Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unit 4: Ethical Frameworks and Principles in Moral Disposition
Unit 4: Ethical Frameworks and Principles in Moral Disposition
IN MORAL DISPOSITION
In the succeeding discussions, the four mental frameworks are discussed - Virtue
Ethics, the Natural Law, the Utilitarian Theory and Kant’s Theory. The reason for this
is that before the preparation and conceptualization of the suggested curriculum in
Ethics by the Commission on Higher Education CHED, a survey of the different
frameworks commonly used by Filipinos has been undertaken. The survey revealed
that these are most commonly used frameworks.
People are unaware that they are utilizing these frameworks in the way they deal with
their situation in life. The manner in which they decide and act upon those decisions
are reflective of the models mentioned above. By studying them, people will be able
to maximize the benefits they can get from the models with which they are working
with. Furthermore, learning them will help them realize the advantages and
disadvantages of the models in use. Another benefit is that the study of the different
models can show the limitations and weaknesses of the models. Such awareness can
make people more critical and avoid the pitfalls inherent in each of the models.
TOPIC 1: VIRTUE ETHICS
Introduction
What makes virtue ethics different from the other ethical frameworks is that it is
anchored on the character of the individual. By this, it should be understood that the
application or the practice of the model is not based on the knowledge of the
framework per se but on the character of the individual. Someone does or reacts in a
particular manner because it is his or her character reacting in that manner. The
person who has the habit of practicing kindness is most likely to display the virtue
when it is called for. It is unlikely that he or she will react violently even if his or her
situation may necessitate it.
Being kind has become part of the character of the person. Kindness or virtues for that
matter are then products of a long process of forming a habit of practicing what is
ethical or what is upright and continuously correcting oneself in the process. By saying
this, the natural implication is that virtues are not acquired overnight or instantaneously.
No book will be as effective in teaching virtues as helping a child practice them
constantly. The framework reminds us about the importance of educating or forming
character as early as possible and more specifically among children so that by the
time they reach the age of reason, they must have imbibed in them the virtue
necessary to live ethically, doing what promotes the good and acceptable to the
rational mind.
The mean is in the middle. It signifies how strong you are to withstand tension between
the lack of and excess of love. It is the test of the moral character of an individual.
Aristotle is concerned about achieving the appropriate action which is neither deficient
nor excessive. Virtue is found in the middle or intermediary between extremes. It is the
application of the right amount of passion or feelings and the exercise of one’s ability
to do a particular act. It follows that in themselves, feelings and passions are neither
good nor bad. It is in the manner of applying them that the wrongness or rightness of
the act is manifested. It is alright for instance to be angry when it is reasonable but it
is not right to be angry beyond what is required by the situation that triggered it.
Another question that must be settled here is the question of how to judge the mesotes
or the middle. Does it depend on the individual? According to Aristotle, the mean or
mesotes does not depend on the person because it is different from one person to
another. Otherwise, the person will be accused of relativism or subjectivism. Rather,
the mesotes depends on the situation. It requires a serious consideration and
examination or the situation. It is the situation that will determine where mesotes is
found or what is the mesotes for a particular situation. Again, reason will be important
in order to appropriately assess any given situation, thereby appropriately judging as
well where mesotes is to be found.
Another idea that needs special consideration about virtue ethics is that it is the
counterpart of Duty Ethics. Where duty ethics is the power to live virtuously in
accordance with what is right in terms of obligation and duties. Morality in virtue ethics
is procedural and process. Duty ethics is based on what is right and what is wrong
which is based on laws and duties. If you do it, you are doing the right thing.
Virtue ethics is different. What you set is human excellence. Virtue implies that you do
something more than doing what is right. Virtue is doing not only following rules and
therefore, it is not enough to be right (following rules) but looking for excellence. As
cited by Professor Bitanga, religion is asymmetrical; it is always giving more to the
other. In the same manner, the way in which you treat someone in a relationship
characterized by respect and recognition of the importance of the other, you always
think in terms of the maximum that you can offer the other person and not simply in
accordance to what is dutiful.
Also, moderation is not the same as the mean. Moderation in the sense of the middle
does not apply to all situations. For example, in the use of shabu, moderation or the
middle is not applicable. We cannot say that moderately using the drug is the best way.
It is simply not applicable since using it in any manner is unacceptable. Virtue as the
power to stay within the mean calls for reason. Aristotle’s discussion ultimately leads
us to the definition of moral virtue which is the “state of character concerned with
choice, lying in a mean and determined by a rational principle.”
Moral virtue
Moral virtue is first, the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified
out of the habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is the result of
continuous preference for the good.
Second, in moral virtue, the action done is chosen because it is the middle. The middle
does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which feelings or passion
should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle or mesotes does not totally
depend on what the person perceives as the middle because it would imply that he
adheres to relativism. But the middle depends on the situation and the circumstance
of the individual. It is the situation that identifies the proper way of dispensing feelings
and passions.
Third, the proper identification of the middle is through the practical wisdom or rational
faculty. The virtuous person has learned from experience and has therefore learned
to know the proper way of carrying out feelings, passions and actions. It means further
that habit is not simply the result of repetitive and mechanical action but is also the
product of the constant application of reason on one’s actions.
It must be said further that not all feelings and passions have a middle point. When a
mean is sought, it is the context that can identify the good act in a situation. As a
conclusion, for Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to expression of virtue is no
longer ethical, one has gone beyond the middle. This has some practical
consequences to Filipino having the inclination of using superlative expression such
as “sobra,” “super,” etc. in their description of certain acts that they usually consider
as virtuous. Aristotle’s perspective on virtue can clarify better the Filipino
understanding what virtue means.
Below is a list of virtues. The list will be helpful for you students, to assess how much
you have given to them. It will encourage you to give them a try or strengthen them for
better commitment and stronger stance.
Honesty Humility
Punctuality Patience
Benevolence Temperance
Courage Prudence
Discipline Righteousness
Courage Wisdom
Chastity Integrity
Resilience Fortitude
Faith Love
Charity Obedience
Commitment Religiosity
Knowledge Prayerfulness
Piety Mindfulness
Patriotism Impartiality
Summary
Arete or virtue being the mean of all moral actions really requires character. It is a
difficult job to maintain oneself in the middle as there are always situations that can
tempt individuals to depart from the middle. People may easily slide to either of the
extremes of lack or excess. Virtue ethics is a framework or model in ethics to remind
us about the importance of forming the character of the individual that can help one to
remain in the middle or attain excellence. Also, virtue ethics will make people aware
that character is not something that individuals learn theoretically but is the result of a
long process of trying to do what is the rightful manner and in that process continually
correcting oneself when one falls short in the practice of certain virtues.
TOPIC 2: THE NATURAL LAW ETHICS THEORY (DIVINE LAW)
Introduction
Timbreza (2007) claims, that “there exists a natural moral law which is manifested by
the natural light of human reason, demanding the preservation of the natural order and
forbidding its violation.” Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas, as cited by Timbreza
(2007), explains that the source of moral law is reason itself. Reason directs
individuals toward the good as the goal of our action. In the same context, Aquinas
concludes that the good is discoverable within the human nature and in its operation.
Reason recognizes the basic principle of “Do good, avoid evil.” The idea is synthesized
in what he calls “synderesis or the capacity of each individual to desire what is good.”
The natural law ethics suggests that the capacity to recognize what is good and what
is evil is inherent in the human individual. Individuals are given this capacity through
the light of human reason and as St. Thomas Aquinas suggests,” it is the voice of right
reason which he also calls “the voice of conscience.”
Points of consideration:
1. The natural law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis
for all human conduct.
2. An observable law relating to natural phenomena. The natural law is a theory
that says that there is a set of rules inherent in human behaviour and human
reasoning that govern human conduct.
3. The natural law is divine law revealed.
Guide for understanding the natural law
How do we understand natural law? To understand it, we have to look into two
elements: the purpose and the essence.
First, to be able to understand the natural law, one must look at the purpose. You are
created for what purpose? Example, something is wrong because it is not used for its
natural purpose and vice-versa. Like the male organ is for the female organ and they
are used for reproduction. In the same manner referring to marriage, it is meant to be
consummated and ratified (solemnized). There is no marriage when one is missing.
Honoring the purpose of things is fundamental. Immediately something is out of track
when the purpose of a thing is not respected. For instance, being a student, your main
purpose is coming to school to study. Having put aside this main purpose will
jeopardize results. A student may fail in the subjects if not given appropriate attention.
Those students who excel are those who had constantly given themselves to their
main task which is studying. Or, a driver who continuously does texting while driving
may meet a vehicular accident and may not reach the destination. Thus, the rightness
of one’s action according to natural law depends on whether its purpose is respected
for which it is being performed. An action is wrong when it does not express the
purpose for which it is meant for.
How do you determine your purpose? The law seems to be a part of you. Reason tells
you that you are doing the right thing or its opposite. In an example, it says that it is
natural that you don’t have sex with a dog. Nobody told you about that. To understand
the natural law, one ought to know the essence of a “thing.” What is this about? I am
a person (my essence), then, you should not kill me. Knowing what the thing is or its
nature, guides one to deal with it appropriately and not otherwise. The problem starts
when one has a distorted idea about the essence or nature of things. When that
happens, inappropriate dealings follow. But if I know the right value of a thing, I would
deal with it appropriately. Again, the question is how does one know the essence of
things? Reason will help one to recognize the value of a thing and Natural Law tells
us that it is in the nature of human beings to know it.
Criticisms on the Natural Law
1. Rachels (2003) claims that the idea that everything in nature has a purpose is
stunningly anthropocentric since everything, as it were, is arranged for the sake
of people whose well-being is the point of the whole arrangement. By saying
this, Rachels seems to imply, without saying it directly, that it is too neat to
believe. He said: “Humans are a remarkably vain species.”
2. Citing David Hume, Rachels argues that in the discussion of the laws of nature,
there is a confusion of “is” and “ought.” He tries to point out that they are
different notions and that there can be no conclusion that can be derived or that
follows from the other. That is, if for instance, man was made beneficent, it does
not follow that he ought to be.
Summary
The natural law provides us an internal guide that we can follow so that decisions are
based on that which is desirable and good. The model views human nature as
basically good and desires what is beneficial and serves the interests of the common
good. Most people they express this desire to do good by following their conscience,
the natural light of human reason or the voice of reason. The daily human situation at
home, in the work place, when relating with others or alone is guided by that principle
to do what is good or what is moral. To follow the dictates of the conscience or the
voice of reason is moral or ethical which implies that when someone acts contrary to
it a person acts inappropriately and may act unethically. People feel good when they
have acted upon what their conscience tells them and experience remorse and deep
sense of guilt when they have acted against their conscience. People can trust one
another on the basis that what each one is up to is what is beneficial and what can
lead them to treat others with the same dignity and respect they accord themselves.
TOPIC 3: KANT’S ETHICS OR ETHICAL THEORY
Introduction
The Kantian ethics is a deontological model of morality based on the intention or duty
of the moral agent. “Deontos” in Greek means duty or obligation. The model
emphasizes that it is the intention of the responsible moral agent to always do his or
her duty to do what is good. For this reason, Kant’s ethics is also called deontologism.
Following the same line of thought, the motive which is the performance of one’s duty
to do what is good, becomes the essence of morality. It means that the rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined by the motive to do what is good regardless of the
consequences of the act. Motive or intention also refers to the motive of doing what
one ought to do which of course is the duty to do what is good (Timberza, 2007).
The Kantian model of morality is often put in juxtaposition with the utilitarian
perspective of morality in which the consequence, regardless of the intention of the
motive determines the rightness or wrongness of the act. The Kantian model has its
own weaknesses and limitations which are discussed below.
Kant’s ethics
Kant’s ethics is the theory of the good (ethics). Kant emphasizes the intention or the
will which is the intention to do the good, the duty of every rational person. Hence, acts
are good only when they are done out of duty more than the end or regardless of the
consequence of the act. The crucial element for Kant is the intention or motive which
is the duty of every individual. Hence, acting in the sense of duty is the one that makes
an act moral. When someone does something out one’s pleasure for doing it or it is
based on one’s inclination to do it, it does not reflect a moral act. It is the sense of
obligation or duty that makes an act moral or ethical. Duty or the intention to do what
is good is that which one ought to do. Hence, duty is doing what one is obliged to do.
Duty is also known as obligation. The presumption is that everybody has good will in
which again, the good will is our duty. The golden rule; therefore, the Golden rule; “Do
unto others what you want others do unto you.”
The important question that should be asked now is how can one know one’s duty in
a given situation? To determine if one acts from the sense of duty, one must judge his
or her action in the light of the universal nature of the act. This means, act according
to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a
universal law or code of behavior. The universality of an act is verified if it has the
characteristic of the categorical imperative, meaning the doing of the act is done
without mental reservation at all.
The good involves the principle of universality. Kant argues that there are four
formulations of this principle.
Perfect Duty: It is the duty which we are obliged to do all the time. Example, no killing,
no harming others physically, no lies, etc.
The Imperfect Duty: Imperfect duties are those we should do as often as possible but
cannot be expected to do always. Example, be charitable, loving, etc. (Timbreza,
2007).
Clearly, the Kantian sense of morality demands that before doing anything, one should
first seriously examine the motive or intention for doing the act. If the act lacks the
requirement of the sense of duty for doing it, the act does not reflect moral
righteousness. Therefore, one should always consider the sense of the categorical
imperative value of an act or its universality. If the act does not meet this requirement,
the act does not reflect moral value.
TOPIC 4: UTILITARIANISM
Introduction
Ethicians classify ethical theories as either teleological or deontological ethics. In
Greek “telos,”or “teleos” mean “end” or “purpose” (Timbreza, 2007). When moral
valuation is based on this, it emphasizes the end result, goal or consequence of an
act as the determining factor of its rightness or wrongness. The utilitarian ethics or
utilitarianism is considered the most important of the consequentialist theories. As a
consequentialist model, utilitarianism determines moral valuation according to the
consequence of the act. An act is considered right if it results to something that is
positive and good to people involved and bad or wrong if the consequence of the act
has brought about sadness. In the discussion below, what is “good” or “positive” refers
to the happiness an act brings to people as a result of the benefit brought about by the
act.
Utilitarianism
Timbreza (2007) claims that utilitarianism is the most important consequentialist theory.
This moral theory was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill in the18th
century. Later, it was popularized by John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). It argues that
what makes an act right is its consequence. If an act has resulted in good
consequences, then it is moral. if not, then it is immoral.
John Stuart Mill formulated the Principle of Utility. It claims to be the only moral
principle expressed as: “actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness,
bad as they tend to produce unhappiness.” To determine whether an action tends to
produce happiness, one has to look into the consequences or result of the act rather
than by means of some features of the action itself, for instance, its intention. Actions
are neither intrinsically right nor wrong, nor does the goodness or badness of an action
depend upon the motive or intention or past action of the doer. Consequences, effects,
results are most important. Bearing in mind the principle, we should consider the
possible effects of each action or moral decision before they are acted upon. We ought
to choose the action that produces the most benefits at the least cost of pain or
unhappiness.
Concerned about the possible cloud of individualism and subjectivism, Bentham and
Mill suggested an alternative formulation of the utilitarian principle popularly known as
the “principle of the greatest happiness” – An action is good insofar as it produces the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; bad insofar as it produces more
harm than benefit for the greatest number of individuals.
By introducing the “calculus of pain and pleasure,” Bentham suggests that the principle
of the greatest happiness is still made more specific in some aspects. This “calculus
of pain and pleasure includes the following aspects – “intensity, duration, certainty,
propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent.” So to speak, the more intense the pleasure
is, the better, the longer it lasts, the better.
2. The utilitarian principle comes from its own consideration that before an action
is done, there has to be thorough investigation on the different possible
consequences of the action. It would be impossible to be able to identify all the
possible legitimate consequences of any act.
3. Lastly, the utilitarian principle does not give consideration to the intention or
motives of the doer of the act. Or, it ignores the motive from which moral
decisions are made or based. This would imply that a person who is acting out
from an evil motive but nonetheless produces some good benefits is a good
individual.
Summary
Utilitarianism has serious difficulties but enjoys certain popularity. People act with the
immediate concern whether the action benefits and warrants better conditions for the
majority especially when needs and concerns are characterized by certain urgency.
Utilitarianism has the advantage of the clarity as a moral theory and can be measured
more easily as its rightness or wrongness is determined by the consequence of the
act. If an act brings good consequences, then it is good, if it doesn’t, then it is not good.
However, Utilitarianism fails to ask the intention or motive behind the act and whether
the act in its performance has not affected or disadvantaged some.
TOPIC 5: RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE
Introduction
Historical events and situations are excellent backgrounders to contextualize
something for better and appropriate understanding. In the historical sense, justice is
born as a clamour where it was not given a chance to flourish even when the
opportunities were there.
The French Revolution has led to the three great ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Later reason was the center piece of the Period of Enlightenment and the Period of
Romanticism gave rise to the importance of the idea of being able to contribute.
Throughout the different periods, a number of important ideals developed -
independence, reason, respect and tolerance - but justice was far from being perfected.
John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness is thus anchored on the idea that justice was
never given enough consideration and importance.
The three were born through rationality. This was the time when rationality was given
importance and influenced the development of things. Thinkers came out also during
the era like Rene Descartes and others. Rationality influenced the way things
developed. Rationality has triggered the invention of gadgets, technology and
advancement was in. Continuing the direction of development resulted to new ways
of thinking and led to the period of post-modern period.
Liberty is understood in the sense of autonomy, the ability to do what you want,
organize, plan according to what you think make sense for you. Without which, there
can be no liberty. Further, autonomy is also understood in the sense of freedom.
Freedom is born from the experience of autonomy. Closely then, liberty and freedom
are deeply rooted in the idea of autonomy which is understood as independence or
the state of being and having the power to do things according to your choice and this
in turn is the essence of liberty. Because of this, it resulted to invention, innovation and
discovery. Science then overcame theology. Philosophy and theology tried to be
powerful. As a consequence, this resulted to specialization. It is expressed in the
sense of “I could be good without the help of religion.” This is the age of great narrative
according to sociology.
The second great idea, equality, is understood in the sense of having equal value.
For instance, now philosophy and theology and others are of equal value. You can
now criticize religion. However, theology still enjoyed certain superiority. The church
was still too powerful to go against it. Thus, the work of Rene Descartes, “The One
Outside is Given by God,” is an admittance that one is trying to be careful and avoiding
to be excommunicated by the church.
Fraternity came out from the idea of independence. How come? Is it out place? It has
nothing to do at all with love. But related to people we do not love at all even those we
hate. What is then the sense of fraternity? It came from the idea of equality. It implies
the sense of equal value. Equality in value implies the dignity in each person and that
calls for respect which is a call to fraternity. Brothers and sisters are equal.
Thus, the virtue of tolerance has to be operative. Those in philosophy were allowed
to exercise their kind of discipline or that they allowed others in their field to flourish.
They have their own autonomy and therefore let us give them respect for what they
are and for the things they want to achieve.
The climate above has given rise to empiricism, positivism and descriptive ideas. It
has resulted to experimentation of the characteristically physical and concrete. These
concepts are the concepts of the Period of Enlightenment. This period is characterized
by the idea of independence, the opportunity to achieve which gave the idea that one
had always the chance to become better. The period also allowed the recognition of
the value of others: this is me and that is you. But it meant that one could always go
up in the sense of more and better achievements. This is now the modern period and
the ideal of the modern man. Here, anyone can make a difference.
The concept further developed with the advent of the Period of Romanticism. The new
idea is that you and I are different but we are related. The idea is, we are different but
we can work together and which is why we are related. The big word is unity in diversity.
We could therefore recognize plurality in our midst. We move in the same space and
therefore we have to learn how to live with one another. With this, it announces the
end of the narrative. Why, because the narrative highlighted only the great and maybe
the worst. Now we give importance to the small and ordinary people having done small
things but contribute to achieve greater things. The idea behind was tolerating people
with a “small” mind. It was enough that you make sense. The spotlight is no more, as
it were, on the main actors but on the supporting actors.
In contradiction to politics that is looking for power, now there is also greatness below
and that is the spirit of Romanticism. Equality is now to be understood in the sense of
equal value as having the same dignity and respectability as human beings. In this
new context, tolerance has become the new challenge because of the wide differences.
Respect then has become wider during the period.
In this brief presentation of the historical context of Rawls theory of justice, there were
two movements involved. The first was during the time of enlightenment. Reason was
considered the goal, expressed in terms of scientific research and hard science. The
second was during the Period of Romanticism in which the most important thing was
being reasonable. It is enough that you make sense (not anymore the achievement of
something great). This makes us acceptable already. We tolerate ordinary and simple
people but who make their contribution that impacts the whole. In Romanticism, we
are more for the difference than similarity, looking for the in-between and this meant
the emancipation and recognition of the lowly and ordinary people. The teaching is
that it allows people to contribute.
The basic concept about justice is the giving of what is due and it is called fairness.
This presupposes that there is something unequal. Hence, we speak of justice as
fairness. Let us consider the Illustration below:
3. For Rawls, it is the question of providing not just what is the best but what is
morally best for the society. This is justice as fairness in which citizens are equal
within a realistic society where the people are free and they have to be fair to
one another. In such a society, people are considerate by being fair.
4. As each person does their services, there is a need to be fair. This way, in the
delivery of services people need to be considerate and should practice fairness.
For example, if people came from a considerable distance and they happen to
reach the office at mealtime, to be fair is being able to accommodate these
people.
Timbreza (2007) further explains Rawls Theory of Justice twofold principles in the
following manner:
1. “Equal access to the basic human rights and liberties. The first principle of
justice articulates that every individual has inherent equal liberty of citizenship.
It means that the basic right and liberty of every citizen includes the right to vote,
to be eligible for public office, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, liberty
of conscience, freedom of thought, right of ownership and freedom from
arbitrary arrest and seizure...”
Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness is not a naive kind of idea in which everybody is
equal and enjoys equal privileges and much more with equal economic resources.
Having not the same will always characterize every society. But where inequality is
present, Rawls looks for their legitimacy.
Summary
Rawls exposes the inequalities in the society both on the level of the social and
economic domains. He reports that the present situation characterized by bitter
injustice is rooted in human history. Somehow the French revolution that has inspired
significant socio-economic and political reforms and the ideals of the succeeding
important historical periods inspired by it did not succeed to eradicate injustice.
Rawls proposes avenues by which to combat injustice in the society. Thus, he came
out with his Theory of Justice as Fairness. Rawls suggests that the liberal society is
the venue for his theory in which it should be the task of the government to initiate
structural changes that can benefit other institutions – family, education, etcetera. He
believes that the top has the power to do it because it has the resources to make it
happen. He proposes as well that in the liberal society, the government should not
only offer what is the best for its citizens, but what is morally the best. This will bring
about changes in dealing with one another as everyone will be fair in offering their
services giving priority to the least advantaged member of the society. Rawls admits
however, that in a society not everyone will enjoy the same benefits, privileges and
opportunities. But that the differences will be tolerable. Further, he maintains that in a
just society, not everybody will be equal, but that such inequality must be based on
legitimate reason or that it should be demonstrated to be legitimate.