APANORAMIC PER\PECTIVE ON PHILOIOPHY

Edited by
ROLANDO M. GRIPALDO

:~ ... •· .,.;.; "' -:;,•";•

' . .

- ~j
328

Efhics
FLORENTINO T. TIMBREZA

OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, the student should be able to:

L define ethics;
2. enumerate eleven ethical schools of thought;
3. give the moral principles proposed or advocated by each ethical
theory; ·
4. distinguish between general and special or applied ethics; and
5. differentiate a human act from an act of man.

fall vertebrates, man alone, being gifted with th_e powe_r of reas?n, has a

0 sense of right and wrong. Man has a sense of propriety whICh an ammal does
not have. Only man is aware of moral oughtness; hence, morality makes a
human being act as a human being and its absence makes an animal act as an animal.
It is in this context that morality is both a blessing and a curse to man; a blessing,
insofar as man alone is moral and so he ought to act morally; a curse, because if he
fails to act morally, man becomes less human and even worse than a beast that has no ·
morality.
This truism might have prompted John Stuart Mill to say that "it is better to be
a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied." The point here is that a human being has a sense of propriety
which a pig does not have. A fool enjoys being foolish and asinine while a Socrates
exalts a decent life that is worth living. The big difference makes a person rational and
moral. Filipinos aptly put it thus: Mada Ii ang maging tno, pero mahirnp nng mngpakatao
("It is easy to be born a man but it's hard enough to become human"). For to become
truly human is to be moral.
Being the only moral creatures, humans have survived the law of the
evolutionary process, namely, survival of the fittest. Without morality they would
have destroyed and exterminated themselves into extinction. It thus becomes
increasingly clear that morality plays a very significant role not only in maintaining
a meaningful existence with others but, most of all, for human survival as well. In fact,
 _~,•~-··"-.~ _-~ =:· '
CHAPTER 22: Ethic_s . . · , -
321
the immeasurable value. of. morality
. finds
. itself in human rel at·ions h.1ps. Th"1s 1s
. so
b
because the human ~mg is. a social individual who lives with other individuals.
Hence, without m0rahty no social unit or human relati·onsh·1p can ever survive.
•
in a .boyfriend-girlfriend
. . relationship , for instance , th e boy as a ma Ie re lates
with the _girl as a female; m the ~amily, an individual member lives, eats, plays, and
~leeps with the other_memb~rs; m the school, an individual is a student who plays,
studies, and makes fne~ds with other students. In the state, an individual is a citizen
who exists, works, and associates with fellow citizens. These basic human situations
bring with them certain rights and obligations which are necessary not only to
maintain peaceful and well-ordered relations among the sweethearts, the family
members, the students, and the citizens themselves but also for their own survival.
Such rights and obligations, be they written or unwritten, constitute morality, a
group's or community's code of behavior or, in some ways, its system of values by
which the members are supposed or ought to treat themselves and relate to one another.
This system of values is sometimes referred to as group morality or ethics, without
which the group as such will perish.
Let us analyze the aforesaid human 1:elations. The boyfriend ought to respect
his girlfriend's rights and the latter should likewise regard her boyfriend's rights not
only as human beings with dignity and freedom but also as sweethearts. Any infraction
of one's duty to respect the other's rights in the context of the relationship will defintely
destroy the love affair itself; hence, it will just die a natural death, so to speak.
In the family, the father-daughter relationship is likewise characterized by the
duty-right correlates. It is the father's moral duty to respect and protect his daughter's
rights not only as a human being, but most o(all as a daughter, the flesh of his flesh
and the bone of his bone. In the same vein, the daughter is also morally obliged to
respect her father's rights as a father. A violation of this mutual duty to respect one's
own rights between them gives rise to the much-talked about heinous crime of the
times, namely, incestuous rape or sexual aggression .
The same holds true for a husband-wife relationship in which both have the mutual
obligation to respect each other's rights in order to maintain a happy, orderly, and
lasting family life. The breach or violation of one's duty to the other in this relationship
will cause the loss of one's respect for the other, thereby resulting in a broken home or a
shattered family. It goes without saying then that morality can either make or unmake
an individual; it can either foster or destroy any human relationship.
It is here where we are faced with one of humankind's most persistent problems
thro~ghout the ages: How can we determine whether an act is good or bad, whether
we are acting rightly or wrongly? Answers to these questions have been in abundance
and they constitute the various ethical schools of thought formulated by man over
the years. These ethical theories are usually classified as general ethics which refer to
all the diverse ethical formulations of general and universal concepts and principles
Which serve as the foundation of morality.
322

General ethics rajses the problem of m oral norms and attempts to formulate and
d efe nd a system o f fundamental ethical perceptions that settle which acts are good and
which ones are evil. For every m o ral theo ry these ethical principles are presumed to be
Yalid (hence to be foll owed) by everyone. This makes ethical study interesting and
challenging; fo r just as there are so many cultures, so are there so many moral norms.
\,\Then social relations have become so intricate and complicated due to the
devel opment of new roles and specific functions that an individual should play or
carry o ut in a given workplace, there is a need for the general moral principles of
ethical theo ries to be applied to specific and particular situations in life in which they
are found to be legitimate. In other words, in an attempt to resolve specific moral
problems, general ethical precepts are applied, and thus are now called special or
applied ethics. Professional ethics is an applied type of ethics insofar as it deals with
certain moral precepts or rules by which persons should behave and act in the exercise
of their calling or profession.
This explains why there is legal ethics for lawyers in the practice ofla.w, a teachers'
code of ethics for educators, and nursing ethics, medica1 ethics, business ethics, among
so many others. True to our thesis, ethics grows out of any kind of human relationships,
be it teacher-student, physician-patien t, employer-emplo yee, or labor-managemen t
relations.

W'HAT IS ETHICS?
For our purpose here, ethics may be defined as a practical and normative science,
based on reason, which studies human acts and provides norms for their goodness
and badness. It is otherwise known as moral philosophy, insofar as it deals with
morality, moral rectitude, or the rightness and wrongness of human acts. As a practical
science, ethics deals with a systematized body of knowledge that can be applied to
human action; as a normative science, ethics establishes norms or standards for the
regulation and direction of human actions. Ethical stud_ies are based on reason, insofar
as all proofs of ethical science must find their source in the native power of reason
alone. Ethics investigates facts, analyzes them, and draws from theip practical
applications to particular actions. ·
Ethics does not subscribe to the so-called "divine revelation" for the final answers
or resolutions of certain moral issues . This makes ethics different from religion, for
the latter relies on "revealed truths." Here lies the disparity of two claims: The religionist
contends that there can be no morality without God, whereas the ethician maintains
that morality remains possible even without God . One can determine the goodness
or badness of one's behavior even if one does not believe in God. A nonbeliever also
possesses a sense of right and wrong insofar as he likewise perceives the oughtness of
his moral decisions.
Ethics deals only with human acts insofar as they are performed with intellectual
deliberation and freedom. Personal responsibility presupposes knowledge and volition.
 cHAP'ffiR 22: Ethics
323
This exp~ains why th~ a~ts of irrat iona l bein gs (e.g.
, cats, dogs , etc.) and insa ne peop le
are devo id 0 ~ mo~al sigm fican ce; they are amo ral
bein gs perf orm ing non mor al acts. Let
us purs ue this pom t furth er: Will a pers on be held
mora lly resp onsi ble for all his or her
acts? For hum an acts, yes; but not for acts of man
. The form er are thos e whic h arc done
\,rith know ledg e and full cons ent of the will. One know
s wha t he is doin g and one does it
freely and willingly. The latte r refer s to thos e whic
h are perf orm ed in the abse nce of
eithe r or both of the two elem ents of a hum an act.
In a rape case , for exam ple, the rapi st who thin
ks and beha ves as a norm al
indiv idua l perf orm s a hum an act. The rapis t know
s wha t he is doin·g and does it with
volition. The qual ity of the act, how ever , chan ges
if and whe n the rapi st is an idio t or
a mora lly dera nged indi vidu al. On the othe r hand
, the rape victi m suffe rs from an act
of man , unle ss she/ he has pred ispo sed hers elf/h im.se
lf in a sexually prov ocat ive man ner,
in whic h case the act beco mes volu ntar y in caus
e. Thu s, the rapi st is held mor ally
resp onsi ble for the sexu al assa ult, whe reas the rape
victi m is not.
Rela ted to this mat ter is the prob lem of igno ranc
e: Shou ld a pers on be held
mora lly resp onsi ble for an act perf orm ed in igno
ranc e? Igno ranc e is the abse nce of
know ledg e in an indi vidu al who is supp osed to
know it. It may be eith er vinc ible or
invin cible igno ranc e. The form er is one whic h
can be over com e by exer ting som e
effort, unli ke the latte r whic h can hard ly be remo
ved even if one were to exer t extr a
effort to over com e it. A stud ent, for insta nce, does
not know abou t a test to be give n in
class tomo rrow . This stud ent'w as abse nt duri ng
the prev ious mee ting , but know s the
e-mail addr esse s or cell pho ne num bers of som e
of the peop le in that cl~ss. If one does
not care to inqu ire from them , even if one know
s that they can furn ish the nece ssar y
info rmat ion, this beco mes a case of vinc ible igno
ranc e, for whic h the stud ent is held
mora lly resp onsi ble. One can over com e one's
igno ranc e in such a situa tion if one
wants, but pref ers not to.
It is a case of know ing that one does not know abou
t som ethi ng but pref ers not
to know it, so that one' s igno ranc e is give n as an
excu se of not know ing wha t one is
supp osed to know. One is not intel lectu ally hone
st in this case. Igno ranc e is used as a
mea ns to excu se ones elf from a part icul ar resp
onsi bilit y. How ever , if t~e stud ent in
ques tion exer ts all effo rts to verif y the test, and
yet cann ot obta in t~e nece ssar y
info rmat ion (the page r or cell pho ne num bers of
the-o ther s in that class had bogg ed
dow n for one reas on or anot her) , it wou ld be
a case of invi ncib le igno ranc e. This
stud ent exha uste d all poss ibili ties to over com e
his/ her igno ranc e but this was to no
avail. At least this stud ent was bein g hone st.

ETHICAL THEORIES
Several majo r ethic al theo ries have not only raise
d the prob lem of mor al norm s but
have also attem pted to form ulate and defe nd a syste
m of fund ame ntal ethic al perc eptio ns
~hat dete rmin e whic h acts are goo d and whic h
ones are evil. Ever y mor al theo ry has
its own stre ngth s and wea knes ses depe ndin g
upo n one' s own mor al conv ictio ns.
 . .
. FLORHNTJNOt. TIMBREZA
324

Thi s explain s wh y n o single ethical d octrine, perhaps, can satisfactorily resolve one'
m oral predicam ents. Th e diversity o f moral theories is an explicit acknowledgment 0;
th e compl ex ities o f life, and of the gray areas of morality. We should, therefore, take
the competiti o n, o r even the conflict and the opposition, among the ethical schools of
th o ught not only as challenges for further reflection and discernment; thus , honing
the c ritical mind to continue searching for new horizons of human meanings and
valu es .

Ethical Relativism
Also known as moral relativism, this ethical doctrine claims that there are no
universal or absolute moral principles. Standards of right and wrong are always
relative to a particular culture or so,ciety. The moral opinion of one individual is as
good as any other, ·for there is no objective basis for saying that a particular action is
right or wrong apart from a specific social group. Every culture has its own norm of
moral actions. Some societies consider as right several kinds of actions or practices
that other societies consider to be wrong. To the relativist, one would be considered
too ambitious, if not arrogant, in claiming that one knows absolute and objective
ethical principles that are true, valid, and binding on all peoples.
To illustrate the relativity of moral principles, the arctic Eskimos' practice of
abandoning old folks in the snow and allowing them to die of starvation and exposure
is morally legitimate. Likewise, among some Eskimos, lending or allowing one's wife
to sleep with one's special guest overnight is an expression of hospitality and respect.
This is also true of the olog or trial marriage among some Igo rots and live-in practices
among Americans, which are done in order to test marital compatibility. In some
cultures, a man has an obligation to marry his brother's widow, whereas in other
cultures, the burning of widows is a common practice as an expression of the widow's
until-death-do-u s-part fidelity to her husband.
All these varying traditional practices attest to the moral claims of ethical
relativism. Whether an action is regarded right or wrong depends upon the society
judging it. Qf equal value are the different sets of moral principles, and when an
individual legitimizes one set over another, it is simply the outcome of having been
raised in a particular culture. One happens to be a Muslim so polygamy is morally
acceptable, or one happens to be a Christian so monogamy is the legitimate and lecit
type of marriage. In addition, in one culture only boys are supposed to be circumcised,
but in another, clitoral circumcision among girts is a rightful practice. Thus, every
moral norm is relative insofar as it varies from one culture to another.

Hedonism
Hedonism is an ethical doctrine which claims that pleasure is the norm of
morality. By pleasure, in this context, is meant the satisfaction of desire; hence, the
greater the pleasure, the better. Pleasure is the one and only good; hence, it must be
 ,\•~-,;r:,, : , __ ,.,. .. _"f

CHAPTER 22: Ethics ··

325
the basis for mora l judgm ent. Desir e m ay b e eithe . .
r intellect uaI , aest h et1c, •
. II or physical
(sensuous or sexual) . The exper ience 0 f mte ectua l pl easur e d enves •
. from one's
discovery of truth , the form ulatio n of a certa m theor y or th f I I .
ular prob
l
em that invol ves inteJJ ectua l delib era . ' e 1~a reso ut1on of a
partic
one's disin teres ted feelin g of beho lding ab eaut1.fu 1thmg _tion. Aesthetic pleasure refers to
or scene r d . .
s h . . Y, an appre ciatm g
a work of art; wher eas physical pleasure mean
t e satisf action of sensu ous or sexua l
·
desire.
Aesth etic pleas ure is so uniqu e in itself th a t I.t Is . h .
d c aract enzed by the feeling of
d d . . as oppo sed to sensu o I h. .
awe an 1smte reste ness, , us P easur e w ICh 1s coupl ed with the
ss the sourc e of pleas ure itself 1·k b.
wish or urge to own or posse b . the mora l norm wh , 1 e a sexua 1 o Ject or a
c d Pl emg .
bl
palata e 100. . easur e, , eneve r an act 1s p 1easan t and/o r
.
pleasurable, 1s good and . so It must be done unde r all ci·rcu ms tances; wh eneve r an act
nd as much as possible. In
is unple asant a /o-r pai~f ul, it i~ bad and must be avoid ed
where as an act that
other w?r~ s, what ever act that gives pleas ure is mora lly right;
his/h er own pleas ure and
gives pam IS mora lly wron g. Every perso n, there fore, seeks
avoids pain.
d the hedon ist's
To appre ciate the pleas ure princ iple, one must unde rstan
good, and so it must be
philosophy oflife . For a hedo nist, happ iness is the highe st
good, first and foremost,
made the ultim ate goal oflife . To realize and attain the highest
, is a bund le of desires;
we·have to satisf y our desire s. Man, in tlie hedon ist's perce ption
an indiv idual ceases to
everyone desir es in orde r to live and survi ve. By the time
. Now, as we satisfy our
desire, he cease s to live as well and will ultim ately perish
s us happy. Happiness,
desire, we exper ience pleas ure and the feeling of pleas ure make
be gaine d by satisfying
therefore, is attain able throu gh pleas ure; and the latter can
our desires.
pain, insof ar as the
If we are going to supp ress our desire s, we will exper ience
is the cause of suffering.
suppression of desir e is painf ul. Thus the suppr essio n of desire
if one suffers. To avoid
Suffering is the oppo site of happ iness , for no one can be·ha ppy
princ iple: satisfy your
pain which cause s suffe ring, we have to follow the pleas ure
hedon ist's formu la for a
desire, exper ience pleas ure, and then attain happi ness. The
happy life is: "Eat, drink , and be merry , for tomo rrow you die."

Stoicism
erenc e to pleas ure as
As an ethic al doctr ine, stoic ism consi ders apath y or indiff
n for their exem p!ary
the moral norm . Its advo cates are called "stoic s;' who are know
suffe ring attitu de. Th_eir
patience, self-s acrifi ce, ·perse veran ce, forbe aranc e, and long-
e, conte ntme nt, seremty,
highest virtue s or ideal s are ment al tranq uility , temp eranc
is for this r~a_son th~t t~e
and comp osure . Of all these , the great est is peace of mind . It
rturb ab1ht y which 1s
basis for mora l actio n for them is apatheia or a state of impe
attainable throu gh apath y or indif feren ce to pleas ure.
es from pleas ure, the
Dispu ting the hedo nist's claim that lastin g happi ness deriv
to an endle ss cycle of
stoics conte nd that pleas ure as the basis for mora l actio n leads
328
• s Whi le it is true that the satis facti on of desi
plea sure s an d pain · . re gives us pl
and the latte r mak es us happ y, this happ mes s lasts . easure
only for a whil e and so we desire
.
agam an d go thro ugh the sam e cycle endl essly. . Thu s, the mor e we satisfy our d .
the mor e we suffer, inso far as the mor e we desu e . . es1re,
for furth er sat1sfact1on which is only
mom enta ry.
To attai n lasti ng happ ines s, we have to mini mize
our desir es and passions, if we
cann ot supp ress them altog ethe r. Our firm reso
lutio n t? supp ress our passions (or,
at least to mini mize them ) will enab le us to deve
lop the virtu es of self-discipline, self-
cont rol, self- conq uest, and self- mast ery whic h,
for the stoic s, are very significant in
the mora l deve lopm ent of an indiv idua l. The mos
t diffi cult indiv idua l to discipline is
ones elf, so the stoic s say, but once a pers on learn
s to disc iplin e hims elf, then he can
disci pline all that are supp osed to be disc iplin
ed. Acco rding ly, a pers on who can
cont rol hims elf can cont rol all that are supp osed
to be cont rolle d; and one who can
conq uer hims elf can conq uer all that are supp osed
to be conq uere d.
For the stoic s, the valu e of self- cont rol or self- disc
iplin e enab les an individual
to attai n apatheia or the state of men tal peac e or
impe rturb abili ty, in whic h one has
com plete cont rol of his mind anq body so that
noth ing else can ever annoy him.
Auth entic and lasti ng happ iness can only com e from
men tal tranq uility . An individual,
then , who is at peac e with hims elf and with othe rs
attai ns men tal seren ity and is thus
happ y. This is the goal of stoic ism as an ethic al doct
rine .

Epicureanism
Whe reas hedo nism teach es an all-o ut plea s~re norm
of mor ality and stoicism,
an indif feren ce to plea sure or no plea sure at all,
epic urea nism profe sses moderate
plea sure as the mora l norm . Mod erate plea sure
, for the Epic urea ns, is one that is
cons onan t with reaso n, whic h is neith er too muc
h nor too little . Any thing that is
take n in excess is bad, so we shou ld avoi d the
extre mes and live moderately and
pleasurably. We shou ld eat, drin k, sleep, work , and
have sex mod erate ly. What the
Epic urea ns mean by pleas ure is not fleeting but perm
anen t, or that state of deep peace
and perfe ct cont entm ent in whic h we feel secu re
agai nst the storm s oflif e.
The Epic urea ns agre e with the .hed onis ts that pain
mus t be avoided, so that
even the plea sure whic h leads to pain mus t be evad
ed. Ther e are three causes of pain:
the excessive use, abuse, and the nonu se _ofbo dily
orga ns. Too muc h sex (i.e., overuse
or misu se) as well as no sex at all (non use of sex orga
ns) caus e pain ; and abusing one's
self in what ever way (e.g., smok ing, intox icati on,
and drug addi ction ) is both painful
and d~ng erou s to one's heal th. To avoi d thes e extre
mes ( whic h may cause pain and
suffe nng) , one shou ld obse rve mod erati on in all unde
rtaki ngs (i.e. , mod erate or slight
use of bodi ly orga ns) .
. . _T he Epic urea ns cons ider prud ence as the
rnd ividu al to gove high est virtu e whic h enables an
rn hims elf by the use of reas on . Intel ligen t choi
ce and practical
wisd om are need ed to ~ea~ ure plea sure agai nst
pain , "acc eptin g pain s that lead to
grea ter plea sure s and reJec tmg plea sure s that lead
to grea ter pain s." Of grea t interest
 321

and significance. are the Epicurean's two kinds of p Ieasure, name Iy, d ynamIC
· an d
Passive. Dynamic
( .
pleasures are those which are accomp • db
d d • k.
• .k 11
ame y pam, 11 e sexua ove,
gluttony, ame, an r_m mg (we may now add drug addiction). For instance, sexual
pleasure is accom~amed by fatigue, remorse, and depression. Exhaustion ·dampens
the peak of orgasmic ec st acy, whereas sexual inadequacy and weakening would cause
a remorseful and depressing mood.
Overeating is also characterized by pain which may cause a person to vomit or
to have indigestion. Fame has been the cause of many personal frustrations and family
breakdowns. And alcoholic drinking leads to headaches and terminal ailments. It is in
this light that Epicureans dispute the hedonist's dictum: "Eat, drink, and be merry for
tomorrow you die:' It would be all right, they say, if an individual, after eating, drinking,
and merrying in all abandon today, would really die tomorrow. But more often than _
not, one miserably suffers today for what he/she has eaten, drunk, and sexually enjoyed
yesterday (e.g., STD patients, terminal patients oflung cancer due to heavy smoking
and drinking, etc.). Passive pleasures, the second type, are those that are not
accompanied by pain, like friendship, philosophical conversation, playing with kids.
Th~se kinds of pleasure ought to be cultivated, for the good life consists in acquiring
pleasures of this sort.
As ethical guidelines for moral decisions, the Epicureans teach about three kinds
of desire: natural and necessary, natural but unnecessary, and unnatural and
unnecessary desires. Natural and necessary desire refers to our need for food and
water, rest, and sleep, which should be satisfied moderately. Natural but unnecessary
desire refers to man's need for sex and marriage. Sexual desire is natural but an
individual can still survive without it. It is optional for everyone. The third type,
unnatural and unnecessary desire, refers to man's need for power, wealth, fame,
smoking, drinking, and other vices. For the Epicureans, aside from being not natural
and not necessary, these needs are dangerous and detrimental to an individual. Power,
wealth, and fame are common causes of a person's spiritual ruin and physical
destruction; the same is true with smoking, drinking, and drug addiction.

Utilitarianism
This ethical doctrine states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is
determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences. There is one and only
one moral principle, namely, the principle of utility: "Actions are good insofar as they
tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to promote unhappiness." We should
consider the possible effects of each action or moral decision. We ought to choose the
action (among many other possible ones) that produces the most benefits (comfort
or happiness) at the least cost of pain or unhappiness. Some unhappiness may possibly
result from the action we take, but what matters is the greatest possible balance of
happiness over unhappiness for all individuals affected.
For a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, for instance, she may
justify her decision to discontinue pregnancy according to the utility principle. She is
 · · ~- FLORE~TINOT,Tl"'B
av1 REZA
328 , .. •

. h chool student and still too young to assume the responsihilit

a teenage d h 1g s .. h t·c d Yof
parent h oo d . An d ast·de from the sexual
.
aggress10n s e su 1ere at the hands 0 f h
- tc
. t·h c
rapist, . her womb is terribly deformed and her poor parents can ha di
e 1etus m r y
afford the burden of bringing up a gravely malformed baby. He~ce, the decision to
discontinue her pregnancy will definitely bring about the well-being and comfort for
the whole family.
Bent on getting rid of any strain of alleged individu~lism and subjectivism in
their moral theory, utilitarians give an alt~rnati;.e form_ulat_1on of the_ utili~ principle;
namely, the principle of the greatest happmess: An act10n is good (nght) insofar as it
produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; _ba~ (_wrong) insofar
as it produces more harm than benefit for the greatest number of md1v1duals." Hence,
faced with a moral decision, one should not just consider one's happiness or benefit,
or the happiness of a particular person or a group of persons, but the overall balance
- of the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people. Equal benefits or happiness
for the greatest number of individuals must be taken into consideration.
Everyone's well-being must be considered, for each invididual is to count just
as much as the next. Hence, the more people who profit from a particular moral
decision, the better. This can be carried out by remaining impartial and as
disinterested as possible. One must be personally detached and disengaged.
Utilitarians describe this point as the attitude of a "benevolent spectator" who
kindly watches over the welfare or happiness of all concerned, without taking a self-
serving, active part in the process. One must intend to please everybody as much as
possible; if one cannot please all, at least, the greatest number of individuals must
be benefited by the moral act or decision.

Situationism
This ethical theory states that the moral norm depends upon a given situation,
but whatever the situation may be, one must always act in the name of Christian love.
A situation in this context refers to a human condition or any state of moral affairs
and issues that demands judgment or action. To abort or not to abort a fetus in a
pregnancy caused by rape exemplifies a given situation. To inject a lethal drug into a
ter_minally ill p~tien_t at his own request in order to relieve him completely from terrible
pam and suffenng is another. One must decide on any of these situations in the name
of Christian love .
. . What is Christian love? The situationist cites three types oflove, namely: eros,
philia, and agape. Erotic love means sexual love, which normally relates a man to a
woman ' but it may also exist be tween a - b
tom oy and another woman or between a gay
th
an~ ano er male. ~ili~l love refers to the affection that binds a parent to his/her
child, a brother to his sister ab th
. . ' ro er to h 1s
• b rather, or . .
a sister to her sister. It turns
out to be ~roti~ m such cases as when a father falls in love with his own daughter, or a
brather with his own sister Both
· eros an d Ph 1ha
..
are ambivalent. Either one becomes
or deflects to the other or vice-versa.
 329
The third type is agapeic love which refers to one's care, concern, and kindness
wwards others. Chri st ian love, according to the situationis t, best exemplifie s agape.
Love of and ~or ?ne's neighbor (in its biblical sense) just as Christ himself exemplifie d
is a love which IS concerned for the well-being of another, regardless of his station in
life. It is characteri zed by charity, respect, and responsibi lity to and for the other. This
is the kind of love by which an individual should act and settle what is right and
wrong, just and unjust, in any complicat ed situation.
Why not eros or philia? These two are biased and partial; they have preference s
and inclination s. They are usually motivated by selfish interests and ulterior motives.
One, for example, may perform and extend medical attention to another person with
the end in view of some sexual favor that one may derive from the other. A surgeon
may decide on slowly and painlessly ending the life of his/her own grandmoth er,
under the pretext of peaceful death while, in fact, the surgeon is simply in a hurry to
get his/her inheritanc e from her.
In view of the foregoing, the most reliable norm by which to settle moral issues
is agapeic love, according to the situationis t. Only one thing is intrinsical ly good,
namely, agapeic love: nothing else. If we base our moral decisions on it, we cannot be
wrong. Thi~ kind .of love goes beyond racism and religionis m, sexism and
ethnocentr ism. Christian love is literally benevolen ce; it is a matter of loving the
unlovable, the unlikable, the uncongeni al, the unrespons ive; it wills the neighbor's
good whether we like him or not. Agape transcends the person's outward features or
traits, and reaches out to the core of his being, a subject, an I, a fellow human being.
For the situationis t, an evil means does not always nullify a good end; for only the
end justifies the means: nothing else; it all depends upon the situation. Circumsta nces
do alter cases. An act which is right in some circumstances may be wrong in others, that
is, we may do what would be evil in some situations, if, in this one, agape gains the
balance: "the relative weight of the ends and means and motives and consequen ces all
taken together, as weighed by agapeic love." To illustrate the point, ifby lying I can save
the life of another person, then by all means I have to lie. If and when the emotional and
spiritual well-being of the parents and children in a particular family, under a given
situation or circumstan ce, can best be served by divorce, then so be it, as love requires
it. In both instances, agapeic love gains the balance.

Mightism
Otherwise known as power ethics, mightism claims that might is right. Might in
this context is taken as force, strength, and capacity to rule. It also means power,
influence, control, and dominatio n. As an ethical doctrine, it professes that whenever
an act enhances one's strength or capacity to rule or control others, it is good or
morally legitimate; whereas if it causes one's ineffectiveness, weakness, and feebleness,
it is regarded as wrong. Hence, mightism legitimizes the exercise of power, the-use of
force and violence, if necessary, insofar as these promote one's capacity to control or
influence others. By way of implicatio n, mightism takes on the Darwinian principle of
 .;}:'--· ...
f:LORiiN.11NOT. TIMBREZA
330
nature: "survival of the fittest." Only_ those who are brave enough to chart their destiny
by fair or foul means are fit to su rv1ve.
. For the mightist, rulers and the strong ones ~ictate what is just and unjust, what
?f
is righ~ or wrong. Whenever an act promotes the mterest the stronger, it is just and
right; and any act that weakens hi~/her is wr~ng and unJust. The ruler's authority is
absolute and it does not compromise or bargam. The weak ones or the subordinates
have no choice but to obey and/or follow. Regarded as morally wrong are acts of
disobedience, resistance, revolt, and disloyalty to the ruler. All actions or policies that
will foster the ruler's authority are morally licit, highly commendable, and laudable.
For the individual person, any act that will enhance his strength or power is
good, whereas any act that will retard or hinder its growth is evil and, thus, must be
avoided. All that proceeds from power is good and all that springs from weakness is
bad. Goodness is nothing but the expression of an individual's will to power and all
other motives are not morally sound. Reason is an instrument of the will, and the will
is narrowed down to a single purpose: the will to power which is the safe guide of all
moral actions. It is for this reason that mightism professes what is known as master
morality, i.e., the morality of the strong, the virile, and the strong-willed. This type of
morality values courage, self-reliance , hig·hminded ness, candor, and creative
leadership; it scorns cowardice, humility, sympathy, and weakness. Exploitation is a
consequence of the intrinsic will to p'ower, which is precisely the will tq life or survival;
passive submission is the opposite of this will to life.
On mightistic principles, any ruler or person in authority, ifhe wants to maintain
a strong government, may use every means necessary, fair or foul, to implement
government policies or laws. The ruler should resort to both law and force to govern
the people. Iflaw proves ineffectual, then force is called for, if only to maintain peace and
order. In this case, the end justifies the means, even though that end is for the benefit of
the tyrant. If necessary, one must do evil as the only alternative to succeed in governance.
In short, one may use evil means in order to attain good ends. Mightism underlies the
ideology of the terrorists and the rebels, coup plotters, revolutionists, and warmongers:

Deontologism
Also known as duty ethics, deontologism stresses duty as the norm of moral
actions. The deontologist is interested in these questions: What makes an act moral
as distinguished from a nonmoral one? What is the difference between a person who
acts morally and one who does not? Immanuel Kant, the prominent advocate of this
ethical doctrine, teaches that 011e acts morally ( i.e., performs a moral act) if and only
if one does whatever one is obliged to do. But what is that act which an individual is
obliged to do? It is one that is performed or done from a sense of duty or obligation.
Thus, what makes an act moral is its being done out of duty, as distinguished from
acts done for other reasons. Anyone, for example, who does something merely because
one feels li~e doing it (say, out of inclination) is not acting morally, is not a moral
person, or 1s he/she performing a moral act.
 CHAPTER 22: Ethics ,
331
A security guard who performs h · · b · ·
. . ·h . is JO out of- the mere desire to do so, or inclines
•ds 1t rather t an something else ·IS not. act_.mg morally or domg . .
towar . ' a moral act. It 1s
when a security guard recognizes th e d uty to watch over m . . . that he 1s ·
on IY his Job
·neiy a moral person, acting moral I dd · • • . ·
genu l . . . . . Y, an omg a d1st111ct1vely moral act. Duty m
. t·10n t o d o
• 1ma
ought to do , d esp1•t e th e me
this, context,
. 1s that which
. , md1v1dual
an .
otherw1~e. Hence, domg ones du~ ts doing what one is obliged to do. This leads to the
distinct10n between an act done zn accord with duty and an act done from a sense of
duty. A doctor, for exat~ple, who performs his medical functions merely out of the
desire to do so or ~ut of· fear of being accused of negligence is acting in accord with
duty. Hence, such ac~s are nonmoral, i.e., without any moral significance. Doctors act
from a sense of duty if they rec9gnize that there is a special obligation to their patients
because of their relationships with them.
Physicians who understand the nature of such an obligation and act upon it
accordingly are indeed moral persons or ethical individuals; otherwise, they are not.
Thus, for the deontologist, the essence of morality is to be found in the motive from
which an act is done. The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the
motive from which it is being carried out, regardless of the consequences which doing
so or not doing so will-produce. The motive here refers to the duty that one ought to
perform; it is what makes the act morally good. A person who does such an act is a
person of good will. A good person is a moral one who acts from a respect for duty,
and one who acts from a sense of duty is a person of good will.
How can one know one's duty in a given situation, so that one may act accordingly?
Is there a test for determining what one's duty will be under a particular set of
circumstances? The duty ethician, Kant, says that to be able to determine whether or
not one acts from a sense of duty in a particular situation, one must judge his action in
the light of how it will appear if it was to become a universal precept or code of behavior.
One must test the act's universalizability by means of the categorical imperative: "Act
only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law."
An illustration will be helpful. Let the situation be the moral issue of abortion.
How do I know whether it is my duty to practice or not to practice abortion? I have to
test its universalizability: "Every pregnant woman, without exception, whether she be
my sister, mother, or daughter, who is in a situation similar to mine, should abort her
defective fetus." If I want this precept to become a universal norm binding everyone,
then I know it is my duty to abort my malformed fetus. But ifl don't want it to become
true to all and give certain exceptions and rationalizations for other cases, then I
know it is my duty not to expel my unborn baby, deformed though it may be. This, for
the deontologist, is how we can determine our duty in a particualr situation so that
we may act accordingly.

Humanistic Ethics
Known under various names such as eudaemonism, Nichomacheani sm,
perfectionism, self-realizationism, or self-actualizationism, humanistic ethics claims
332

that self-realiz ation is the true . ultimate standard of morality. Self-realization is

understoo d as self-fulfillment, fullness oflife, and ful] developme nt of all functions of an
individual . And inasmuch as the aim of self-realiz ation ethics is the developme nt of the
entire self, the greatest good then is the full realization of an individual . Any act that
promotes self-realiz ation is good; whereas all acts that hinder it are evil. Whatever
behavior is conducive to self-actual ization or the fullness of personalit y growth is right,
and any conduct that serves to destroy or stunt human life and personalit y is wrong.
Humanistic ethics is life-affirm ing and death-den ying. All that serves life is good
and all that serves death is evil. That is to say, the good is reverence for life, all that
enhances life, growth, and the unfolding of self. Evil is all that retards growth, stifles
life, narrows it down, and cuts it into pieces. Hence, the joy that derives from self-
fulfillmen t is virtuous, whereas the sadness that follows from failure to attain it is
sinful. In this regard, one must seek self-fulfilling acts and avoid self-destro ying ones.
For example, all acts or vices that are detriment al to health must be shunned, such as
smoking, alcoholism , drug abuse, too much intake of fatty and sweet foods, risky
games, and experimen tation.
Insofar as man is a social being and personalit y is a social product, humanistic
ethics is not only individual but also social in its emphasis and outlook. No man is an
island, so to speak. Man is a being-with -others in the world, hence he cannot live the
good life apart from others. No person can fully develop himself independe ntly of his
fellowmen . I need others, for instance, in order for me to realize myself as others need
me so that they can realize themselves. I need their need for me as they need my need
for them. Self-realiz ation has a dimension of reciprocity , for the meaning of our lives
is related to the presence of others.
The true self, therefore, is the social self, insofar as personal well-being is bound
up with social well-being . Personal developm ent involves social developme nt, for
self-enrich ment is tied up with social enhancem ent. In this context, cooperatio n, unity,
solidarity, harmony, mutual helpfulnes s, brotherho od, peace, and universalis m are
among the virtues of humanisti c ethics. All acts or activities that promote these virtues
are good in themselve s, as they provide the social condition wherein personal self-
fulfillment is realized. On the contrary, all acts that stifle and obstruct the establishment
of peace and order, harmony and fraternity, growth and prosperity , solidarity and
globalism are deemed bad and inhuman.
For Aristotle, the foremost proponen t of humanisti c ethics, self-realiz ation
consists in the fulfillmen t and actualizati on of man's threefold nature: vegetative,
sentient, and rational. Each must be fulfilled as the realization of each is accompan ied
by the state of pleasure and happiness . The physical body represents the vegetative
aspect which must be cultivated by wholesom e food and proper exercise, e.g., one
must eat, drink, work (or any form of bodily activity, for activity is the essence oflife),
and rest in order to survive and keep oneself physically fit. Any act, therefore, that
pertains to the developm ent of one's vegetative nature is good and must be done;
whereas, any act that stifles its actualizati on is bad and must be avoided. For example,
 333
to starve oneself to death is bad enot lh b · · .
, . . , . . . tg , UL lo lllJUre or hurt oneself so as Lo threaten
. hfe 1sheven, worse.
ones . 1 LaIL o one,s h ea It I1 an db o d'II y we 11 -
k' L1kew1se,. vices' arc cle·tr·,·,ne,
s
bemg, sue_ as_ mo . mg,,alcoholtsm, and drug ahu se, because these would jeopardize
the actuahzat10n of- ones vegetative nature.
As a sentient being, man's sensual feelings and emoli o ns, too, mu sl be fully
developed through appropriat e sex activily within the limils o f social convention s.
The suppression of the full devclo pm enl rif one's sentient nature will create some
sort of disequilibrium in a person's nature, and any form of imhalan ce in thi s
respect would be painful. Th e full rea lizati on of man's sentient nature would no t
necessarily make an indi vidual happy and self-fulfill ed. Human beings are rational
animals. Th e full reali zati o n o f th eir vegelative and se ntient nature ke eps th em
longing for mo re lasting sati sfa cti o n. Food and shelt er and sex arc in suffici ent to
quench their thir st fo r sel f-reali za ti on. If food, shelter, and se x wo uld be enough
requisit es for sel f-fu Ifil Im en t, th en wea lth , power, bank acco unt s, fla shy cars,
mansions , beach reso rt s. kin gdo ms, and sex ex pl oit s co uld make an indi vidual
self-fulfill ed and h appy.
Aristotl e, hmveve r, th ought oth erwise. A n indi vidual mu st also develop and
actualize his/her ratio nal nature. O ne develops hi s/ her rati onal nature in the pursuit
of scientific kn owledge, ph ilosophica l l ruth , political ac ti vit y. reli gious commitment,
and creative, arti sti c end eavo r. T he hig hes t. ri ches t, and sup ern al fo rm of self-
reaiizati on, th en, stems from th e full cult iva ti un of man's highes t nature, nam ely,
rational. Man's rati onalit y is hi s mos t CoJ -likc nature, in Aristotl e's view, and once it
is actualized and rea li ze d, th en he is blessed with a se nse of shee r joy, euph ori a, and
happiness, a we ll-bein g which man alone is capa bl e of experiencin g. Fo r man, tnen,
the life accordin g to rea so n is th e bes t and mos t pleasant , sin ce reaso n mo re than
anything else is man.

Natural Law Ethics

This ethi cal doctrin e teaches th at th ere ex ists a natural moral law whi ch is
manifested by the natural li ght orhum an reaso n, demandin g the prese rva tio n of th e
natural order and forbiddin g it s vi olati on. l:o r the natural law cthkian , the so urce of
the moral law is reaso n it self, whi ch directs us toward s th e goo d as th e goal of our
action, and that good is di scoverabl e within our nature. In its operati on, reaso n
recogni zes th e basic prin ciple "do go od , avoid evil ;' which is oth erwise kn ow n as the
voice of reason or voice of conscier.ce. Thi s is the moral norm , in so far as an individu al's
natural capacity to determine what is ri ght fr o m what is wron g is no less than th e
manifestation of the moral law.
Accordingly, we kn ow we arc acting rightly if we heed th e voice of reaso n; we
know we are actingly wrongly if we act against it. I kn_o w I am doi~g ~h e ri~hl thing if
and when I follow the voice of conscience; oth erwise, I f- ecl a se nse of guilt, sell-reproach,
or remorse. This explains why natural law ethician s say we cann ot run away fr om our
conscience, as Judas Iscariot all egedly tried but fail ed when he betrayed Jes us.
 FLORENTINOT. TIMBREZA
334
Th~ good for the natura l ethicia n is that which is suitab le to and proper
i
(as bei~r
human nature . Thus, whene ver an act is suitab le to human nature as such
er it i!
endow ed with reason and free will), then it is good and it must be done; whenev
know that
not prope r for human nature , it is bad and must be avoide d. How does one
whether or
a particu lar act is or is not suitab le to human nature as such? By means of
contrary
not ·o ne is follow ing and obeyin g the voice of reason ( consci ence) or acting
as the
to it. It is for this reason that some natura l law ethicis ts consid er human nature
proxim ate norm of morali ty.
First, accord ing to the natura l law ethicia n, the good is built into human nature,
l and
and it is that to which we are directe d by our natura l inclina tions as both physica
dealings
rationa l creatu res. We have three natura l inclina tions: self-pr eserva tion, just
to preserve
with others , and propag ation of our specie s. We are natura lly incline d
moralist is
our life. Self-d estruc tion, first of all, is unnatu ral as far as the natura l law
ourselves
concer ned. This natura l inclina tion urges us to care for our health , not to kill
is wrong;
or put oursel ves in danger . Thus, any act that violate s this basic inclina tion
molation,
it contra dicts human nature as the Creato r intend ed it to be. Suicide, self-im
any act that
and puttin g onesel f in unnec essary jeopar dy are by nature evil; wherea s
by nature
promo tes health , vim, vigor, and vitalit y (physi cal exerci se, walkin g), is
health, are
good. Even smoki ng and habitu al drinki ng, which are detrim ental to one's
not suitab le to human nature ; hence, they are evil.
and
Secon d, reason by nature leads us to treat others with the same dignity
of human
respec t that we accord ourselves. This is the basis of justice which arises out
ations,
relatio ns. Any act of injusti ce, such as subjec ting others to indign ities, degrad
to man,
and inhum anities , is agains t nature . Moreo ver, all forms of man's inhum anity
deception,
such as exploi tation or sexplo itation , 9ppres sion, seduct ion, abduc tion,
ment, and
swind ling, cheati ng, kidna pping for ransom , murde r, rape, harass
intimi dation are by nature evil.
as a
Third, we are natura lly incline d to perpet uate our specie s which is viewed
tion . Each
natura l good. We are oblige d not to perver t or thwar t this natura l inclina
ctive
memb er of the human organi sm serves a purpos e intend ed by nature . The reprodu
the human
organs are by their very nature design ed to reprod uce and to perpet uate
purpose
species. Any act of interve ntion, therefo re, that will frustra te and stifle the very
is unnatural
for which the human reprod uctive organs have been design ed by nature
purpose
and, hence, evil. Accordingly, any form of contra ceptiv e would defeat the very
being and,
for reprod uction , for it could destro y the reprod uctive organ' s reason for
hence, its use is agains t the natura l moral law.

Pragmatism
ts
Pragm atism is more of a theory of knowl edge than of morali ty. Moral interes
e of the
and moral langua ge, howev er, appea r in almos t every impor tant passag
interesting
pragm atist's writin g on the subjec t (partic ularly Willia m James) . It will be
and see
to attemp t an ethica l slant of the pragm atist's conce ption of truth and good
 335
how it could be applied to the moral realm " . JI .
, especia Ywith regard tom k. d · ·
and moral reasoning. As an epistemol . . a mg ec1s10ns
valid form of knowledge is one whic o~1cal v1e_w, pragmatism holds that the true and
. . . . h ts practical, workable, beneficial, and useful
Bemgpractzcal 1s that whICh we can practice d d . .·
. h an pro uces results; bemg workable 1s
that wh1c we can put to work, can be worked t d k . . . .
1 db . . ou , an wor s. Bemg benefzczal, it
bene fiits pe~p e; an emg useful, it can be used to attain good results. And how can
one determme whether or not an idea or knowledge
·
· I, use ful , an d
is prac f1caI, b ene fi cia
?
workab 1e. .By means of its consequences or results·, oth erw1se, · It ·
· mconsequent1a
· 1s · J
and me~nmgless .. For exa~ple, the effectivity or ineffectivity of a student's study
method 1s determmed by his final grades.
Our point of departure here is the pragmatist'.s view that "truth happens to an
idea; it becomes true and is made true by events. Its verity is, in fact, an event, a process:
the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification . Its validity is the process of its
validation:' Truth is not a quaHty or property of ideas; truth is made true by events and
happenings. How can we know, for instance, whether or not the idea that "Sprite tastes
good'' is true? By tasting it, of course. So the tasting process is the happ·e ning or event
that makes the idea true. This way of viewing truth bears a startling significance in the
medical context, e.g., drug testing. To test the effectiveness or toxicity of a particular
drug, it must be tested on consen'ting patients. It is the process of testing (the event or
happening) that attests to its toxicity or right dosage, as the case may be.
The pragmatist's consideration of the practicality, usefulness, workability, and
beneficiality of the true and valid nature of knowledge can render a disparately needed
service to applied ethics by providing a means for settling moral disputes. With regard
to the use of placebos in drug testing, for example, or the practice of using humans in
medical experimentation, one may arrive at a decision by raising such questions as: Is
it useful and beneficial to the patients involved in the process, as well as to others who
will benefit from the knowledge to be gained? Is it workable and practical? It becomes
increasingly clear that pragmatism, though primarily a theory of truth or knowledge,
may prove to be an effective method of justifying one's moral decisions.
In the medical context, for instance, one can gauge whether a particular act or
moral judgment is right or wrong, legitimate or not, by considering its practical
usefulness and beneficiality to a patient: Should the patient be told about the nature
of his/her serious illness? Would it be more practical to withhold the information for
the patient's own good? Should lying be the more practical thing to do ifby doing so
I can save the life of another? Would it rather be more humane and beneficial for a
grossly deformed fetus to be aborted now than to let it see the light of day only to
suffer and live a life of unbearable misery?
On the divorce issue: Would it be more workable and beneficial for both
husband arid wife to dissolve their marriage for the sake of their own children, who
have been greatly affected psychologically by their horrendous and violent quarrels?
How would one determine whether or not one and one's prospective life partner are
physically, psychologically, and sexually compatible? Of course, by living together on
33fi

a trial basis. It must be obvious by now why pragmatism has been called
"experimentalism." To determine whether an idea is true of false, it must be tried and
tested by experiment. Truly enough, pragmatism has permeated the American way of
life, its morality and culture.

POSTCRIPT
Our reflection on the various schools of thought has shown that each one has its own
strengths and legitimacy as well as weaknesses and flaws. This is an explicit
acknowledgment of the perplexities and apparent incomprehensibility of human
nature. That an ethical theory ·is open to objections, however, is not necessarily a
sufficient ground for dismissing it or for giving up the attempt to assimilate and
discern its good points and establish a more acceptable view. The conflicting teachings
of these theories should serve as grounds for further reflection and discernment, thus
participating in the rigorous search for new moral perspectives and paradigms.
Every individual, or another person in his/her behalf, must make moral decisions
for one reason or another, be it in sickness or in health, in lov.e or in strife, in poverty
or in wealth, in the.prime oflife or in the brink of death. Moral decision-making does
not discriminate: it knows no gender, color or creed; it knows no profession, social
status, or age . Making moral decisions is the high price we have to pay for enjoying
freedom of action. The first man to set foot on the moon made a fearless decision. The
first Filipino physician to perform a heart transplant likewise made a bold decision.
The same may be said of the Filipino health care professionals who conducted the
first kidney and bone _marrow transplants. A~d the Filipino couple who practice a
certain method of family planning ·also makes a crucial decision. They are all brave
individuals "who dare while others shy." We can do no less in our own way, in our own
life situations, and in our own world of circulation .
Not only is human life a series of situations which every individual has to
surmount in order to continue living; it is likewise a series of moral decisions which
every person has to make in order to survive. Everyone will thus become the totality
of his/her decisions and choices. For as one decides, so does one reap the outcomes of
such decisions; and as one chooses, so does one create ones elf. You shape your own
destiny, your own world, through your moral decisions. You are, indeed, made by the
decisions you make.
Moral predicaments scourge and rend us, but decide we must; for it is we who
will ultimately bear the burden and consequences of our moral decisions. Individuals
who hesitate to decide by and for themselves will become contented with mere
prescriptions, proscriptions, and routines. But those who dare to confront their moral
problems will grow in self-awareness and fre edom. This is the paramount and
overriding message of ethics.
 337
REVIEW' QUESTIONS

A. IDENTIFICATION

1,2. - - - - - - - a n d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ are the two kinds of pleasure for

the Epicureans.

3. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ is another name for duty ethics .

4,5, 6. The situationist recognizes that

------~
and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ are the three types of love.

7. According to _ _ _ _ _ ___, there are no universal or absolute moral

principles.

8. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ is the ethical theory which teaches -that pleasure is the

norm of morality.

9. According to _ _ _ _ _ __, the sole moral principle is the principle of

utility.

10. The stoics claim t h a t - - - - - - ~ or the state of inmperturbabili ty, is

the highest good.

1 I. According t o - - - - - - ~ the practicality and beneficiality of an act is

one way of determining its rightness or wrongness.

12. For the natural law ethician, the moral norm is - - - - -

--

13, 14, 15. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , and _ _ _ _ _ __

comprise Aristotle's threefold nature of man .

B. MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Man is - - - - - -

(a) immortal (c) a moral being

(b) amoral
338 FLORENTINOT. TIMBREZA

2. The moral norm for deontologism is _ _ _ _ __

(a) conscience (c) duty

(b) love

3. "Might is right" is advocated by _ _ _ _ _ _.

(a) hedonism (c) power ethics

(b) situationism

4. Kant's ethics is based on his concept of _ _ _ _ __

(a) survival of the fittest (c) categorical imperative

(b) voice of reason

5. Eudaemonism is another name for _ _ _ _ _ _.

(a) deonologism (c) humanistic ethics

(b) stoicism (d) utilitarianism

6. "Moderate pleasure" is the moral norm for the _ _ _ _ __

(a) natural law ethician (c) epicurean

(b) power ethician (d) humanist

7. Pragmatism has been called _ _ _ _ __

(a) stigmatism (c) experimentalism

(b) cynicism (d) socialism

8. For the situationist, the moral norm is _ _ _ _ __

(a) power (c) consequence of an act

(b) agapeic love

9. _ _ _ _ _ _ teaches, "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die:'

(a) stoicism (c) ethical relativism

(b) hedonism

C ESSAY

1. Can any social unit survive without morality? Explain.

cHAPTER 22: Ethics .
339

2. Which is better, to have moral principles or none at alJ?

3. Define ethics and explain the key concepts in the definition.

4. Explain the distinction between "human act" and "act of man."

5. Can there be morality without God? Discuss.

6. · Explain: "It is easy to be born a man but it is hard enough to become human ."

7. Should a person be held morally responsible for an act performed in ignorance?

8. Should an individual be held morally responsible for all his acts?