CHAPTER I

.. . ',..... ETHICAL D~IMENSION OE

•• ~
~ HUMAN ElCTSTENCE

Chapter Objectives
After reading this chapter, yo1,1 should be able to: .

1. identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;

2. define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and

3. evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held

notions on ethics.

INTRODUCTIOl~-
ln August 2007, newspapers1 reported what se1emed to be yet another sa_d incident
of fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez,, 9 .twenty-year-old student of the University of
the Ph iii ppines (UP); was,rushed to the hospital in the eairly morning hours, unconscious, with
large bruises on his chest, back, and legs. He passed awc1ythat morning, and the subsequent
autopsy report s~rongly suggests that his physical injuries were most probably the result
of "hazing" (the term colloquially used to refer to initi,a tion rit~s in which-neophytes may
be subjected to various forms of physical abuse). What exactly happened remains an open
question, as none of-those who were with •him that night came forward to shed light on
what had -transpired. Needless to say, non·e of them came forward to assume responsfbility
for the death of Cris.

· Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of
Cris,.those-members of theirs who had been with him that night vanished, avoiding and
ref~sing t~ cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the general public
damored for justice. In a move that surprised the stud~nt body, the UP chancellor calleQ on
all fraternities to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile, the case of the tragic death of
Cris Anthony Mendez was left umesolved. It remains tf,at way up to this day.2
' . . -
No one knows ju~t what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no definitive
testimony has been forthcoming. But there is more to this for usth'an just a criminal mystery. '
Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find ourselves asking questions such as"What is the
value ofone's life?""What exactly were the wrongs doine to Cris by his so-called fraternity_.
brothers?" or perhaps even "Is there ~uiy good to fratemities?" These questions that concern
goocl and bad, -or right and wrong-and these are questions concerning value-are the
kind of questions that we peal with in ethics. ·

Chap.ter I: 1:he Ethical Dimension of Human Existence 1

 ...., . '·
VAl,.UE
_, .Ethics, generally speaking, is al;jout matters such as the ·good thihg that we should
pursue and the bad thing that we-should avoid; the right wa:Ys in whiel1 we could or should
act and t~e ;,..,rong ways of acting. It is ab0ut wliat is a~ceptable and unacceptable· in human
behavior. It may involve obligations that we are .expected to ·fuifill, prohibitions that we
are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject for
'I•
us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special
sigriifica.nce to human life.

! f"I

CLARIFICATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY .

Recognizing the notions of gooa and bad, and right and wrong, are the primary
concern.of ethics. In order to start, it would be useful to clarify the following points.

Kinds of Valuation
\
Our· first point of clarification is to recognize
•
that there are instances
I
when, we make
value judgments that are not consrdered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that
this new mov.ie I had just seen was a-"gqod!' one because I enjoyed it, QJ a song I had just
heard on the racii0 was a "bad!I one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not
!=)art of a qiscussion-of ethies. I may-have an opinion as to what is the "right" dip (:sawsawan) ,
for, my chicken b()rpeG:1Je, or,I i:r,ay _
m aintain that it is "wrong" to wear a leather vest over a
!Barohg Tagalog, anp th-es~ are not concems of ethics. These are valuations that fall -under
tt:le domain
-
of aestht;?tics. The word "aesthetics" is derived fr0m the GreeJ< word aisthesis
..
("sense" or "feeling") and refe.rs·to th_e judgments of p~rsonal approval or disapproval fha't
we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste. In fact,' we often use the wor,d "taste" to
i:efer'to th~ personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters, such as "his taste
in music" or"her taste il"l clpthes:'

Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval eoncerning certain actions

l which can be considerE;9 relati.vely more triv.ial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think that
it is1"right" to knotk politely on somecm~'s door, while it is "wrong" to barge into ·one's office.

.·l
' ,t
Per.haps I may approve,of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by saying,
"please" and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that· I see picking her nose in pul:>lic. These
and other similar examples b~lop,g to the category of etiqt.Jette, whic~ is conce~ned i,yith
right and wrong actions, but ~hose which-might be considered not quite ~rave enqugh to
belong to a discussion on ethics. "(o clarify this point, we can differentiate how I may be
displeased seein~ a healthy young ·man refuse to offer his seat on the bus to an elderly tady,
but my indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to ~ee a man 'deliberately
push another one out of a moyir1g bus.

2 Ett,iics; founclatjons of Moral VaJuation

..
 We can also consider how a ·notion of ri.g ht and wrong actions can easily appear in
a contexnhat is not a:matter 0f ethics. This COL!ld also be when.learning how to bake1 for
instance. I am tol~ that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first, such
as, flour or sugar before bringing _in any !iquids, like milk or cream; this is the right th,i ng fo ·
do in baking, but not one that belongs t0 a discussion of ethics. This could also be when
lear.n ing how to play basketball. I am instructed that it is aga.inst the ruies to walk more than
two steps withotit dribbling the ball; agai~, obeying this rule to not travel is somethi~g.that
makes s.ens.e only in the context .o f the game and is ri9t an ethical prohibition. We-der:ive
from the Greek wori:I techne t~e English words "technique" and "technical" which are oftep
used~to refer to a proper way (or· right way) of doing things, but a·technical v~luation (or
right find wrong technique of doing things) may not.necessarily be an _ethical one ~s these
examples show. ·

Recognizin,g the characteristics of aesthetic qnd technical ·valuation allows us to

have,a rough guide as to what belongs to-a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that
' we make in-_a -sphere of human actions, charac:!erized by ·certain gravity and: concern the ·
human well~being or human life itself. Therefore, mat1ters that concern life and death su.c h.
w
as 9 r, capital punishment; or abortion and matters th~1t concern human well-beiog such as
'"poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are oftera included in,discussions of ethics. However,
this general description is only a starting point and willl require further elaboration.

One rnmpli.c ation that can be nc;mi~ is that thie distinction between what belengs
to ethics and what ddes not is not always so clearly de1fined. At times, the question ·of what
'is_grave.ortrivial is debatable, and sometimes some of the most h~ated discussions in.ethics
could be on the fundamental question of whether a ~ertain sphere of human activities
belongs to this discussion: Are clothes ~ways just a matt«? of taste or w~~ld provocatiye
clothing call for some kind of moral judgment? Can we say_that aman who verbally abuses
'his girlfri.e nd is sim~ly showing bad manners or does this behavior deserve stronger-moral
condemnation?

Ethics ·and Moral$

, '

Our second point of clarification is o.n the use of the words "ethics"·and "morals:' This
discussion of ethics and morals would i_nclude cognates such as e!hical, l,methic.al~ immoral, -
amoral, morality, and so on: As we proceed, we should be-caref1,.1I particularly on the use
of the word "not"when applied-to the words ''moral" or "ethi_cal" as this can he ambiguous.
One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not belon~rto
.a discu~sion of ethics; on the other hand, one might :say that ·lying. is not ethical~ but the
meaning·here is thatthe act of lying,would'bean unethi(al act.

Let u·s consider those two words further. The \E!rm·"morals" may be used to refer to
1 • - •

specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform. Thus,
it is sometimes said .that an individual's personal condtJCt is referred to a~ his morals, and if
he falls short of behaving properly, this can be describeQ as immoraL However, we also have

_,.,......;;,.t...,.,..,.
Ch.apter I: The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence 3
 terms such as ·"moral judgment"·or"moral reasoning;"'which suggest a more rational .aspect.
The term "ethics" can be spoken of as the disdplinE? of studying and understanding ideal
human. b~havior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual
discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behav1ors are
also generally .described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard
to, the acceptable and unacceptable ways of beha~ing in a given field, we have the ter,m
11
professional ethics" (e.g., legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other
people in the l~gal profes$ion; medical ethics for doctors and nurses; and·media ethics for
writers and reporters).

Therefore, variol;fs thinkers an~ writers posit ~• distinction between the terms "moral"
and "etAics" and they may have good reasons fo! doing so, but there is-no consensus as to
how to make that dtstinction. Ordinary conversation presents a much less rigid distinction
betweer.1 these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction as we do not need to
occupy ourselves here with the question of how different thinkers and wr.iters construe that
I
distinction. So, in this book, we will be using the terms "ethical" and "moral" {likewise; ''.ethics"

tI and "morality") interchangeably. '

·4 ~thics: Foundations of Moral Valuation

 .".. .

from a number'of possible actions, and there ijre-coI:npelling ethical reas;ns for the vai:i~us
- . . '
· choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her -hungry child, -but.then
recognizing that it woutibe wrong·f~r her to steal is an ~xample of a moral dilemma. - .
- ' .-. - - "' '2

' ' . •tr,

REASQNJ.NG .
" Wh/do we suppose that a certain way ofadjing is right ahd'its opposite wrong?The
~ .

study of etbics is interested in questions like ·these: Why do we dee::ide to consider this way
of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To-put it i•n
another way, what reasons do we give to,decide orito judge that a certaiA way of ctctingtis
either right or wrong? · · ·

· · A person's fear of p1.mishment. or desire for rewa.rd can..provide him a reason for
' • ' J • .
acting in ·a certain way. It is commoi;i to hear someone say: "I did not cheat on the exam ·
because J was afraid that I might get caught;' or "I looked after my father in the hospital
because I wanted to get a higher -allowance:' In a tertain sense, fear of punishment and
d~sire for reward can'be spoken of as-giving someome a "reason'!'for acting in a certain way.
But the question then would be: Is this reason good enol,lgh? That is to say, th.is w_ay of
thinkfng seems to be a shallow way of understandin,g reason because.it does not show any
true under~tanding bf why cheating on ·an exam is wrong or why looking after a member
of my family is in itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments
caii certainly motivate us to act, but are not in thems~lves a determinant-of the rightness
or wrongness of a certain way of ac.ting or of the g-q od Qr .the bad in· a particular pur~uit,
Is it pessible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or
unacceptable? .

I am in.a situation-wherein .I coulq obtain a high·e r gra_de for myself by che~ting. I

make the decision not to do so, Or I know that my friend.
, . was in a position to get a better
.

grade for herself by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then, make the jud~ment of ·praistng_
her for thi~. In making thisJkind pf moral decision or moral judgment, the .qu,estion can be
aske~: Why? .,

Asking the question "why" might bring us to, no more tha,n a superficial discussion
of rewards and punis_
hme~ts, as seen above, but it could also bring us to anothe( level of .,
thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a spe,dfic si_t~ation, going beyond
whatever motivation-or ir:icentive is present in this instance of cheating ,(or n9t·doing so).
In other W?rds, our thinking may take-on a level of ab~traction, that is,.detaching itself from
t_
h e .particular situation and arriving at a statement lilke, "Cheating is wrong;' by recog~iz1ng·
proper reasons for not acting in this way, Beyo_ n d reiwards and puriishments, it is po·ssible
for our moral valuation__..:.pur dedsions and judgmepts-to be based a prindple. Thus, . qn
one may conclude that cheating is wrohg based or:i a sense of fair·play o~ a· respect for the
importance and validity o(testing. From this, we can define p;in(:ip/es as rationaily esta~lish.ed ·
grounds by which one justifies and maintains her "':1oral ~ecisions and judgments;

6 Ethics: Foundations ·of_Moral Valuation

 -
But,vv~y do we maintai·Pl oAe
•
partiaular-prin_cip.le'rather.than
. 'I
<!nether? Whyishould '1
, · maintain that I shbuld care for fair pl,a)' ancl that cheating is, therefore, wrong? Betuq1ing t4 .
1t~e ca'Se"offraternity hazing where W;e·st1H·ted this chapter,, why Is it_wmng t9 ~a use anotbe'r -
p~rson physical injury or to take another's life? we·can·maint~in principlesr but we can c1lso
ask what·good reasons for doing so. Such ·reasons may differ. So, for example, what.mak~s
' _,. ... ,.:~-:..~~""
tl<le death of Cris such a tragedy? Orie person may say that life is sacred and.. God-given. .
·/\mother.pe-r-sqn may dedare th~t hl: man life has· a· priceless dignity: Still another may puf
\forwarq the idea that taking anothe1t's life ,does ndt contribute to hµman ha19prness Mut'to
lili:!man misery, instead. hl0w ·exac:tfy d~H"le'arriv;e.at. any of these. dairns?.iThrs i_s where we
,tum to theor,y; A moral theory is a~sy.s11ematic attempt t0 est~blish th-e·validity qf maintaining
certain moral principles. IJ")sofar as. a_1~heory is a system ,o fthought o~ 9f ideasr it can also b~ ·
..~r ferred .t o'as a framevi.:_ork. We.~can u 1
1 :e ttlis term, '<framewa'~~:' as ·~ theory ot)r;iJe(c;onnected •"',
a
· i,deas; and at th~ s-ame tir:ne, st.ruG:.ture throug,h whic;h vxe car,i ~v~lupte our reas0ns for
va·,~.!?g q certai ~ d;~isfon .o nudgment. • ..:.," r'/," ~
~ .
::.,, • ,. There are different frameworl<s that can make ,us•,ef!ec:t 'br,i' the principles that
-M/e. maintain ,md··t hus, tne decisions:"and judgments. we· make. By stu'dying .these, we c.a n

.
reconsider, clarify, modify, and ulti1rnc;1t~ly· strengthen our princjples, thereby informinif
~ '

•
better both our moral jud~ments and ·moral
• l ~

decisions..

Th'~ next chapters of this · 000k

will explpre different ethical frameworks .
that n.a ve com~ d0wn from the history -of
philosophy. This ' is not an exhaustive li~t,
and many-worthwhfie theories a·~a thi:nkers,
have b'een' sefaside. But the choice had been
matje to discuss·more deeply ani:;I 9fg.reat-er
le1:rgth just ·a · few ofAhe \ more·, significant.
and influerit'ial thinkers ·anc;I ideas tnat h~\'le
contributed-to ethical discernm;~ntr" _,__., -

;
In " fhe Apologv
',f
of~•SQcrates written
, , by Pla~o,.Socrates ma'ke·s fhe clafrh ·that ihs
' P~ato (427- 347 .BCE) the greatest good'for a persor\ to sp'ertd,tim~
0

·•· • ·Th~ Greek thinker Plat0 js C[editegi as one
~.f ttiffe -pton(zr~ of philosophy.is his vari~us fritings-.
~ring }P ~9~.~sCU$.s~s?re!~11Y and greatiyeJy so~e. •·
of thEi questlohs that later thinkers will find :to be, of
- 1,,3i tin·g si~nlficance to numan,KJnd, such·as "Can'VirtQe
be taught?" "What is beauty?9 an~P·~hat'is·1oye?~'l4e·'"
... ~tarted-a'sch0olinAthet1s Wf:iich wodld'beJmownas· ~
• ·.r tha:,t.,.cademy-and is fl~lieved to be the first in·s1itt1ti0n
...- of higher learning in the Western world.
,
..i,:.-.-..,.,.,..,..""':·~·--.1.·~ ~ ~ , ; , . - > , <) - - ~ - ; ; ;
·"'
.- -
th inkirT9 about al"ld ,discussing",witb othe'rs
t~ese questior,u; ·on gomd171ess · and virtu~.
'Hopefully, as·we·pursue'these to:~hzs,youw,ill
. · ~ . -, .• · · · .
•come, to ,agree with SocratesthaMh1s Effor.t
is indeed. a: good tbing. .We ~ill•be r:ett1min~
to Plato later in this chap±er,-as h~ guides,us .
thuuglil SOEJile further oifificl:iltie.s. .
,.,
'.
ChaP,ter h,~:ieJthic:ill 01mefl~ibl')i0ff::1µ1J1an.Exister-1t e •7
. -
 ·« •

"
i., .•Before tu,rnirig to tbe · e~hical th.eor:ies,
• '
0
we Will •
spen€1,..-ttie ·rest -~f .this chapter .
- - r '

. : , expl0rtrig -cer.tain, notiqns of ethics that ar~-co~rmonly; ll]aintained, b ~! furt~_er Jhou~.hf?,_n·'

' the-se notio~ns will reveal that these are quite problern:ati1s. These inyolve eitliler .a n ~ppea_Lto ·
a particylar formtdf_authority or t,ra-particular way of understantHrig the.self. ~
1. ' t-• .,
1

SOURCES OF AOl'H.OIUTY J
- '

• t Severa1 'comtnom~ays of tbi~king about ethie::s ,c1re based or:i tlie~idea i hati the,· .,
standards of'-&al.µatioh are impo·sed by a higher a·uthorjty th,a l tom·mands ou,( o~egience·.
In the ! oll,owin'g section, 'we will
explore three ..of such ideas:J lie aytbority oftne}~w, ~th~ ·'
auttr0rity o{,one's religfon, and the·authorJty' of o'ne's·owh culture. "'
' - .. :>.t.
' ,i....:. l,i -;,, - ,; I I ... • tl

if., LAW ;
.- ·l_t is suP.posecl,tl;lat law js 9ne:~ guitjp to et~ical b:eha,~ior. l,:i ttte ;liiJi~j>in..e;, Filipin~~: ~
;re constrained
i
to obeythe •aw~.oftl'le fanc;:1,as st~ted in the country's criminaJ and civil codes.
'1 , ,J • • ' ... •

Making·this even more' part)cular, in Cebu, residents are constrained to follow any provrn__cial ·
. , - -· . ,,. .
laws or city-pn;jinances. Onr can easily imagine this, be.coming eve.n more .foca:lized :t o the -
bqmngqyor village level, v.ihere local or munidpal la¥er:s of obligation are~there for re•sidents
_. { T •\. , ,IL _ I .., J., ,

to foll0w.'The term positive law refer£ to the differ~ntJules and regulatior:is that are positeQ
,or PL!fforward by ar::i authority figyre that requir.e .com12lrar;ice. , , , .
l fC" • • - •

, At ffrst.glance, thJ~ .seejns.to ma·k~ a lot of-s~ns~: We rec-ogn1ze\thattbe~e are many;

acts fhat we· immedi;tely corjsider ~netliical (e:g_ :, murder or theJt), -w hich ·vt..,e afso ~now
are for~dden· by_law. F1:1ttherm0re,. the law. is enforced 15y way ~yst~ni ~f sanctio~ 2., ofa
admi·nistered through persons ~!ld institutions, whi~h all help in ,<sompelliRg us to obey.
b e t,he basis of ethics .h,as the beh~fit bf prov.idl_ng ~s V:.ith an ol:jj~.ctive
Taking the law. to _
st~ndard that is·obligatory-and appll~a-bl,e to .a11: 5o~ W,e wourd not be' s'ur-prised jJwe.wefe to,
hear sgcneone ·say; "Ethics? It i,s simple~Just foll0~,whaieverthe law says:/ .
' .
However, . there.,. are some problems with -fli is. Of course~ we do·• maint in that,
ge_ n erally speaking, on.e sh9uld
... ~ - ,.._ ' - -
obey
the law: However, the idea thatw,e a·re exal)iining ti~,re
-. . ' -\_ ~ -

i~ a more cpntrove.rsialo~e: the r:t;1?re Jadical·da.irn t~a1~ one cap foo~ to tflelaw itselfi,n ord~r.,
to determine wbat_is rigJ,t or wrong. But 'the q'uestion is:-can one ·simply identify etbics with
theJaw?, - · • . .. · · · · • _ .- ' , . , ,,.. - . ·, · -
., 1
- " I ~

Qne. point to l:i>e· raised -is the~J?rohibiti:ve nat-utEH,>flaw. rfl'.le law does nOH~II us what
we_should ·db;.it wor~, by. constrairii~g us fron';I perfo~.mtf9 acts that we sh~wkfnot do;_To , .
J!)Uf it'slightly~differently, the.la'{ll cannot-tell as whauo,'purs.ue.,only .whatto
- • •• ' c.: /
avol'd.
.. -
WOl,1ld ':') - .. , ..J

w~ oe sattsfied thinking about ethies .s9Lely frb.m the negaJiY,~ pei:speftive of fpat which we · "-
may n"Ot.do; disreg,arding th~ imp0rtanta~pett a good which we eoqJ<j ~r,d m~ybe even of
should do, even if it WEmrnot requirep.of u\ by the law?
. . - .

:,.
. ; ;
.

~-
~ . ·- ; .'
 •!--_

In.line wi,t h tlilis, we mLgl)t:find that th:ere .are-.cihtain. ways.of actrng which are, not
- ' - <\. •

forbidden by the law, but are .ethically questionable tit, us., For instance; a tompany -that
• r • l ~ I '/"- ,..

pads its pr<?_tits by refusing to give ~ts el"flpl9yees benefi, s· may do_so Y-{itnfn the para~eters
of the law. The cqmpan_y can,do.so· by re{~f ing .t o hi~e,peopfe_on a~perin~neot bas•~, but :
offerir:ig them. sjx-month contracts. Constrclined to
• ' • , - -
u171qer this contractual sy~tem,
~- r- ..
wor~
·tt,e employees are thus cleprived not 'only'of be1:1efit~, -.b,u t also of Job security. Here, no
l~w is violated, yet qn·e- c~~ wonder -whether there is ·som~th'ing ethically questionable·
t~ this l?usiness practice. The~fact that ope ,can make such~ ne~ative ~alue Judgment of
' ' .. ' , ~. . .
th~ p·ractice,where tf'lere fs no violatkm -of the lavds ~already fl hint that one can took to
- -
, ~omething. beyondthe law when. making our ethical ,valuations. ··
. ·,
To fQa~e this point concrete~ ree:~11 thastor1y·of ~I ~~ddler ~ho had been rup over by ·
a couple of vehicles. While there were many:passers-by: wh0 witnessed what had hap~ened1
{Qr ~~ite a lo_rig whilf!, no one clid .~nythin.g to help. T!~·e chjlcl l,at~r died _il"J the ,h~spjta1:3
Th~ la\f\( does. not oblj~~ ,Reop,le to help olhers in needf, so-none of these passers-by were
1

, g.ui!!y-of b_rec1,k!ng ,i:lny law. ljowever., -,,:;any peoP..le reactin9- to this sad· news report share 'a''
~en_se that those. passers-Qy w~re som~whc;1t ethically gulP.able in. their negligence; In- v·i ew
of a·II this, per:haps <?ne should think of ethics i{r away that dQes nbt simply identify it wit~
p tiljzed.in t:hE(
obedience to the law. ·Later, we_sha!l s~~ h~.l(V the e::on~ept of law is c~eatiyely_ ·
D~ontology 0f Immanuel Kant lr;i a more ethically_ signHiqmt
... >
... • ..
way.
- ••, 1 -

~ -

This verse is the

.
first line of Chapten
,
1, of
.
the book of Deuteronomy. It expresse~ a ~ ~~ ~

a
claim Jhat_mc!_ny,people of religious s'ensibil_ity fin~ ap1pealif1g anp immediately valid: the
idea that on_
e is obliged
l
to obey.he~
•· •
God
-
in,allJb.ings.
- .
As a·foyndation
. .
for~thical"values, this
~ ~ C -~
· )
is ref~rred-to as tb~ djvine,commpncj theory. Th,e divinity ;calle..d God, Allah, or Supre.me Being·
~om,m~?ds anet one Ts obliged t~ obey .her Crealor1T~ere perso~s and texts -that one ~e
1
pelieves are linked to the J)i\line. By listening 'to th:ese figures.and reading these w~itings,<
an.individual di;cover's how·th~ Divine wants her tQ qc:t. Furth.er, someone rnaintc1ining a'
morefcidical for,n .o f'this t.ge.o ry might gp b~yond the~e ·i nstru~eri,ts of ~iv.in; rev~atio.n.
and cl~im t!,at God '1spqke'' to h~r directly to i.flstr-uet heir what to do.. " -1 ~. _ • - •
.,
, - At first gla_nce, ;his s.een:i~ to make; lot of sensi~. Many of us had b~en b'rought ·4.P
yvith orie form 'of.religious Jpbrihgirig ()~ an_other.,' so•it is.very po~sible·thanhere is a"strong:
If _J. " &, • • • •

inclination in us to refer to our (eligio!ls backgrbund to back u_p our- m0ral valuations. We
are presented witti ainore-Qr-less clear coqe of prohlbitions qnd many of these prohibitionl
given by religion-"Thou shall ·hot kill;;"Th;l,J ~~all. not" steal;' and uThou shall not e:ommit' .'
ad\.Jl tery"-seem to ir:ituitively·toincide with our sense ofwhat ethics~hould ri"ghtly d~mand.
l.n addition, ther.e is al") .advafl.ce here o'der th,e law l:iec'~';!lse religion_is not simply piohib1tiv~: .
but-it also provides jdeals ro pursl!e. Fer instance,one mci.y be c~lled·to forgive those wbd .
- . --:: •• $ - :

9,
. .-
..
 1

sinned against him or be·i::harftci'ble to those 0 ho have less. Further, taking religion as·basis
of ethics n~s the advantage of providing us with not 6nly ~ set of commands ,but arso a
Su-preme Authority that can iRspire and compel our obedience iri a way thpt nothing else
_can. The Divine can command absolute obedfence oii one's parrt: as the. implications of her
action~ imrolVe her ultimate destiny. Thus,' we
would' not be surprised if we· were, to hear

~ -
someone ~ay, "Ethics? If is simple. Just follow whatever your religion -says:1.
~.. ~ j -
Howeyer, there ar:e sQ_me probJer.ns With ~is. First, on the practie-al leVel, we realize
\he pr~sence of a multiplicity of religions. Each.fqith deviands--differently-f rornits adher~nts,
which would .al)g,arently res\.,llt , i,n conflicting ethi<;:pl standards. ·For instance, _tertait1 .
religions have prohibitions ·concerning what food may be co,nsumed, wJ,ile others do not
share the same coristrc:rints. Are we then compelled to judg-e others negatively -given their
different morality? Are we called upon to coriVei rthem toward our"own-fa1th? How about .
, the problem of realizing that not everyone ,is-devout Gr maihtains a teligfous faith? Wot,Jld
. we be 'compelled to .admit then that if religion is the 'basis of morality, son:i.e people would
1 -simply have no moral code? Differences, howeve~ ~fre not confined to being problematic of
varying r,e_ligi0usJraditions. Experience te.iches us that sometimes even with,in one:and the
sa.me faith, difference can be a real problem. For insta,:ice, we can eas11y imagine a number
of Christians agre~ing that tney should read and fihd their inspiration from th~ Bibl.e; but
. we cot1ld a~so easily imagi'ne them disagreeing on which particular lines they need to foGus
on. Which of the passages from the sacred Scriptures are they supposed to follow? All of
tl;iem or only sorpe? If soi which 'ones? Whi_ch pastor· am I supposed to obey if I find_t~em
ds,bat1ng
.
over how to interpret the scriptures; not to mention
- I
ethical is.sues? The problem
of difference thus remains.

Second, on what may be called / more conceptual level, we c.an · s·ee a_further -
' -
problem where one requires the believer to darify her understanding of, ttie connection _
bet:,veen ethics and the Divine. This problem was fir.sf elucidated in the 'history of:thought
I by Plato i'n his dialogu~ titled EuthyphrC?· -

10 Ethits: Foundijtidns of Moral Valuati:0!3

 In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised ~s t0 how
one,is s.u pposed Jo define "holiness:' Euthyphro puts for,,vard the idea that what is holy is
loved by the goos. Socrates calls this into question by ·asking for the following clarification:
Is it holy only because it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in itself and that is why it is loved
by the gods? The relevance of these questior;is to our c;:liscussion becomes clear if rephrased
this way: Is it the case that something is right only because God commanded it, or is it the
ca~e that something is right in itself and that is why Go,d commanded it?
. .
If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask -the question: Is itthe
case that this is so only because God commanded it,.or that killing is in itself wr~ng, and that _
, is the re~son why God com.manded iV If we \'\(ere to accept that it is wrong to take another!s
life because God comma·nded it, wr; are left with th~ difficult conclusion that there is nothiAg
inherently wrong with killing. It is only because God sa,id so-"Thou shal\ nbt kill"-that we
consider such an act wrong. It would seem then that there is something arbitrary about it
all, in the sense lhat God~ ould, will whatever He wan1ts. On that basis and nothing further,
we have the distinction between right from wrori~. As a further di;turbing,thought, we
may find an ·occasion wherein we could believe that God is suddenly commanding us to do
otherwise~that killing might now become acceptabl1e. History reveals many sad instances
of p_e ople believing· that God so wi'lls it, allm,~ing them t<;> kill their fellow h1Jman beings in
His name. The Crusc1des of the Middle Ages are a tra~Jic case in point. Can we be satisfied
1

· with th!s idea ·that the divine will could be arbitrary?

If, on the other hand, we· Were to accept that killing is in itself wrong, then we
acknowledge that perhaps th~re are standards of riight and wrong that we .can refer to 1

independently of God. .But if this is the case, then we actually do not obey a command
because God commanded it, but- are. lo~king for those objective stand~rds of right -a~d
wrong, to which God simply concurs. One would n0t eveo have to think i:1 terms of obeying
God-or even believing in Him-in, order to abide by :such ethical standards.

Having said this, we maintain th.at, generally speaking, his a good thi.ng for a person
. -
of faith to abide by t,he teachings of her particular reli~Jion. But the divine cqmmand theory
demands more than this as it requires us to identify thE; entire sense of rightand wro~g with
wJ,at religion dictates. The conceptual' problem we hav.e seen and the practical difficulties
of sirh_p ly basing ethics qn th~ divine command are reasons enough for us to wonder
whether we have to set this way'of thinking aside. Now, let us clarify tl")is point: Our calling
.into question of the divine command theory is not a c:alling into question of one's _b~lief in
God;·it is not intended to be a challenge to one's faith. Instead, it is an invitation tb consider
Whether there maybe more creative-and less ·problematic ways of seeing the.connection
between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethi<c:al with. whatever one
takes to be commanaed by God.
Later, we ·shall see one way that we can have a more subtle and yet· powerful
presentation' of how_ one's faith may contrjbute to et~ical thought when we look at the
Natural Law theory of,Thomas Aquinas.

Chapter I::The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence 11

 ~.. - I - - • -

Our expqsure. tQ, different societies ancf their cultures makes us all'Jare that there
0

are ways of thinking a~d v aluing tfiat a°}e different from our o~n, that there is in fact a wjcfe
diversity of how-differe-n t peopl; believe·it is pr~per to act. There are aesthetic differenc~s
~~ t ••• ':\ ~

(Japanese art.vs. Indian art), religious differ_ences CBuddnism vs. Christi~nity) 1 and etiquette
~ . . ' l
differences (confliGting !)ehaviors regarding dinif19 practices). In these bases, it may ~~come
easy to condude that.this is the case in ethics as well. Ther~ are also various examples that
~eem t0 bear these 6\.it;'f)udity can be mo'r.e taboo in one-culture than ih anothet; Anpthlfr
_example would be how relations between men and women can show a wide variety across
different-rnltures1 ranging· from,_greatef lili>erality and e1::1uality on one hand, -to greater
inequality and a' relation of dominance versus submissioA on th~ other. From the reality
of,diversity, it-is'possiole for someone tq'j_u mp to the fuflther claim that the sheer-variety ~t
work i'n the diffeJent ways-of valuation means there is ho' single univ~rsal-~tanclard for such
- valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of etl-iics. Therefore, what is ethically
or
'acceptabl~ unacteptable is relative to, nr,that is· to say, depenelent on one's ..cultute.'This
position· is referred to as cultural relativism,.. " ·
- '
1
, There is ,something appea_ling to this w,ay of thinking becaus~ ~ult4r~i ~elativ\5rtl
seems tQ conf~rtn to what we ex(?eri!;!nce, which is the reality ofthe differences ii) how'
cult1..1res m~ke,thei~ ethic_al v~luations. Se( ond, PY taking one's cufture as the standard,
1 • -
we 1
are proyided a basis for our valuations. Third, this teache-s us to be tol~rant of others.from
differ-ent cultures, as we. realize that we-are in ·no position 't o Judge whether the ethical
·thought or pra'ctice of -another culture is ~acceptable11or unacceptable. in turn~- our o~n ,
culture's moral coc;le is n·~·ithe~ sup~rior.to· Qor infe_rior to any oth~r, hut.fhey .w..ouid provide
. us the standards that •()re·appr-0priate and applicable to us. So, we would not be surprised
" ' ' . '
_if we were to hear-?omeone say, ,,-Ethics? lt•is simple. Just follow whatever your culture says1'

' ,... ~ ;.

Tempting as this idea i•s; there are prot>lem-s. lh a classi9 exposition ·o f'this t~pic ·By
James Rachels, he presents s;me of these difficulties.5 The first three points int-h e fotiowing
parag·raphs are' a ·brief res~temeislt of some bf ~is criticisms of cultural relativism; these
are followed b/an additional fourth point of criticism based ·bn more -recent and mo're
contextoalized observations. • ··

12 Ethics: Foundat1ons of Moral Valuation

 "
'"" j'

-1, · First, the argument of·cuJtural relafo,ism is premised on} he reality of. d1fference:-
Becaus-e.differernt catiu'res; have different moral cod~s, we can.not say, that any one ~ '!rat·
code is-the rjght one; But is ·it a (ase of -the p'resence ofdisagreernent means there are no 1.

right
•J,. ,,
o,r wrong
'"• _t~ •
'answers? Isn't it a commo~ experience t0 b~ confront~d
..J • ., •~ - - I 1· - • /'
by a ais~greemenr
.• ~

b~twe·eA per5ons and t~:en to have the conflict clarified.later as to whb is right or wrong?
i~ qther word; , dis~greement may .~ ean t_hat the 9~estion. ~f who is right orwrong._is,not
immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean
.
thatt_
.here is no
- on,e-ccirre~nesolutior'h ~

1
Secohd
- ·} ,/'
1 unde.r cuJtl{ral relativism, we reali;2e that we.a.re in no ·pos,ition to render
- ' • •

· any: kiod
t· '
pf.judgment on. tb,e. prac.tic;:e_s o.f ,another culture. l'his.se~ms to
- ' l " ,
be a generous
. - •f 1

·and.an open-minded way of resgec~ing othe~s·. But what if the pracrtke seen:is t(!,,,call for·
..,.t; ;: ... ... ~ -- -
commentrWhat if a, particular African tribe thoug~t it is advantageous and thex.efore right
f~r,_the01 Jo i.vi12e out a neighb.orin~. peoJ:>le through·a ter~ible practice o,f gen'ocide? What • ·
i(Jo!lle Midd!1 Eastern COl;l!"tr.yrWi;IS higbly repressi_v e tmNard women r~aching to the point
- ":I •
o.f v,iolentei? Wh t ab.o ut the t~aditioni\l pr,actice of h,ead~~unting &hat is still maintain~~ by
7
c~rtain .SQcietiesrin the ~or~illeras?..Are we in no position to.J ..1~gt any_of this as wrong?
Woµldwep ,e:satisfied with_concluding that we cann.o t judge anothe't culture? But.this is one
t,.· r • .... ~ • .\ _... -
of the
.,
implicati.
'I: ,
o ns ofcultural
-7
relativism .1 T <, ., _ "

Third, u nder;- cultural,\ el~tiViSA], we r,ealize that we are fn no p.9sition t0 r,~nder

judgme'nt on the practices of even our, 0wn ,calture: If our culture· waS'•the basis for
d~terpTinin9, rig~~_,,arig wrong!..we WOIJ.ld b~ un~bl,e t_
~ ,saytha~ s6.m~ething Within 01,!r c~lt'ur~I
-pr9£H~e yvas probl~mat!,c, pr:ecisely ~ecciwse ~we t~~e "<:> ~r culture to bt( th~-s,ta.n~ard_.for
ma~ing sucb jydgments. lf1 vy~ came from 'particular so_Jiety wherein there ··is ,a tradition a
' of.~rranged marriag.e; we would ~iftlply have to accept that tnis is how ~e jlo things. But
- ' • . ~ - . - ~ - .! - ·~ ·- -

wh'at lf we <lre not satisfied by this co'nclus_ion? We m~ycbe pro_ud ang _glad about identifyfng
certain traits, values1a.n d pra~trces of our culture, but we _may not nete.ssarily laud or-wish
to c~nfqrm to a!J of them. It is possible that We ·may not oe'~atjsfied ~ith th~ t ~oiight of n9t
. , ,being able to call.our qwn_culture into question. . ·
•• I : • :J • o

.. .. - - .. . }. . \ - . - ' '
Fourth, perhaps .the mos.t eyident contemporary difficu,lty with cultural relativism _ '
"is' that w~ can ~ai~tain lt only ,by foll0wing the presumption of culture a~"asingle, d ~arly~ -_
defined substance dr as something fixed aRd alr,eady-determihed. Now, it.is always possib.le
. . I • .
to find examples of a certain culture having·a unique practice or way of life and to distinguist'l
·iffr~m,bther cultures: practices~ Ol!lt it is also. becomir.ig increasiAgly-cliffkult to deter~in~ .
1

wbat e)(actly d_efines one's culture. - ·

, IS,my c~lture "Filipjnb''·?-,Wh at ff ; identify more' with asmaller subset with1~ this
g ~oup, i( for exa.;,ple, I a~ lgorot? Is this then 'my culture? Why not.go further and-'d efine
my:culture as being Kankana~eyrather t.ha.,n lbaloi? ls this then my. culture? The point here ·
'(' .• - w_ .... • ' - r-
.precisely is,;the question: What am I supposed ,t o take as "my.c4!t_ure!'? , .
L , . , . •

' '
We tan
think of n:iany othet- examp>l_
es ~hat reflect the same problem. Let us say,t hat
my -fi:!tt'ter is'frbm ,Pamp~mga and' r:ny" mqther. is from Leyte, ar.i_d I yias-brought LI¢ in Metro ' I

!=hapter bThe. Ethi<.al Dimension ·of Human Ex!stente_ _13

,,
Mani!a: What is my culture? On one hand, let.us say that my father is American and my
mother is Filipina, and I was brought up in San Diego, Californ.ia, but I am t1:1rrently studying
in a university in the Philippines: What am I supposed to.take as "my culture"? -

rn an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static ahd well-defined culture

gives way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call i.n t0 qCJestion ah
idea like cultural relativism, '(v'hicb only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion
of what can be defined as my culture. · -

We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pofnting out how it is a

problem in our study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought.
On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humi)ity, that is, urging us not
to imagine that our own culture is superior to an•other. Such ·humility, however, should go
hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciati~e~of
human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relativism is that it basically renders
us incapable of discerning about the values we may wish to maintain as we are forced to
s ,
simply accept whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us from expl.0ring whether there·are
values that are shared between cultures; it keeps us from comparing and judging-either
positively or n~gatively-the valuations that are made by different cultures. As previously
mentioned, this presumes that we can determine culture in the first place, which becomes
increasingly questionable in a transcultural world.

As•with our earlier discussions on law and religion, this is not to set aside culture
entirely as if it were irrelevant. In~tead, we are urged to think more carefully about how one's
understanding of her belonging to a certain culture could be mor~ fruitful and meaningful
for her ethical discern merit. We will explore this further in the last chapter: -

• t
SENSES·OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should ·not rely on any external autnority. to tell
oneself what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this
• • I I

sect ion, we will look into three theories about ethics that 'c enter on the self: subjectivisn;i,
'psychological egoism, and ethical egoism .

• ! ,..
SUB~ECTIVISM
The startihg point of su_,bjectivism is the recognition t~at the individual thinking
person (the subject) is at t~e heart of all moral valuations. She is the one w~o is confronted

14 Ethits: Foundations of Moral VaJuation

 'with the situation and is burdened with the need to·make.a decision orjudgmer:it. From this
point, subjectivism leaps to the,more raaical claim thatthe individual is th~ sole d,e terminant
' ' . ' . - -
0f what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. A number of cliches familiano us would
echo this idea:

"No one can .t ell.me what is right and wrong:' ,'

. r - ' ,'
"No one knows my situation better than myself:'.

"I am entitled to .my own opiry_ion:'

"It is good if I say that it is good:'

Th~re is something appealing about th~se -statement,s because they seem to

express ·a cherished sense of perso·nal independence. But a close look at.these sMtemenis
may reveal problems and -in seeing these, we see the problems of subjectivism.

' "No one e:an tell me whafis r.ight and wrong:' In er sense, there is-some· validity to
this. Nd one-can compel another to accept a certain value-judgment if she he.rself c:Joes·
not concur with it. However, we know that th_is statement cannot be taken as 9 bsolute_.
We realize, in rl)any instances, that we had mpintained· an idea or ah opin,ion that furthe.r
discussion reve·als it.was actuaJly e_rroneous. We reali,ze tha,t we.can be mistaken and that we
can be cofrected by1others. Why is this not also p,ossibly applicable when we are speaking .
o'f ethics?
- '
"Nb one knows my situation better than !llYSelf' Once again, in a sense, there is
some validity to this. Thi? pa_rtkular person who is put'in a·certain situation, which calis,for
a.dedsioh, has know.ledge of the factors that affect her situation and deciajon. B"ut~to take
a.
this factias a grouna for not li_stening to others is to have mentality that imagines thaCone's
own situation or c0ncern is ~o .personal ~nd unique that there is no Way_ ~mother person can
pqssibly understand her an<;i give h'~r any meaningful i3dvic~. But does not it make greater
sense to rec0gnize the re_ality..that many human exp'erie_nces -a re common.and that others
..... ~

may ha~e something u~efwl to-suggest?

• ~ -~ . Of - • - \ •

"I. am entit,led to my own· opinion:' Here, once again, is a valid ROint that is often
misused. Certainly, each person has the right t; belie~e wtiatshe believes and haS,the right
to express· this. Bu~ this right is ofter;1 stubbornly misconstrued as some kind of immunity -
from criticism and correction. A bigoted racist has an opinion agaiost anyone who is dark~
s_
k inned, an anti'-Semite has an opinion against J~ws, and a ,misog¥nist has an_opinior:i
against womer. We realize that these opipions are "~ighly prob_lematic because there is no
basis fpr considering any ofthese.groups of people as inferior. We would rig_htly be indignant
abo1,1t an empl~yer who pays his femaie employees !e.ss tha11 the male employees, simply -
becaµse he is of the opinion that wom~n are inferior to men. But isn't he entitled to hi~ own
opinion? To insist on one's riglit in to having opinions whatever these hapP,en to be is t0
exhibit a closed~mindedne_ss that rightly invites censure from someone trying to think mor~
critically about values.

Chapter I: The.Ethical Dimension of Human l;xistence- 15 •

 ... \-·

\c I' • ..

/It is good ir_l,s~y, that itJs gb<iid:Wvitt;t this lin,~" vve -~ et:to .th~ 'He~rtpf'the ,probl~m .
l• w - " - - ' • ' ... ~

with subjectivism. The statemenJ implies:"!f is-my per1s onatconsiderat_ion of X as gooq that"·
· makes X goqd. X is 9009 on the _basis 0f my sayi~g-s,::>-:'The prc5bler:n now .be~9mes: "Wnat
is my basis for saying-X is good?".This renders•suJ:?jectiivfsm an unten·able vi.ew for so~eone
- ., - "
. who is interested in ethics. It takes the fact that'l am 1ttie•subject making the valuation arrcl
1
. uses this f 9ct :a·s the _very basis for that valuati6.~. But whe~ 'l;'~s. subject; im asking what is
7 1 - _ , ~

right or wrong, goo's or l:)ad, with su~jectivistn, there i!s no.other bas1s_that I ~an lookt<;>ward.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM I ' '

Let us c;onsider another ~lkhe: It. woi.Jld.90Jike: this: "HumaD beings are natural)y ·
~elf-ceqter~q, sn a!I our actions are.,~1'.¥.~YS'aJrea~y ~olttvatee by,_serf-interestt .. · . '
' ~ I l,

th.is rs the stance taken by 19sycholo.gicalegoism, 'which is,a theory.that describes the
underlyiri§ Elynamic pehind~all human ae::tiol'ls. As a '.d e.se::rfptiv.e thepry,' it~does. not'direcf
.., ~ ._ ....,... . ~ '~ "" .

on.e :rto act in·any particulgr way. Instead,

I
if-points ou(that there is already an underlying
i;;: 1 ,a _,. - •

· .basis for how one acts. The .ego or self has: its desires; and,if)teres.ts_,_an,d all oyr actibns qr:_e ··
gea~eq·t~ward ;atisfying these i~rests.' . . ~ .
- ""' .
- This may rrot seem particularly problematic ~1h,e n we c:onsi_d er many·@f the actitms
· that we do on
.
ada!N0-day basis•.I watch·a,:movie: or read a book because I want
- to, or ~6
-; \

foJ a walk and do some window shopping in the n;iall be.cause I enjoy_that I take a·certain .
c;:ourse in colleg:e becaus,e l·thfnk.it will benefit merorijoin an orglmization because I w.ill get
• ... • .. - • ; Jo

. som~ gppd oyt of it. We do things in pursu'it qf our 9'!'1Jn.se~f~_int~r~st _all the time.
• \. I ~ • ,,_ - • • ,

But ~hat about-other types. of b~havi9r that 'w.e would comrn~:mly s..ay are directed. ,
toward the ·other_
? Cor.i~ider,, for example, .an act of generosity, in whkh someofle £,erps
a ·tri_e nd w.ith h·er thesis r-c1ther than play videogame1s, or sorr)eo'ne· ma~es JJse- of _her fre~-"
. Saturday helping build houses,f~·r Gawc1d ,Kalin~<! ?;"Fhl:! psychological eg0ist wo.ula maintain ,
that underlyim9 suth appare.ritly0~her-directed eehayior isa s-elf-serving de~ire, even if one
· _ does,not acknowledge it or is even consdous of it Perhaps he 'only helped his friend"wi,t h •.
· her 'thesis beGa·use he is trying Jo impress her. Per~ps .she heilps out ~ith Gawacf Kalinga
eecause thjs is how she relieves-~her s~n~E; of)g uilt cit being well-off compared _to."otners~
The ideaJs th~t wh~:the~pr ~ot the p~rson. admits it: one;s ae::tiens are-ult~mately always
motivated by.self-se.rving cf~s.ire.
-
•
•;
.
.:. - V. ••
, , i - . ~-
- • 1,

- · , , .,This-theory has a co'u ple of stt_oj")g pofnts·: T:he'firstJs that ofsimplicity. Whe1:nn idea
is-marked by 's-implicity, it -h.as a uniq~e appeal to it; a''t heory ttiat,convenfently identifies a
single ba,is fhaf will ~ortielfow ?Cco'u.rit for:all adions: is a good example of this. The.s.e cond-
is that of plausibility:_It is plausible that self~i,Fiterest i'~; IJ~hind .a·pers~n's actions. It is dearly ,, -
the motivation' b.ehind tnany'"c:,f th~ ~cfions one perform, which are. obviously ~elf-servinm. '
~ - , ,. ' .• ... '-- •. JI '

it,could very well also be th~ m0tivatidn behlnd an inclividual'.s -seemir;tgly other-directed
acfi9n!Ut j·s riot .only (i)lausible,, but also irrefutable: ~~. ;' - • A~ • •

~ : -· :, • ' I_ • •

·,
 .,,, · Psychq[ogical egoism is an irtefu'tabletheory bec~usetl'lere is n0 waytq tryto·answer
..; - • - ..._ ' • I .,_ • .;,, • .~ ._ 'f, '

it without being confmnted by the cMallenge that, whatever one might say, there is~tt.ie self.:
. servirig.motive at the root of everythi.rig},T he psychological egoist can and:wil! insi; t on·his·
stand no matter how one might try_to object. This opens, up questipns: first, "Beca~Lise t_wo
a nnot refute it, shall Vl/e accept it as true?" and ;'Qo we.accept the consequences offhfs .
we c_
-I ,. - ' '· -- •••
theory?"
\ - \ ,, • ' . -, ,1 • ~ -

The first siuestiorr asks whether\,ye have to accepHhe theory -beca4se it happens
to-be ir~efutable. Let us cons_iderthis a,nal0gy;, A p6sits that B _has an Oedipal complex and '
according to A, this translates into a desir~ it'I B,to get rid _of the father figure. Then, Aj nsi-sts -
thc!t 'every:thing about B and what he does-his choice in music, course, favorite food-is
• ' • ) -· -. iF-- ' -'1-

aJI ultimately rooted -rrrthis com pl.ex~Therefore, n9 matter what B says, A \-voulcl be ableto
. ' i ' -
insist that even without his'acknowl.edgin.9 ·it deep down, _
i t is this complex_ th_at-dri_ves him ·
~o act the way he does. In this s~enarid, A1 cl.a im is i.rtefutable..But does B·have to accept it?' s
Similarly, one,could maintain, if he really wanted to, tha.t l-luma11 nature is intrinsically self-
interested . and
. that hlJm.an,b,eings-could nofpossibl~be benevolent. Wh~~theyseem
:.
to be :
so, it is only a matter ofpretense. One ·could maintain thatbut doe~ one nav1f t9?

· The _se_c ond""'p oint has to cfo with the problematic consequenc~s of. this theory.
Consider this sce_ nario: Onewoman ·spen·ds her money ~ri·expensive clothes, and-another
woman donates t~ .cha•; ity. Im -terms of ps'ythologi~al egoism, they ~re. both -s imply~and
equally doing w~at is self~serving for 'themselves. Because-~hey b9th are s.i~ply fu_lfilling
- ' - • ~, • . l
what would
'I .
serve·
•
them,
• •
they.are bf ~qual
l
moral
-
worth.
.
In judging fhese
..,
persims ·a, nd
•
these
actions, we.can ask ourselves: Do we want to give up on ot1.r mor.al. intuition conceming-tl'le -
\ • • •
1
' 1' r'.; ~ r -

· gooqness,and value of genero$ify versus the wrongness of-selfishness just Jort~·e sake of

.
, this theory? Most signifkantly; tuming tott)e next consequence when we rnovefrpm n:i9ra·1
judgment to moral decisiqn,,the que.stion is: How then·are we s,upposed to decide?· Giv~n
. .
psychological egoisrn,...it dQes not matter. We only. think that we hav~ a choJce but actuaJly .
le • \~ ;r,..., .~ - -
wl:iatever way that we end up acting, our m'inds have actu.a lly alteacly determined what
- I , • • •..., • -

serves our interests best. - · ·

So psychologiqll, egoism, when we leok. at its·~onseque.nces,-leads us Jo a cynical

view of humanity, to a·gloorry description of-hiJman nature, andfil'lally' to a u~el,ess th~ory
,for someone who is concei:ne,q Wi\h asking h~rself What is .t he right tl;iing. to -do: This
. is becal:!s~ .it ends up nullifyin~j the possibility ~f any normative ethics) n its•view of the
atrea-dy-determineq human being.· . ' ' .
:r ..

ETHICAL' EGO.ISM,_.
. .
Ethical egoism aiffers from psychological ·~goism in that. it do.es·nqt B.upp9se' all oµr
actions ~te c1lrieady inev1tably.self-ser,ving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that shoyld we
make our own ends, our own interests,-,as the single-dverriding concern.
'·
ma'y act ln a way
-..L ' - • '1
We ' ·• f

that is benefid.a!,to ,other~, but w_e $._hould oo

.. that only-if it ultimately
. q_e.h.~;(itf us. This t~eory ·

•=..i..;.."'--'- w_,,,.,_~~..;..;;.;-_;__....:.,,....;..._;_~-_;;__- ·_;c;;.;ha;;.:.p~te;;..rI;;..:T~h.:..eE:.;.!h~i!;.::a;...IDi,.;;

im;.;.;
~e;.;.;n;;;,sio;;.;;;n::...
. o_.:..;;fH_;u;;.;m:.::;an:.:..:Ex=i
st~.en_;c.:..e_ 17 ' :
-"' j

' I I • \
 acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog w0rld.out there and given that, everyone ought to
put herse1f at.the center. One should consider herself.as the ptiority and notallew ariy other
concerns, such as the welfare of 0ther people, to de.tract from this pursuit.
· It is dear 't hat we hav.e our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied.
,!'
"thus, this question can b~ askech Why should I have any concern about the interests of
others? In a sense, this question challenges in a fundamental way the idea of not just a
study of et~lcs, but aJso the-effort of being ethical: Why not just look afte1; one'~ own self?To
. \ ' . -,
' examine ethical egoism, we will take a look into Plato's Republic, which is Plato's res po rise to
the assertion_that one should.only care about one's own interests.

,I

18 Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation

 ' In the Republic, the craracters are engaged in, a discµssion about justil:::e. S0crates - I
gets his -companions, to first con_'sider the question, "What is justi_te?" ~nd later, "Why-shot,JJd
one be just?" In Boek. 2 of the text, the i:haracter n,amed Glaucon provides c1 powerful
- - '
restatemen,t of the case for-egoism by way of a myth ,The my.th describes a mal7l, _a figure
named Gyges, W~0 0ptai11s fh,e power to make himseli( invisible at will a_nd how he quickl~ -
- 'i - ..

Jearns how to, use this Rower for his own desire~ rather- than for any notion of "jt1stice:'
Glaucol'\ the11 asks .plaintjvely,. woula not w,_e ourselvi~s act with impuniW if we had ·! hrs
power tq.be invisible? To put i.t simply, if we woulci'·ne·ver be called in orqet to account for
. our actions, perhaps we, too, would.just choose to do whciteverwe w·ant. it s-~ems; <Slc:1!lcon
concludes; that if we are to l;>e honest with ours~ ves, we would admit that w.hat we really ,
care for is 01,ir own
I
self-interest.rathet than some notio1r, of justice or moral goodness.
,, I • - f

. It will take Soc.rates the rest of the ten boo~s-iof the .Republic tQ try to gnsweir thi.s·
most important question on·whether the pursuJt ofeth ks i,s worthwhile. Does it make sense
t_o be ethical?·The b.egi11111lng oJ.S,oarates'~ answer can be foqmc,t in Book'4, in,whic-h Socrates
presents how the_goo.d huma11 life stems frolill a !))rQpier harmony of the pa'rts or"tt.1e soul.
Harmony re<:iuires a certain ordecing, a hiefarchicaJ system in whii:h reason as the"highestt'
part is in cha~ge dutifully followed· by the "lower;, parts. 0f the soul of will and af;)petite. The
' presence of such an internal ordering that one corsciously strives to accomplish is What it
means for justice to be pre·se,:it in th'e i~clivrd1,1ar. On the other hand, the absenGe of 0rder- ol'
the lad/ of harrmo~x, with desires apd appetites runnin~i rampant, resJlts in-aGts of'injustice.
This point is deve.loped in 8o6k 9 with the -port~i;lyal of the tyrant. The p.resenae 0f intern.al .
disor¢er in a per.son placed in power turns the seerningly. ple~s-ant prospect of doing
whatever one wants-of .acting_with impunit'y-into a ·terrifying portrait of a cliarac:te.r
0

w itlil'o ut ~elf-control or self-possession. Being nothi,ng more thar:i a disordered ar:1d nervolis
jumble of craving_s; su~h a person wquld be so bb'sessed with these _longings than t-o bother

, C:hapter I:lli~ Ethical Dimenslon of f-lµman Existence 1'9

 I

·caring abotit how this. might. affect others. S1tuijtiri;g <tnis story ih_to a· larger soc;ial,/and
politi~al ~cf ntext,. the _c;onnectiQ.!:} can b~ mad~ betwe!~n one'.s pursuit.ofore;s own, intere~t.
1,A.£it h ab~se of ppwe_r that inay easily resuldn the mis1ery of r'nillfpns.J tJe·questiQn t~~n that
:.'we can ask Js: Oo we still'want to say, in the face_6f w~1at hist0ry ; hownJJs ~rants·a nd'. h?~ ~f
~!ttators, ~h,a t to af t with impunity is de~irabJe? ' ~ ,, . · ···

This iswhat ethical e'goism ultimaiel-y translat~;S'into-n·otjust some r:,leasant RUrsuh

of a
one's own't lesires;i!>ut thl'dmpositior:i ·of will t0 ·p1ower.that·i; p0tentially·d~strui::ti~e of
bofu the self and of oth·ers. brte~can·ta.k~ on
.this view, if one wishes-, but it is•also possible
to wonder whether there is a w.ay bf recognh;i~·g oLr- being;in the ;.orJd with othe'rs, of
thinking of our own well-being concomitamtly with the well-b~ing of others. Perhaps tlais is ·
what the study 6f ethics is all about. · " ·
> ' ~

,,
I

Later,-we sha·11 see. more r:iuanced.ways ofthi6king ,abdut happiness-:-out own an-a
' .. . \ . ~ .•.
that of others-=-in both Utilitarianism a·nd' in'theNirtue Ethics of Aristotle. ··

~ ... .. ... - ~ , .
!j 1
SUM ~ ARr (AN_D.NEXTSfEP~S) ~. -: ._. , ; . '1.f . . · 1 _~ ·_ ."" _
== --~
r
i
I

J
•
. ' . In this cliapte,r, we h~v~·e_sta~li shed th~ ; ~o;pe ,a'.n d the ra~ionale for a _ai~ctssion·.
..of ethics. We-explored various domains of v~luatien rn order to distinguish what makes a

a:
p'articularly grave ty.p~ of valuation· mpral· or etKkh l o'ne. We. clarified s~me·of the terms
that will be used in the study of et.hics.,We bave,.al~;o explbred a number of problem~tic
-way s of th,lnking of ethics; sorne_gi've -a too sihiJ;>Jisti ~answ~r fo the·question of our groun.ds-
or, foundatiohs_for m~oral val~a.t1on, while ot her-s seEim Jo dism'iss 'the possibilify of ethics ·
~ltogeth_e r..
,· -I"'

In ·the foJlow_i119 chapters; we will explore a number of different Jmoral" th~ories

.. - • • • +

~ • • • - - • ; , ,'.•. \ > S, L

that ..have. b~en handed down to us oy J ne hi'stcity of philosophy.

~~· ~ - .
These
- . ....
areti
_yarious
. ~

approaches~fr0m ~hinRers who have p·resented to us; their o~n uniqqe way of thinking
1
pp
how to determi'ne the moral priQ ciples ~hat shoulbl·be maintajn~~ - We .will 'first explore
, · Utilitarianism, ~Which establishes that the best co1nsequeAces for everi-0oe ~c<;mci rned
might
• .
be' our
,., ' ,,
rrieas~re
'
for det~rmiiling what~ is q.rfgh{
..
We ~-
then tur-n
-
~o a•different
t
riotion in_ <: • ,.

the N;atural Law:: Theory, .which pu~s '-'

fbrWard
i
\he• ide~1• '.\that
_
we can base our .·,
notion a-
ef goodl , ~

and-bad on so'mething more intrinsic than the citns.equences of our .actions-that ,is our
. ,. <. • , L ~~ ., '~. I
,-

20 Ethics: Foun9ations of,MoraJ.Valaation

J
r,
,... -

0: Diyin~ ~omn:iang Theory .

.f . T"' ,.,.:
Cultural.R~lativism · ·
 3. Look for a newspaf:>er article-that ta,ckles an .ethical issue. C<:>nsider th~ following
qyestio.ns:
~ - -
a. What makes this a matter dfethics?
• - ' • . -,,.~ ~. • ·~ 1-l

-:b. Wh.at is your own ethkal judgment om

J
this casec? -.. ~
'I, - '
f:
.,. t ,

t • . ~

c. What are yol!lr rea~ons for this judgll'.1ent?

' - j

4. { Bra,instorm and-tome' up with a-list of Eomm6n ~ilipino.values·. Consider the stren~ths

and we_aknesses ofthese. · "' · ;

5-. Imagine that you are,_ a legislator,

... What rul~s 4Dr ,; ws that currently
.
i>robibit certain
..., . .

9cts or practices would you want to -amend or' repeal? Also; are there cerrtaih acts_or
. ~ ": ·pr~ctice-s cµrrently permitted by !~e la~ that you would want to pmhibitf'.Thin'll ef this
on the le>Jel of your
/·
scho.ol, your citY,,. and the n,1tion. , , _

6. - Comment on ·t~is statement: "Wrat J peliev~.-must be t,ru·e if I feel very strongly abO:u t
it:' \ 1
-· t "
- I i ,. • C" • - • • 1,i )

7. Is looking after th,e benefit bf your own' far'nil)( bver all other aspects c,ansidered as_
anothe'r form of egoism? Discuss. "·

SUGGESTED REAl)IN~S

Frankfurt, Harry. "Fre~dom Qf the Will and the Concept of a Person·:' The lmportancf? pf What ·
We Care About: P.hi10s0phica/ Essays. Cambridge: Ciirnb'ritlge·Univer~ity, Ptess; 1988, pp.
'f1 ~25. . . - •, .

Nag-el, Thomas.·''The Fra9mentati<;>.n of V'alu,e:' Morifal Questions.· Can:ibriclg'e:- Cambridge ~

I • • •
Uni'(ersity Press, 1979, pp. 128-41. , _ . • ' ~
• / ~ ~ ·i.,,

Rachels, James. "Can Ethics Provide Answers?" The Hastings Cen-~erReport, Vdl. 1o; No. 3, Juoe
1980, pp. 32-40-. , ..i•

Reyes, R>amo!1' Castillp. ''!he Relation between ~tl~ics and R~ ligious .Bel.i~f:'. the Moral' ·
Dimension: Essays, in Honor of Ramon Castilio Heyes, edited by Nemesio -~ · .Ou~, Jr:~
, Osc,ar G. Bulaong, Jr., and Michael Ner E. ·Marianio, Quezon City: g ffice of Re,search <!nd
.~
1
Public::ations, Ateneo d_e Manil,:1 Uriiversity; ~063,, pp. 107-112. ·
~ ' \\ ~ '-,

·I

22, ---:===-=:=.;.;;;_;;;,;_;=;:;;.,.;;.;:.;;:;;;.:.;.;......=..:;.,:=--
Etnics:foungations of Mora) Valuation
.:;,.---,,'i-......,_..::...:...;_~.;...:i.--_,.;;.."'--/,__.,.;_
'
1.
·------------~----------~---·
NOTES
7
I
j
1. Here are some of the news articles that came out at the time, arranged · i
chronologically: Andrade, Je.anette L. "U.P. Stud's Death a Mystery:' Ph.ilippine ;
· Daily Inquirer, 29 August 2007; Mallari, Delfin T. "Suspected Hazing Victim -I
laid to Rest:' Philippine paily Inquirer, 3 September 2007; Andrade, Jeanette i
., L. and ,Tina G: 5anfos. "Autopsy: 'Heavy Beating':' Philippine Daily Inquirer/ ;
4 September 2007; Andrade, Jeanette L. et al. "Come 9ut, Hazing Death ;
Su5pects Told;' Philippine Daily lnquir~r, 8 September 2007; UCANews.com. ;
"Concerns about Hazing Raised as_Ariother University Student Dies;' 11 I
Septemb~r 20~7; Tina G. Santos. "Wi_tness Confirms Mendez Joined Frat I
Initiation Rites:' Philippine Daily Inquirer, 18 September 2001; and Andrade, i
Je~n~tte L. "U.P. President Orders Fraternities: Justify Your ~xistence:' f
Philippin•e Daily Inquirer, 21 September 20Q7. !
I
I -· 2. Ibid. , I
E ' \ . - I
Joshua Norman. "After Toddler Left to Die; China Disquieted:' CBSn~ws....
~ i
com, 18 October ,2011 , http:/ /www.ucanews.com/story-archive/?post_
m
name=/2007/09/ 11 /concerns-about-hazing-raised-as~another-university-
m student-dies&post_id=6460. Accessed July 26, 2017.
~
i 4. Plato. "Plato's· Euthyphro:' Euthyphro, http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/
I Euthyphro.pdf.
. . Accessed 24 July 2017. .
I 5. James Rachels, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism;' The Elements of Mo;ar
Philosophy, 6th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006, 14-3 1.

6. Plato. "Plato's Republic:' Republic, http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/

republic.pdf. Accesse·d 24 July 2017.

·---~-~-----~-~--~~---------·

' I

• 1

r •-

Chapter I: The Ethical Dimension of Human Existence 23

 ~.,--... >!.
1
· Ad'afld
, O(f~r,se .
~~ • ~ l' ~, ; ·_ ,. • J• _i. .....~----~ • ~... - . • • "r,. . ' . "; - - • -'
· . · 11;1 2011, Fhe.,·CuJtara.1·Cent~r of't[Je fhilipplnesJGCPl·ra.tol}Ated an e.xhibit th.at;,{'..;:.."'
incl'uqed M_!deo.Crut's."Politeisrr;io:1 an installation eomJ?rised ofgin·amalga-1110f ~ar:w il'itages · t• ..
including a statue ofJesus"weariag Mkkey Mowse e~rs,.a crueifii adqmed w.ith a'. bright red ' ·•
- * 11 ~f•.,,._·l ·_.l t• 1' 0:.

phallus, ar,:id a picture of the face·.of J'esl:Js witl:i a wooden astHrRy witty j:2enista·cked Qn the;~ :
middle. App~frently co neeived~s-a•pf'ElCe to _prqri10t~ t;ltf(al th~i!lghfaha-pernaps c:fe_ lfcite·oh ~ .
i&ollitry,,,it y.Ja's s~en h¥ many in th1s' p'tedomin1nt:ly)Catholi'c;cou.ntfy.to be a'l:lelioerafa in.suit .
''to their·faith."Gii entHe p,ubi'ic"'o~fd·fa~cl tn'e strong {'.l. erlo'tfrfeeni'ent fro.m v:ari'©US religious. .,.- . : ·,,
• . , ' ~ ~ ~ I - ,1 1 . .._;t.

aha sesular leader~s, the ·exnibit~\,;{as abruptly, clt,;>sed~'lri ·additioh, to:·b.eing tfireatened atid · 1

1 hayin!:J 'his work;va~d~li'z~p, Crt:11z ~as c_har.ged with .qbs,cenity. Ho,wev~r; he (as.weJf a~ ~_he ~ ,
: , a·dmir,ii5:trators of:tbe·GCP) '-:"as•acquitted ()f-thes~ ch:at~es by the q:>1:Jtts in 201~. _-· · .,.
; ' .,, - ~

A ca.s'.e s_ucn' a·s1.this· al low; -'us to consider'questt~ns on _aestheti,cs; sudi as ~I$ it the::
i;,oint 'of the WOl'K of art ,t~' be ·apj:)ea(l~g or to-e,e tnougl1t-pr.,,gvoking?" l't a{so -allQWS USCto 1 ;
EensiderS" p_oljt hsal quesliensi sue~ as·t'Who·getsto decide whi~h ·c!'rtists,i' arid
1"' r-- _ .., ·
'{Yhich
.
prO'J~ci\~,,'-, \. 'i'.".t'
. _

m~y or ma.~ ngt r:ecei'{~ fund_ihg frorp tpe state.?";Our eoncern l)ere,:is eJ_t:lieal, and perhaps· ·'· ,Y.
we_ ~an _recognize fhaj a ny_r:nber pf.high]/significapt ethi.cal g(;lestfon:z.,c~n_be·r~i.s ef !Does· : '. ':;
the artist have,an etnical 0.bligati-cir:i to tn,e-se.msibHities of l:iis•audier:ite? Or.does h'e nave· a . ~:~
~9ral ·~~li?ation only to: be•faithf~I t.; his i.Slcm ~nc,l hi~ ;r\J What co~sti~~tes',df(~~se,, a11~ ~ .:_· _ ·y.

~t wh~t~oirtt ~s pffe_rse sev~re·~nou.9h as t~require €01'.'ltrol/>r te> justify re·!Jt~#tLon? Dqes a . ~· ~

~- ,; ir: I , .4 ~~ ~ '' , ~ ! , 1., ~- --. I , ,C, • ' .., . • • • k , c -. 'I!"

·· religious m,aJon,ty haye a monopG>ly G>ti tne upderstariping of what ,s ng:ht or w~on-g? Qo~s .,
O

'·."I. -·,:. ~ -~ . ~ .."" ~ l ·.. ,.. ..: :., V - ~ ~~ . . ·, "'t ' •J : , : :- -

an artist hav~ absol.iJte freed.om of e · pre~si_oni or ate-there proper restr.ictions t0 tfii~h igl;ltt
.
,
'
r ,-.! .J
. -
_ 1 ,. ,,..
'· ·~
~
, ... : '
, _.
_ _
. ,, '·

,·
I
, r r~ _1\ ,· ir·{. ~ -~il -~ _ \t
I
I ·l• :W'· ru.1(,/JJ,,•
I ~f...,_ ~' ~i--::- .• i!.
I
1
I
I l.
I . -

- <ii, •
.
-

- ' ' ' .. !:,-' - - • • , ;

Does the question of th.e·rigl;itn~~s or wroingne.ss oftKis depe·nd on which religi00

- " '

you pelong t<:>? J~-xg,lain your a6swer.-

. ~ .