning that morality is
simply a product of culture is that ___ a product
of culture can express objective truths. So too,
a moral code be a product of culture and yet
still express objective truth about how people
ought to live” (Gensler 1998:16).
• Is this not a contradiction? If morality is relative
to one’s culture, is this very statement subject
also to this same relativity? “If everything is
relative, then the very truth of relativism would
also be relative” (Montemayor 1985:6).
• In here(Timbreza 1993:19), the logic of
relativism self-destructs. It clearly suffers a
dose of its own medicine. In the words of a
prominent Filipino philosopher:
- Ethical relativism appears to be self-
contradictory and inconsistent…. If the
moral relativist insists on the legitimacyof
his view, then he/she is proposing a theory
that must be accepted by everyone…
which is against what he / she is teaching.
It seems then, that one who styles oneself
as a moral relativist encounters difficulty in
being self-consistent and in acting in
accordance with one’s own moral claim
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
2. The Argument from Respect
• As we have just noted above, Ethical Relativism
rooted in cultural multiplicity seemed to be very
appealing to a good number of people,
especially among the youth of today. “Part of
its[powerful drawing power] is due to the fact
that such view has been thought to promote
tolerance” (Timothy & Wong 1996:14).
• Accordingly, if moral codes differ from culture
and there is no objective or culturally dependent
basis by which to judge the moral code of any
culture, then the moral code of one’s culture
has no special status compared with the rest.
• Moreover, “[no culture] has the right to impose
[its] own [ethical] views [and practices] on
anyone else, least of all on people in different
cultures [and traditions]” (Timothy & Wong
1996:14). The appropriate attitude to take is
therefore one of respect and tolerance for moral
standpoints different from what one upholds
(Gensler 1998:15).
• Tolerance has always been considered as a
virtue while taking a superior stance is usually
viewed as the height of arrogance, if not plain
narrow mindedness especially so in this
postmodern world of ours which have seen the
fall of many “absolutes” during humanity’s long
history.
• Through Ethical Relativism, it is believed that
people would become more accepting of
moralities of others, no matter how these may
be radically different from their own. People
must see and realize that the other side of the
fence is not necessarily wrong. They must stop
this “we’re right and they’re wrong” attitude and
rather view the other as simply “different.”
Critical Evaluation: Respect Argument
• Some people have come to accept Ethical
Relativism because they believe that people
should not judge other people from other
cultures or societies on the basis of their own
moral standards. Besides, they think that this is
the attitude of mature and enlightened minds,
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 3

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
the kind that can render respect and tolerance
in the face of something unfamiliar and even
contradictory.
• It is true to a point that if there is no
independent way of criticizing any other culture
as what the relativists do believe, then we ought
to be tolerant of the moral beliefs and practices
of others.
• One of the most famous proponents of this
particular position is the anthropologist Melville
Herskovits. He argues even more explicitly than
Benedict that the belief in ethical relativism
entails “intercultural tolerance” (As quoted in
Pojman 1999:34).
• The major contention in here seems to be that
“if people think Ethical Relativism is true, they
will be more tolerant of moral differences than
they would otherwise be” (Holmes 1998:177).
Well, it is not difficult to see that if one believes
that his or her culture is not morally better than
the other, he or she could likely become more
accepting of the differences of cultural beliefs
and practices. One cannot simply afford to
show arrogance if one has this certain level of
consciousness.
• The main question here, however is how we do
really know that this would be necessarily the
case? Are we really that certain that if one
accepts the theory of Ethical Relativism, he or
she becomes automatically more tolerant and
respectful of the culture of others? Is there hard
empirical evidence to support this particular
contention? Or is this just pure speculation
which does not really have the solid backing of
a scientific proof?
• To truly establish, beyond any iota of doubt,
that belief in Ethical Relativism necessarily
translates into becoming more tolerant of other
cultures, one would have to do an actual
experimentation.
• In the context of a scientific rigor of those
whoclaimed to embrace Ethical Relativism and
find out whether these people are in fact more
tolerant than those who do not accept the
theory (See Holmes 1998:178)
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
• Another argument against acceptance of it
involves one While tolerance is definitely
consistently.
• The issue on toleration is that in some sort of a
contradiction. a virtue, it cannot be practiced
• Why? If morality simply is relative to each
culture, then what if the culture in question does
not have toleration as part of its moral code?
This would naturally mean that the members of
that culture have no moral obligation to practice
toleration.
• Not only do moral relativists offer no basis for
criticizing people who are intolerant, but they
also cannot criticize anyone who espouses
what they might regard as a brutal practice, like
Hitler’s genocidal policy during the Second
World War.
• Moreover, to take the position of the relativists
with regard to moral standards and principles is
to court disaster. Allowing every individual or
group to set their own standard as a gesture of
respect and tolerance will most likely lead to
eventual conflict and disorder, what with
numerous existing standards. In this scenario, it
is likely that the law of the jungle where “might
is always right” prevails (Ardales 1987:98).
• Finally, we might insist that tolerance is either
not always good or always a virtue. A lot of
people would argue that tolerance should be
tempered with a sense of outrage in the face of
extreme evil.
3. The Psychological Argument
• This argument undermines confidence in the
objectivity of ethics by making us aware of the
non-rational ways in which moral ideas and
beliefs are formed and developed in the
individual. Among psychologists, there is
considerable agreement about how this
happens; the picture remains remarkably
constant, even when we consider radically
different psychological theories.
• All these suggest a certain conclusion: Our
values are simply the result of our having been
conditioned to behave in a certainway. We may
feel that certain actions are good and others are
bad or evil, but that is merely because we all
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 4

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
had been trained and conditioned to have those
feelings, beginning when we were still little
children usually through parental rearing.
• Thus, “if we have been trained and brought up
by our parents or elders differently, most
certainly we would have different moral values
and principles, and we would definitely feel just
as strongly about them” (Curd 1992:99-105).
• In other words, all of us human beings acquire
our moral beliefs by a process of psychological
conditioning. “Thus, if we had been conditioned
differently, we would have different moral
beliefs. The conclusion becomes inevitable: our
moral beliefs are neither true nor false, right nor
wrong, for there is no such thing as objective
truth in ethics” (Curd 1992:103). Moral truth is
relative to one’s own psychological upbringing,
nothing more, and nothing less.
• The Psychological Argument is, without doubt,
impressive. All of us, consciously or
unconsciously, have been subjected in one way
or the other, to some sort of a “psychic
manipulation” by our “Significant Others.”
Hence, the argument if it is sound, provides
valid evidence that ethical relativism is true.
Critical Evaluation: Psychological Argument
• As what we have discussed, the Psychological
Argument is undoubtedly very impressive.
Hence, if it is proven to be logically sound, it will • It fails to give due consideration to other,
definitely add to the file of arguments stacked in
favor of Ethical Relativism.
• However, as Rachels systematically points out
in the article Moral Skepticism (See Curd
1992:99-104), the Psychological Argument
contains a serious flaw.
• According to him, “even granting that the truth
of the premise, that we do acquire our moral
beliefs by a process like the one psychologists
described, the conclusion that if we had been
conditioned differently, we would have different
moral beliefs, thus, there’s no such thing as
objective moral truth, does not follow, hence
unsound and invalid” (cited in Curd 1992).
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
• He notes that the argument is transparently
fallacious:
It is not because the premises are false. The
premises are in fact true: we do acquire many of
our early beliefs…through a system of positive and
negative reinforcements. The argument is fallacious
because, even if the premises true, the skeptical
conclusion does not follow from them. The question
of how we acquire our beliefs is logically
independent of, and separate from, the question of
whether there are objective facts to which those
beliefs correspond. (As quotedin Curd 1992:103)
• Obviously, how one acquires one’s belief does
not necessarily undermine its truthfulness or
validity. The Psychological Argument is indeed
guilty of committing the so-called geneticfallacy.
Just because something comes from a dubious
source, it(one’s belief) does not necessarily
follow that it is false or erroneous.
• Moreover, the Psychological Argument is guilty
of another (though not so obvious) mistake. It is
guilty of the fallacy of misrepresentation. It
simply overstates its case.
• It tries (though not good enough as we are
about to see) to deceive us into believing that
the matter of social conditioning/training is all
that there is in the person’s moral or ethical
development.
perhaps equally powerful if not more powerful
and significantfactors that have contributed, in
one way or the other, to a greater or lesser
extent, to the formation and building of the
individual’s sense of morality.
• One of the most important and crucial of all
these other factors (in fact for the Existentialist
philosophers this is the most important, if not
the sole element) is the exercise of the person’s
freedom of choice or free will.
• This implies that the person’s morality is a
primary function of his/her own free volition.
What one is ___is nothing but a result of the
decisions that he/she constantly makes. The
human person then becomes the sole creator of
his/her values, nothing more and nothing less.
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 5

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
One’s moral development or formation,
therefore, is entirely a matter of decision, not
condition.
• This last counterpoint to the Psychological
Argument paints an extreme picture to the
whole scenario. We may not be solely and
mainly (again, this one is also very much
debatable) the product of our childhood
conditioning but, to disregard totally the specific
role that our early psychological upbringing
played in the formation of our moral values and
behavior, is also committing the fallacy of
oversimplification.
4. The Conformity Argument
• “Some people accept Ethical Relativism
because they somehow think that people
should conform with and embrace the ethical
code of their respective societies or cultures”
(Barcalow 1998:54). In fact some even went as
far as believing that it is their duty to do so. As
social beings by nature, it is but natural for
people to easily affiliate and conform to the
accepted ethical standards of the particular
group that they belong.
• Through cultural relativism, it is thought that
people would come to be more accepting of
their own societal norms. Their belief gives a
good basis for a common morality within a
culture – in fact, a kind of a democratic basis
where “diverse ideas andprinciples are pooled
in, thus insuring that the norms/rules that a
certain society would eventually accept have a
wide and solid support” (Gensler 1998:12).
• This then provides the central validity or
justification of the morality of the group,
whatever it may be.
Critical Evaluation: Conformity Argument
• I think that of all the arguments forwarded in
defense of Ethical Relativism, the Argument
from Conformity is seemingly the easiest to
destroy and annihilate. Let me state a couple of
reasons why.
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
• First, according to one form of Ethical
Relativism (i.e., conventionalism), whatever a
society believes to be right is right for that
particular society.
• What is considered as “good” is what the
majority, as the major constitution of a society,
approves or acknowledges as good. Likewise,
what the majority says as “bad” is bad. Thus,
morality is simply dependent of what the
majority wants or decides. What isgood and
bad is reducible to a kind of social contract or a
matter of group consensus
• The obvious problem with this view is that it
makes the majority as the only true and
legitimate voice of what is moral or not. It is
them that makes or decides what is good and
bad. Ergo, it reduces the minority to the side of
falsehood or error. “For when we talk about the
moral code or ethical beliefs of a society, it
would only mean the moral code or the moral
beliefs and stand of the majority in a society”
(Barcalow 1998:56).
• To say for instance that a society believes that
abortion is immoral, simply means that that
majority of the members of that particular
society believe that the act in question is
immoral. If a society believes that slavery is
right, that simply means that the majority of the
people in that society believe that it is right.
• The logical implication of this is very clear and
somewhat terrifying: The majority is always
right! They can never be wrong! This claim has
terrible consequences that perhaps most of us
find too difficult to accept.
• Try to imagine a group that believes and
accepts racial superiority (the Aryan race during
Hitler’s time easily comes to mind) as morally
right, then it (the majority’s belief) is morally
right. If a society judges infanticide (as ancient
Greek and some other primitive cultures once
believed) as morally acceptable, then it is
morally acceptable.
• If the argument from conformity is valid, then,
all that we have to do is to take the word of the
majority as gospel truth or some kind of a
dogma and be assured that we are already in
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 6

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
the right. We should just openly accept and
embrace what the majority of our society had
come to accept and embrace, and that would
save us from the risk of falling into the pit of
erroneous moral judgment.
• But most of us know (are we guilty here of the
fallacy of the majority?) that the majority is not • The usual experience of people having a great
always right. We know for a fact that the
minority can also be correct in moral matters.
• We just have to take a serious look at history to
see the presence of the so-called moral
reformers (or rebels if you wish). The list is
quite long: Socrates, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Jr., to name a few. If the majority is • The main point of contention in this line of
always right, then all these and the many other
moral reformists are simply wrong.
• Another problem confronting the argument from
conformity is the undeniable reality of
subgroups. Again, according to ethical
relativism, whether a person’s moral beliefs and
claims are true, depends on what is approved
and accepted by the majority in that person’s
society or group (cultural or whatever).
• The issue here is “how can one define the
boundary or scope of what really constitutes a
group?” In reality, people belong to numerous
subgroups. One can be a member of a religious
group, a fraternity or sorority, a professional
group, an ethnic group, a peer group, and many
more.
• Clearly, the argument from conformity has
ignored the subgroup problem (See Gensler
1998:14-15; Pojman 1999:35; Warburton
1995:61). People can belong to overlapping
societies or groups. In fact we all do.
• What makes matters worse is that, some of
these groups do not only overlap but at times
also conflict with one another. It would be easy
if we all belong to a single homogenous group.
However, the world is not like that. Instead, our
world is a diverse mixture of overlapping groups
and communities, and people do not always
adhere to the rule of the majority. “The world is
a lot more complicated than that. We are all
multicultural to some extent” (Gensler 1998:15).
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
5. The Provability Argument
• Finally, another reason to believe that what
Ethical Relativism holds is indeed true is the
undeniable fact of moral dispute occurring
between and among groups as well as
individuals.
difficulty in knowing what is the morally “right
thing” to do in a particular situation has led to a
general attitude of skepticism on the possibility
of determining, much worse establishing a
universal and definite moral standard (See
Popkin & Stroll 1993:48-49).
argument is this: “If there is such thing as
objective or universal truth in ethics, we should
be able to prove that some moral opinions are
true and others false. But in fact we cannot
prove which moral opinions are true and which
are false. Therefore, there is no such thing as
objective truth in ethics” (Rachels as cited in
Curd 1992:101).
Critical Evaluation: Provability Argument
• Its plausibility mainly hangs on how strict and
rigid we should take the whole question of
“proof” in matters pertaining to morality (See
Barcalow 199:63). If we take proof as we
ordinarily construe it to be in day-to-day,
“normal” conversation, then we would venture
to say that moral issues can be “proved.” But if
we take it to mean “proof” in the standard
scientific sense, then, we would say otherwise.
• The fact that human beings disagree with each
other on certain fundamental issues, is nothing
but just common occurrence. “But unlike the
disputes between scientists about the age of
the universe or the constitution of matter, which
can be settled in principle through the empirical
method of observation and experimentation,
ethical disputes seem to be far from being
resolved” (Curd 1992:171-172).
• One will only think of perennial moral issues
which have not been settled with finality like
euthanasia, abortion, divorce, homosexuality,
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 7
 SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
capital punishment and the like. Far from
seeing the definite end of the various
Conclusion
disagreements and conflicts regarding the
morality behind all these, they instead As we see, Ethical Relativism is not just a
continually bother and confuse us even more. native and simple moral theory. Its arguments and
• Thus, the conclusion that morality can never be justifications are firmly rooted in good number of
proved seems to be a logical necessity. One points. This probably explains persistent and
will only have to try to “prove” one’s ethical perennial appeal and popularity to the
viewpoint to another to find out how difficult and contemporary mind and especially to the young, to
frustrating the entire activity is. the so-called millennials, who have become to
• However, if we really follow more carefully the suspicious and even impervious to the moral
aforementioned argument, we can see that it absolutes adhered to and preached zealously by
contains some objectionable features. First, let the older generation.
us examine the contention that ethical issues
are complex and difficult to determine. Admittedly, one “can understand the appeal
• Granting, for the sake of argument, that indeed of Cultural Relativism despite its shortcomings. It is
we are uncertain about the morality of some of an attractive theory [for sure] because it is based
our actions and decisions, and cannot really on genuine insight: that many of the practices and
“prove” them beyond any reasonable doubt. attitudes we find natural are only cultural products.
This does not mean that it has no answer Keeping this thought in mind is important if we want
whatsoever. to avoid arrogance and be open to new ideas.
“Even if were no solid way to know moral These are [indeed] important points [that should]
truths, it would not follow that such truths” (Curd not be taken lightly (Rachels & Rachels 2015: 32)
1992:101-102; Gensler 1998:12:
• • It may be that some truths are forever hidden
from us ordinary and limited mortals. But the
very statement that they are hidden
paradoxically confirms that they exist.
• • Moreover, and a point of significance, the very
act of discussing whether it is ever possible to
resolve moral disputes, is self a "proof" that an
"answer" exists. For moral disagreements
presupposed that there are in the first place,
moral disagreements to resolve (Holmes
1998:170-171).
• • If there are moral disagreements existing, then
it is implied that there is “something”
independent of the disagreements which serves
as a basis or gauge, thus, making the
disagreements possible. An objective theory
"allow[s] us to account for the strong feeling that
there are genuine disputes about moral
matters" (Popkin & Stroll 1993:51).

BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 8

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
B. NATURAL LAW ETHICS
Source: Video | Source: PPT
Natural Law Ethics
• Popular name attributed to the model of ethics
developed by St. Thomas Aquinas during the
Medieval period.
• it was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas,
natural law ethics is also called Thomistic
Ethics.
o Reason is the source of moral law; it
directs us towards the good
o Good – Ultimate goal of person’s actions
o Discoverable within the Person’s Nature
• An act is Morally right when it is done in
accordance with Moral Law
• Reason is the source of Moral Law
• The Moral Law is the dictate of Reason
• The Natural Law is to know and understand
what morality demands of what we ought to do
and not to do.
• It demands from us human beings who are
gifted with knowledge and freewill
o “Morality relies on what can be known from
a reflective investigation and deep scrutiny
of human nature by our mental faculties…”
(Mackinnon 1998;75)
• Natural law theory refers to the general view
that moral rules and principles are objective ,
absolute and universal truths that can be
discovered in the nature of things and in the
structure of life itself through the use of
reasoned reflection
• Natural law should not be equated to scientific
concept of Natural Law or Law of Gravity
• Now, how do we know that a person is acting
rightly or wrongly?
• According to Aquinas, an act is morally right if it
is done in accordance with the moral law. But
what is the moral law?
• As already mentioned, “reason" is the source of
moral law; hence, the moral law is the dictate of
reason.
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
• For Aquinas, the moral law comes from God's
Eternal Law - The Divine Law which is
expressed in human nature, which reads: “Do
good and avoid evil."
• If the moral law is “doing good and avoiding
evil,” how do we know that one is acting in
accordance with the good?
• According to Aquinas, the “good” is that which
is suitable to human nature or that which is
proper to human nature.
• An Action is good when it is done in accordance
of Conscience
o The inner voice of the intellect or reason
which is the pathway of the human person
to follow the moral law – do good and avoid
evil
o The guide in making moral decisions
• Aquinas understands conscience as the inner
voice of the intellect or reason which calls the
human person to follow the moral law, that is, to
do good and avoid evil. As we can see, in
natural law ethics, conscience serves as the
guide in making moral decisions.
• But how do we know that one's action obeys
conscience?
• According to Aquinas, an action obeys
conscience if it satisfies the three-fold natural
inclination of the human person
• The action is in accordance with Conscience
when it satisfies the three-fold natural
inclination of the human person
3 Natural Inclination of the Human Person
1) Self-Preservation
• A natural inclination that urges the human
person to take care of her health or not to kill
or put herself in danger. This explains why for
Aquinas suicide is absolutely wrong.
• Natural inclination to take care of one’s health
or not to kill or put one’s self in danger
• But the
• But the preservation of life and health is not an
absolute moral duty. For St. Thomas, God is
the ultimate meaning and purpose of every
human life.
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 9

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
• Human life is only a temporal reality. If the act
of preserving life helps a person toward God
as his or her final end, then there is a moral
obligation to take the necessary means
conducive for the preservation of life. But if
preserving life hinders one's ultimate union
with the Creator, then it would be an objective
sinful act since it frustrates the ultimate
meaning of one's life.
2) Just Dealing With Others
• Just dealing with others urges us to treat
others with the same respect that we accord
ourselves.
• Thus, for Aquinas, all forms of inhumanities,
such as exploitation, seduction, deception,
manipulation, cheating, kidnapping, murder,
and intimidation, are absolutely wrong too.
• These inhumanities are unacceptable and
absolutely wrong
3) Propagation of Human Species
• Aquinas believes that the reproductive organ
is by nature designed to reproduce and
propagate human species.
• Any act of intervention, that frustrates the very
purpose of the reproductive organ is
unnatural, hence immoral.
• This explains why even masturbation is
immoral in natural law ethics
Note:
• If at least one of these three natural inclinations
of the human person is violated, then an act
does not obey conscience; it is therefore
immoral. Needless to say, for an action to be
considered moral in natural law ethics, it must
be done in accordance with conscience.
• It must be done in accordance with the moral
law: "Doing Good and Avoiding Evil"
• If one of these three-fold natural inclination of
the human person is violated then an act does
not obey conscience and it is therefore immoral
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
Three Determinants of Moral Actions
Aquinas introduced three things that determine the
morality of a human act, namely:
1) Object Of The Human Act / Object of the Act
• Refers to the will intends primarily and directly.
It may either be a thing or an action.
• What is the primary and direct intention of
your action
• Example: The physician's act of removing a
tumor.
o As we can see, the direct object of the
act is to remove a tumor".
o Note that the circumstance and the end
are also intended here, but not directly
2) Circumstance
• Refers to the condition which affects the
morality of an action. It is important to note
that the circumstance may aggravate or
mitigate the morality of the human act.
• Aquinas Classifications:
i. Quality Of A Person (Who)
▪ Ex: It is bad to rape a woman, but it
is worse to rape a daughter
ii. Quality Or Quantity Of The Moral Object
(What)
▪ Ex: The act of a taxi driver who
returns a wallet containing a couple
of thousand dollars is good in itself,
but that of one who takes the
initiative of returning fifty thousand
dollars left by a tourist is even better
iii. The Circumstance Of Place (Where)
▪ Ex: Smoking in public may not be
good, but it is worse if one smokes
inside a church
iv. The Circumstance Of Means (By What
Means)
▪ Ex: To pray for a sick person is
good in itself, but to give her money
for medicine for her medication is
better
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 10

ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
v. The Circumstance Of End (Why)
▪ Ex: Helping an orphan kid finish
schooling is good, but doing it with
the intention of employing her later
is better
vi. Manner In Which The Action Is Done
(How)
▪ Ex: Killing might generally be
conceived as evil. But in the case of
unjust aggression, it might be
morally right to kill the aggressor
vii. Time Element Involved In The
Performance Of The Action (When)
▪ Ex: It might not be a good idea to
smoke inside the church, but it is
worse to do it while the mass is
going on
3) The End
• Refers to the purpose of the doer or the agent
of the human act itself.
• The end is the integral part of every moral act
• According to Aquinas, it can be taken as a
circumstance because the end is an integral
part of every moral act.
• Example: marrying a person one is engaged
to is good in itself. But doing so while
motivated by the selfish end of, say, taking a
big share of an inheritance makes the whole
action morally wrong.
Note:
• For Aquinas, all the three determinants of a
human act must be all good for an act to be
considered good or morally right.
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
SPECIAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDER
NATURAL LAW
I. Four Principles of Double Effect
• Sometimes a human act may produce two
conflicting results, that is, one is good and the
other is evil.
• To address this dilemma, Aquinas formulated
the four principles of double effect, namely:
1) The Action Intended Must Be Good In Itself,
Or At Least Morally Indifferent; Otherwise, The
Act Is Evil At The Very Outset;
2) The Good Effect Must Follow The Action At
Least As Immediately As The Evil Effect, Or The
Good And Evil Effects Must Occur
Simultaneously;
3) The Foreseen Evil Effect Should Not Be
Intended Or Approved, But Merely Permitted To
Occur; And
4) There Must Be A Proportionate And
Sufficient Reason For Allowing The Evil Effect
To Occur While Performing The Action.
• According to Aquinas, all of the 4 principles
must be satisfied for an action to be considered
morally right.
Example 1: The Act Of Removing A Cancerous
Uterus Of A Pregnant Woman Which Necessarily
Implies Abortion
• As we can see, the act will produce two results,
one good and the other is evil. Of course, the
removal of the cancerous uterus of the
pregnant woman will definitely save her life
(good result) but at the same time, it will kill the
fetus (Evil result).
• So, what is the morality of the action if we apply
Aquinas's four principles of double effect?
o Note: The act is simply to remove the
cancerous uterus
• We satisfy principle #1 because the intention of
removing the cancerous uterus is good in itself.
We may even view it as morally indifferent
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 11
 SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
ETHICS
II. UNDERSTANDING AND COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK – 1/2
• We also satisfy principle #2 because the good people concerned, for Aquinas, it is absolutely
effect, that is, the recovery of the pregnant immoral.
woman follows the action immediately. And o This explains why the Roman Catholics, who
even if the fetus dies after the removal of the adhere to Aquinas’s natural law ethics,
cancerous uterus, at least this evil effect occurs strongly oppose extrajudicial killing (EJK) in
simultaneously with the good effect. general and killing a drug lord in particular.
• Principle #3 is also satisfied because abortion, • Conclusion: since the first principle is violated,
that is, the death of the fetus, was not intended. we need not proceed and check the remaining
It was just allowed to happen. As we can see, principles because in the first place the act is
the main intention of removing the cancerous already immoral.
uterus of the pregnant woman is to save her
life. Even if the death of the fetus was foreseen,
according to Aquinas, it was just allowed to II. The Principle of the Inviolability of Life
occur.
• Principle #4 is also satisfied because there is • Every human life is of infinite value as it is a
indeed a sufficient reason for allowing the evil sacred and precious gift from the almighty
effect, that is, abortion or the killing of the fetus, creator. This also applies to the unborn fetus
to happen. Needless to say, if we don't remove • It has all the basic natural right to life that must
the cancerous uterus, then we lose both the be protected from any harm
lives of the woman and the fetus. But if we
III. Principle of Totality
remove the cancerous uterus, at least, as
Aquinas would have us believe, we save one • This refers to the view that a part of the human
life. body exists for good of the whole
• Conclusion: The removal of a cancerous • One may legitimately sacrifice a part of his/her
uterus of a pregnant woman which implies body if this necessary to presser and maintain
abortion is morally right. the health of the entire body
Example 2: Killing A Drug Lord IV. The Principle of Stewardship
• Illegal drugs have been destroying many lives
• We human s are only given the power to take
both young and old. So, killing a drug lord will
good care of the creation and do not have sole
produce a good result. However, the act
authority to do whatever we want
produces an evil result too, that is, murder.
• The earth and everything in nature as a gift
• So, what is the morality of the act of killing the
from God has to be taken care of and should
drug lord from the vantage point of Aquinas's 4
not be abused in any way
principles of double effect?
• A utilitarian may argue that the act of killing the
drug lord is good as it may produce more
benefits, that is, greatest happiness, to the
greatest number of people concerned.
• However, for Aquinas, the act of killing the drug
lord is intrinsically immoral because, as we can
see, it does not satisfy the first principle of the 4
principles of double effect.
• Principle #1 says that the act must be good in
itself or at least morally indifferent. But the act
of "killing" (the drug lord) is evil in itself. Hence,
even if this act produces more benefits to many

BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 12

ETHICS
CHAPTER 5 - UTILITARIANISM
UTILITARIANISM
• An ethical theory founded by Jeremy
Bentham and developed and popularized
by Stuart Mill.
• As the term suggests, utilitarianism is
founded on the Principle of Utility.
“An act is good or morally right if it promotes
happiness and bad or immoral if it tends to
produce pain”
➢ Key Principle is HAPPINESS
• In utilitarianism, an act is good or morally
right if it produces greatest happiness to the
greatest number of people; and bad or
immoral if it produces more harm or pain
than benefits or happiness to the greatest
number of people.
➢ ASSET = GOOD
➢ LIABILITY = BAD
• Utilitarianism is also known
CONSEQUENTIALISM
• Utilitarians do not care whether the action is
done out of deception, lie, or manipulation as
long as it produces maximum benefits to
many people.
➢ Cheating
➢ Killing
➢ Murder
➢ Euthanasia
➢ Abortion
➢ Injustice
➢ Inhumanity
➢ Divorce
➢ The act of condemning a terrorist to
death is morally right (that is, good) for
the utilitarian because this action
produces equal benefits or greatest
happiness to the greatest number of
people concerned.
➢ Famous Case of Robin-hood
o From the vantage point of Christian
Ethics, Robin-hood’s act is immoral
because it deprived the wealthy
people of the right that is due them.
o However, from the vantage point of
Utilitarianism, Robin-hood's act is
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
morally good because it produces
maximum benefits, that is, greatest
happiness, to the majority of the
people.
FELICIFIC CALCULUS
• For Bentham, happiness is simply the
absence of pain.
• Bentham introduced the “Felicific” calculus to
measure the degree of happiness or
pleasure that a specific action may
produce.
• The Felicific calculus is also called the utility
calculus or hedonistic calculus.
• It includes intensity, duration, certainty,
propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.
For Bentham:
• The intense (intensity) the pleasure, the
better.
• The longer (duration) it lasts, the better.
as • The more certain (certainty) that it will
happen, the better.
• The closer (propinquity) that it will occur,
the better.
• The greater the possibility (fecundity) that it
will be followed by another pleasure, the
better.
• The purer (purity) the pleasure, the better.
• The greater the number of people that it
benefits (extent), the better.
JEREMY BENTHAM’S MODEL OF
UTILITARIANISM
• The balance is the basis of the morality of an
action. In other words, for Bentham, if the
balance is in favor of happiness, then the act
is morally right, and if it is in favor of pain,
then it is morally wrong.
• Bentham said we just need to sum up all the
pleasures and pains produced by the
action. If the balance s in favor of please,
then the act is morally right. If the balance is
in favor of pain, then the action is morally
wrong.
• Simple mathematical calculation,
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 1
 SUMMER
ETHICS A.Y. 2020-2021
CHAPTER 5 - UTILITARIANISM
➢ 12 pleasures – 6 pains = 6 • Hence, as the name suggests, in Act
pleasures (balance) utilitarianism, the basis of the morality of
▪ Hence, if this is the case, an action is the act itself.
then for Bentham the action • In Act Utilitarianism, we should perform
is morally right. those “actions” that produce greatest
➢ 20 pains – 5 pleasures = 15 pains happiness to the greatest number of
(balance) people concerned.
▪ If this is the case, then for
Bentham the act is morally Ex: The act of condemning a terrorist to death.
wrong. An Act Utilitarian would ask the question “What
• Bentham treats all forms of happiness as possible good or evil results from this act?”. If
equal. the majority of the people are benefited by the act
itself, then it is moral.
JOHN STUART MILL - UTILITARIANISM
RULE UTILITARIANISM
• Mill disagrees with Bentham. Mill argues that
we cannot calculate the amount of pleasure • On the other hand, Rule Utilitarianism holds
or pain that an act produces. that the principle at issue should be used
• Thus, for Mill, the Felicific calculus cannot be to test moral rules, and then such rules can
the basis of morality but the majority of the be utilized in judging what is right and wrong
people that attains happiness. under the circumstance.
• Thus, the famous utilitarian claim: • Here, we consider the possible results in light
➢ “An act is morally right if it produces of the rule(s).
greatest happiness to the greatest • Thus, in Rule utilitarianism, an act is morally
number of people and it is morally right if it conforms to a justified moral
wrong if it produces more pain than rule. And of course, we know that moral rules
pleasure to the greatest number of are justified if such rules produce greatest
people concerned” happiness to the greatest number of people
• Mill’s utilitarianism is considered Qualitative concerned.
since the philosopher emphasizes
intellectual pleasure than sensual pleasure. Ex: The act of condemning a terrorist to death.
➢ Intellectual pleasure > Sensual A Rule Utilitarian would ask “Is there a rule or law
pleasure that condemns terrorists to death?” and “Is this
• For Mill, Intellectual and Moral Pleasures rule was formulated based on the utility
must be regarded as (higher) pleasures. principle?”. If this is the case, then it may be
Must be higher than Sensual Pleasures. morally right to sentence a terrorist to death.
• Thus, his famous saying goes: “It is better
to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig
satisfies”

ACT UTILITARIANISM

• Act utilitarianism holds that the utilitarian

principle should be applied to a particular
act in a particular situation or
circumstance.
• It takes into account the possible result of
each act.

BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 2

ETHICS
CHAPTER 6 - DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is
an approach to ethics that focuses on the
rightness or wrongness of actions
themselves, as opposed to the rightness or
wrongness of the consequences of those
actions (Consequentialism) or to the
character and habits of the actor (Virtue
Ethics).
• Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation
is good or bad depends on whether the
action that brought it about was right or
wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its
conformity with a moral norm: Right takes
priority over Good.
• Closely associated with Immanuel Kant’s
“model of ethical theory”.
• It argues that the morality, that is, the
rightness or wrongness, of a human act
depends on whether such act fulfills a
duty or not, rather than on its consequence.
• For Kant, he claims that what makes an act
right/good and wrong/bad does not depend
on its results or consequences, since all
these are simply beyond one’s control-hence
a matter of luck or accident.
• Hence, Deontological Ethics is “duty-based”
or “obligation-based” ethics. Deontologists
believe that ethical rules bind people to their
duty.
• The term "deontology" derives from the
Greek "deon" meaning "obligation" or
"duty", and "logos" meaning "speaking"
or "study", and was first used in this way in
1930, in the book "Five Types of Ethical
Theory" by C. D. Broad (1887 - 1971).
• One of the basic ideas in deontological ethics
is that some actions are right or wrong in
themselves, regardless of their
consequences.
• Duty or Obligation as the main motivation
or intention in human actions
• Hence, morality should be something of
which one should have total control.
Ex: People have the obligation to tell the truth even
if doing so might produce some unfavorable results.
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
➢ In other words, as Kant would have
us believe, telling the truth is
always “right” in itself even if, again,
doing so might produce some
unfavorable results.
➢ Hence, telling a lie, on the contrary,
is always wrong for deontological
ethics.
Ex: For instance, a physician has just discovered
that her patient is having a stage 4 breast cancer.
However, the physician cannot divulge the truth to
her patient right away because the latter is having a
cardiac condition as well.
➢ If we are to consider the
consequences of the act of telling the
truth to the patient, the latter may
have a sudden cardiac arrest and
eventually dies.
➢ From the consequentialist’s point of
view, therefore, it is better to tell a
lie to the patient and instead divulge
the truth to the significant others to
avoid sudden death on the part of the
patient.
➢ But from the point of view of
deontological ethics, telling the
patient about her real condition is
the right thing to do even if doing so
might result in a cardiac arrest.
Ex: If someone proposed to kill everyone currently
living on land that could not support agriculture in
order to bring about a world without starvation
➢ a Deontologist would argue that this
world without starvation was a bad
state of affairs because of the way in
which it was brought about.
➢ A Consequentialist would (or could)
argue that the final state of affairs
justified the drastic action.
➢ A Virtue Ethicist would concern
himself with neither, but would look at
whether the perpetrator acted in
accordance with worthy virtues.
• In deontological ethics, therefore, before we
make moral decisions, we have to consider
first which actions are right and wrong
and proceed from there.
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 1

ETHICS
CHAPTER 6 - DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
• If an action is right in itself, then we have the
duty or the moral obligation to act on it. If an
action is wrong in itself, then we are under a
moral obligation to act accordingly.
• Doing Good of what is right is my Obligation
• Telling the TRUTH is ALWAYS RIGHT even
if, in doing so might produce BAD results
➢ Lying
➢ Hacking
➢ Mean > End
• In making Moral Decision, One must
consider first which actions are right or wrong
then proceed from there.
➢ RIGHT ACTIONS = I have the moral
duty to act on it
➢ WRONG ACTIONS = I have the
moral obligation to act accordingly
• THE GOOD WILL of Kant, “nothing can be
called good without qualification except of a
good will”
➢ It facilitates human act.
➢
GOOD WILL
• It is good by virtue of its intrinsic value
• Good without qualification; Good without any
condition.
• Courage, wealth, health, freedom and the
like can be used for bad purpose.
GOOD WILL - How it is manifested?
1. When done for the sake of Duty
a. When you help someone and you
expect something in return....then the
“Will” is not GOOD without
qualification
b. If one believes that it is his/her DUTY
to help without expecting something
in return...then “Will” is GOOD
without qualification
- It is done for the sake of DUTY
- There is an autonomy of the
WILL
o Self Legislating
o Not influence by
outside force/factor
- DUTY should be the motive of
all moral acts
SUMMER
A.Y. 2020-2021
- Inclination or self-interest can
never be the motive of any
moral act
ex. The doctor is moved to treat his/her patient/s
because it is his/her duty, as health worker, to treat
the patient/s...and not profiting the patient/s
his/herself.
• An act has moral worth if it is done for the
sake of duty.... If it has done out of self-
inclination then it has no moral
worth...immoral
ACTIONS THAT ACCORD OF DUTY
• have NO moral worth, but not necessarily
immoral
ACTIONS DONE FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY
• have Moral Worth
➢
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
• For Kant, Morality means acting in
accordance of Categorical Imperative =
which is the supreme principle of morality
“An act is moral if is done in accordance of
categorical imperative”
• is a command that you must follow,
regardless of your desires
• is a moral obligations which derive from pure
reason.
o It doesn't matter whether you want to
be moral or not....the moral law is
binding on all of us
• YOU DON'T NEED RELIGION TO
DETERMINE WHAT THAT LAW IS,
BECAUSE WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG
IS TOTALLY KNOWABLE JUST BY USING
YOUR INTELLECT
• Categorical Imperative is a COMMAND
Two Kinds of Command:
1. Hypothetical Imperative
➢ Conditional Command - if you want to
become pharmacist...you study hard
2. Categorical Imperative
➢ Absolute command - “Do not Cheat!”
BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 2
 SUMMER
ETHICS A.Y. 2020-2021
CHAPTER 6 - DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
o Lying and deception are
FORMULATIONS OF CATEGORICAL unacceptable
IMPERATIVE o You treat someone as a mean to
acquire your desires...to attain your
1. Principle of Universality goals

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can, at the

same time will, that it should become a universal
law”
Maxim - a moral principle that the agent acts.
o Everyone should act on that maxim in
the similar location/situation.
o If the maxim cannot be universalized
then the action has no moral worth -
if you cannot force everyone to “will”
the same, then the maxim is
impermissible and considered
morally wrong
eg. Stealing, killing etc
o If the maxim can be accepted
universally.....If we can force
everyone to do the same, then the
action is morally right.
eg. helping in times of need

2. The Principle of Humanity

“So, act as to treat humanity whether in your own

person or in that of another never as a means but
always as an end”

• Human beings should be treated as an end

not just as a mean
• If humans are treated as means - they are
reduced as a thing or an animal
eg. a mug, a car, a carabao
• Any act that treats humanity as a means is
not morally right
eg. cheating someone is
absolutely immoral...cheating is a
means to own selfish end
• We are not mere objects that exist to be used
by others. We are our own ends. We are
rational and autonomous. We have the ability
to set our own goals and work toward them
eg. coofee mugs/beers for
coffee/beers drinkers, Humans
exist for THEMSELVES
• Human is an end in him/herself

BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 3
 SUMMER
ETHICS A.Y. 2020-2021
CHAPTER 6 - VIRTUE ETHICS
which care or kindness is
VIRTUE ETHICS considered as the main virtue.
• It suggests that “care” is a central
• Virtue ethics is one of the major approaches
category in determining the moral
in normative ethics.
worth of human actions.
• It is viewed as an approach to ethics that
• Michael Slote, a famous ethics
emphasizes the person’s trait or
professor at the University of Miami,
character in moral thinking.
corroborates this point by stating that
• Hence, trait or character is central to this
“caring is the primary virtue and
approach to ethics in contrast to the other
that a morality based on the
approaches that emphasizes the
motive of caring can offer a
consequences of an action (as in the case of
general account of right and
consequentialism) or the rules or duties (as
wrong action”
in the case of deontological ethics).
• Hence, the motive in developing
• Therefore, what makes virtue ethics distinct
man’s moral practices in which care
from deontology and consequentialism is
is the primary virtue is clearly the
that it does not provide the moral agent
main objective of the ethics of
with specific principles or rules to guide
care.
her actions. That is why in Aristotelian
• The ethics of care, therefore,
ethics, with which most virtue ethicists drew
examines moral practices and
inspiration, practical wisdom is a central
values, which focuses on moral
category that helps individuals become
development.
virtuous.
• This is made possible through the
• For this reason, virtue ethics deals with
reformation of practices rather
broader questions like “What kind of life
than the use of reason.
should I live?”, “What is the good life?”,
• This notion of “reformation of
and “How can I be consistent in my moral
practices” which is to be nurtured
actions?”, instead of questions like “What
and developed into a “virtue”, is
ought I do?” as in the case of deontology
the primary concern of the ethics of
or “Will my actions produce greater
care.
happiness to the greater number of
people in society?” as in the case of
consequentialism. AGENT-BASED THEORIES
• As we can see, virtue ethics in general does • Are unitary normative theories
not particularly deal with the rightness • These form of virtue ethics views the
and wrongness of specific actions. status of actions as entirely
Rather, with the aid of practical wisdom, dependent upon the moral status
virtue ethics guides the moral agent in of an agent’s motive and
seeking the “Good”. character.
• As Slote writes: “A warm agent-
THREE MAJOR FORMS OF VIRTUE ETHICS based virtue ethics puts a
fundamental emphasis on a
• Taken by contemporary theorists
person’s motives and, more
• The nature and dynamics of virtue ethics
particularly, on a person’s overall
can be properly understood through these
morally relevant motivation. Say
three main forms
for example, an act is morally
ETHICS OF CARE acceptable if and only if it comes from
• Hold the idea that a moral action good or virtuous motivation involving
centers on social and benevolence or caring (about the
environmental relationships in

BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 1
 SUMMER
ETHICS A.Y. 2020-2021
CHAPTER 6 - VIRTUE ETHICS
well-being of others) or at least
doesn’t come from bad or inferior
motivation involving malice or
indifference to humanity”
• Thus, again, in agent-based theory,
an action is right if it expresses a
virtuous motive or at least does
not exhibit a malicious intention
from the agent.

EUDAIMONIST APPROACH
• Eudaimonism comes from the
Greek word Eudaimonia, which can
be translated as happiness, well-
being or the good life.
• For Aristotle, happiness or the
good life is the highest goal of man
which can be achieved by a lifetime
of actively exercising moral virtues
or “arete”.
• And according to Aristotle, to
enhance moral virtue, we need
phronesis or practical wisdom,
which can resolve any concurrent
ethical problem.
• Indeed, with moral virtue, human
life would attain Eudaimonia, the
happiness which should be seen
as a final end, and not as a
subjective state characterized by
the seemingly well-lived life
irrespective of the emotional state of
the person experiencing it.
• As we can see, the Eudaimonist
approach aims for eternal
goodness rather than depending on
the contingent recurrence of certain
actions.
• It emphasizes the entire
development of a moral person,
that is, to become “holistically
good” as she reaches the point of
ultimate end.

BARBIECUTIES| BSMLS-1A 2