Name: Charmine B. Albao Subject: G.E.

8 (ETHICS)

Course, Year & Section: BSHM 2-B Instructor: Prof. Joy A. Tuburan

Module 3, Lesson 2
Deontology

IV. Assessment
Essay. Answer the following questions. (5 points each)
1.Based on your own experience, give at least one example of a maxim that relates to
yourself and give a situation wherein you practiced/used this said maxim.

“Look on the bright side”

I rely this maxim to myself because sometimes there are situations that I think all the
problems come into my life and I always think the optimistic way in order to forget and
there is a resolution for that problem. I try to be cheerful about a bad situation by
thinking that it is not as bad as it could have been.

2. In what way does rational will distinguish a human being from an animal insofar as
the animal is only sentient?

Human beings’ are highly evolved animals who have spent a few millennia
constructing realities about our individual selves. We are all one. We only perceive
ourselves to be separate from everything. Human beings are lucky, magnificent, and
horrific all at the same time. When individual perceptions of self are built on false
constructs, they cause madness. You can see this in every direction that you look.
Humanity does not make the necessary progress required for a species to transcend its
madness.

There’s always a chance of mass enlightenment. There’s always a chance we come to

terms with our existence on a scientific, material reality level that helps us proceed with
the proper influences at the helm of our evolution. We might wake up. We might
collectively agree that our scientific reality is more important than the false idols we’ve
constructed that we still allow to steer the course of human evolution.
3. What is the difference between autonomy and heteronomy?

Autonomy means self-law (or self-legislating) and heteronomy means other law. Kant
claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy, which is the opposite of
heteronomy. When we think of someone being “subject to the law”, we usually think of an
imposing authority figure that uses his power to control the subject into complying with
his will.
Heteronomy is the simple legislation and imposition of a law by an external
authority. It is the condition of acting on desires, which are legislated by reason.

4. How does the method called universalizability work?

Judgements or principles of which it can be said that everyone should judge or act
in the same way, are universalizable judgments or principles. In other words, they are
independent of any particular point of view.

‘Do not kill’ or ‘Do not break promises’ or ‘Do not cheat’ might be examples of
universalizable principles – they are judgments which everyone, it could be argued, should
follow.

Universal judgments or principals are, in a way then, also impartial. They are
impartial because the person who makes them will be required to judge him or herself
according to the same standard by which he or she judges others.

The moral philosophy of German philosopher Immanuel Kant is most often

associated with universalizability. It is a requirement of Kant’s theory that the principles
that one follows be universalizable.

5. What is meant by enlightenment morality as opposed to paternalism?

Enlightenment morality is your duty as you are creation, not someone placed into
creation as someone separate from it. Paternalism is non-sense, in that as an enlightened
group of human beings if we were and that is very doubtful, we would nip the bullshit of
those that treat us as less than themselves.

We don’t threaten those in power, instead, we allow them to stay in these positions
and continue this horrible act of corruption on the masses they are working for.
Example: A corporation doesn’t have a corporation without employees and employees don’t
have jobs without corporations. But corporations make us falsely believe that we should
just sit back and let them handle everything.

V. Enrichment Activities: (10 points)

1. Reconcile these two topics: our discussion of autonomy and the duty to “speaking
truth to power”. Supposed you are already working for a company and your boss tells
you that you should offer a bribe to a government agent to obtain permit to build and
operate a factory in a province. What would you do? What are your alternative if you
believe that it is wrong to bribe government agencies?

First, I would refuse to do something that is clearly illegal. Second, I would talk to
him or her superior and/or to Human Resources about this incident.

If you experience negative outcomes from doing either, file a grievance and start
looking for a new job and company. This is all based on the assumption that you do not want
to be put in a position where you have to do illegal and/or unethical things in your work.

Here is another decision:

Tell him to do it himself. If it all goes wrong, you’ll be at fault, he’ll be able to deny
everything and you’ll probably get sacked. Possibly arrested. Getting another job won’t be
easy. Never ever get involved in other people criminal acts.

Depending on the sum of money and how brave you feel, you could always pull a fast
one. Make him give you the money, put it into an investment in your name. Now, if he asks
just say it’s dealt with. He’s not likely to go and ask the other guy. Whether or not the
permission comes through is irrelevant. If it doesn’t, he can’t ring the other guy up and
complain. He can’t go to the police. You could give him the capital back and keep the
interest.

Or, stick it in a safe and use it as leverage. It’s got his prints on. Just make sure
you have video or audio evidence of him giving you instructions.