COURSE OVERVIEW

This course will provide students an introduction to ethics. It will survey ethical
theories that some philosophers established as they tried to answer the questions: How
do we decide what is right action and what is not? How character affects decision
making? How do we measure the intrinsic rightness/wrongness of action? Can we
determine rightness/wrongness of action depending on the results of action? The
course will examine four of the major theories in ethics: Virtue Ethics, Natural Law
Ethics, Deontology and Utilitarianism.

COURSE GUIDE
Welcome to GEC108 Ethics. This course will focus on determining the rightness
or wrongness of action based on the four major theories in ethics: Virtue Ethics, Natural
Law Theory, Deontology and Utilitarianism. This section of the module will walk you
through the structure of the course so that you can maximize the experience. It will help
you learn diligently and independently.

MODULE 1: PRELIMINARY NOTIONS

This module makes you feel what ethics is about. The discussion starts with the
etymological definition of ethics. Major parts of this module are dedicated to
understanding what ethics is and what is not. Ethics talks about good and bad. But you
must remember not all good and bad are part of ethics. This module will help you make
the valuation of actions based on reason not based on emotion, legal, cultural, and
religious claims. In the latter part of the module, there are cases that you will analyze. It
will make you feel what ethics is. Lastly, follow the sequence of the module. Don’t skip.

OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. explain what ethics is;
2. differentiate ethics from technical, societal, and aesthetic and recognize what are
ethical problems;
3. apply the concepts on actual life experience from news, events, and everyday
experience.
ETHICS
Ethics etymologically comes from the Greek word ethos. It means custom,
usage, character. The Latin equivalent of ethos is mores which in turn is the
etymological word of “moral”, “morality”, “morals”. Many people tried to make
distinctions on the words ethics and morality.
According to Bulaong, et al. (2017), the word morals may be used to refer to
specific beliefs or attitudes that people have to describe acts that people perform. An
Individual’s conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short behaving properly,
it is immoral.
For example: When a man returned a lost wallet to the owner, his action is
considered moral. But when a man kept the lost wallet and has no intention to return it
to the owner, his action is considered as immoral. On the other hand, Ethics can be
spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding the ideal of human behavior
and ideal ways of thinking. It could be acceptable or unacceptable behavior or describe
as ethical or unethical.
This term is mostly used on ways of behaving in a given field, this is popularly
known as “professional ethics” (Bulaong, et al, 2017). For example, a policeman
arresting a man bribing him, the action is considered as ethical. But if the policeman
accepts the bribe and sets the man free, his action is considered as unethical. The
distinction between ethics and morals could clarify different dimensions of our lives. But
in our discussion, we will be using the terms ethical and moral interchangeably.
According to Reyes (2009), “ethics and morals are ordinarily used as equivalent
terms in Western language that refers to traditional manners, customs, habits, systems
of values or character of the community.” Value We can easily say that ethics is about
what is good or bad actions, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. It is doing what
is good and avoiding what is bad. In ethics, we are putting a value on our actions.
For example, An elected official helps the poor to battle the pandemic that we are
experiencing. We say that the value of his action is good. But an elected official takes
advantage of the situation by placing his relatives to be the first recipient of the
government’s social amelioration is valued to be as bad. Here we can see that the
primary concern of ethics is good and bad or right and wrong. But we must be able to
clarify that not all that is valued to be good and bad are part of ethics. For instance, Ben
and Ben's songs are good because of their vibe. The movie I watched is bad because of
the storyline. It is right to dip my fried chicken on the gravy. It is wrong to wear
basketball shorts during formal events. In the examples, we can see that there are
valuations of what is good and bad or right and wrong. However, the valuation is not
part of ethics rather it is part of aesthetics.
The word aesthetic comes from the Greek word aesthesis which means
sense or feeling. The judgments are based on what we see, hear, smell, or taste. It is
leaning towards our taste. When we talk about taste it is subjective. Take this as an
example, Pedro sports a neon pink socks and neon shorts. Many will say it is not good
because it was not good for our taste. The valuation of its goodness or badness is more
on personal aesthetic preference and it is not the case in ethics. Besides aesthetics,
there is another way we can value judgment on the goodness and badness of actions
and it is what we call etiquette.
This is telling us what is proper to do in specific situations. Take these examples:
When a young boy talks to an elder, he say “po” or “opo”. When we eat, we don’t talk
when our mouth is full. These actions will receive our approval. But if the bus is full and
the young guy did not offer his seat to an old lady, it is disgust. This will get our
disapproval. Many people have a connotation that ethics and etiquette are the same but
they are not. Yes, etiquette is indeed concerned with what is right and wrong actions but
to a certain degree, it is not enough to be in parallel with ethics.
Let us clarify it, we may be displeased when somebody interrupts us when we
are speaking (etiquette), and it will be much of greater offense when this man starts to
curse us and utter libelous words towards us (ethics). The technique is another thing
that has the notion of good and bad or right and wrong but is not part of ethics.
Technique comes from the Greek word “techne” which means the proper
way of doing things. Take the example of cooking bacon, there is a technique when we
cook bacon. The proper way to cook it is by not putting oil in the pan. The bacon will
produce its oil and when we put oil the bacon will shrink. But it only makes sense in
cooking and it does not have any connection of whatever in ethics. Hence, it is not part
of ethics.
Now it is clear that aesthetics, etiquette, and technique is not part of ethics. So,
every problem raised on aesthetics, etiquette, and technique cannot be considered as
ethical problems. When we see a person not dressing up properly for the occasion does
not violate any ethical norms because it is not an ethical problem. Same as when a
person barges into one’s room without knocking is not an ethical problem. Recognizing
ethical problems will greatly help us understand what ethics is all about. There seems to
be a certain degree that can qualify an event or action to be ethical problems. Many
ethicists believe that matters concerns the life or matters concerns about man’s well-
being are considered part of ethics. Issues like the death penalty, corruption in the
government, and the inequality are part of ethics, thus they are considered to be ethical
problems.
This discussion clarifies that not all kinds of valuation belong to ethics. You must
be able to remember that ethics is not dependent on taste to be able to classify what is
good and bad action. Ethics does not value good or bad actions based on its
acceptability and unacceptability in the community. Lastly, ethics does not classify good
and bad actions based on technique or the proper way of doing things.
Activity 1: Recognizing Ethical Problems
Name five events in past months, weeks, or days that can be qualified as ethical
problems. Give your reasons. You can use stories or events published in newspapers or
aired on televisions. Please give proper acknowledgment of the source. You don’t need
to get the whole story. This activity is meant to assess whether you can recognize
ethical problems. It will be graded and categorized as a performance outcome.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Source of Authority
It is clear to us that ethics is about good and bad actions. But how can we
determine good and bad action?
Let us take the action lying. We can say that lying is bad or wrong. But what is
the basis? Why do we value lying as a bad action?
What is the source that will tell us why lying is bad? Many of us will certainly go
on the obvious sets of standards that we have, like law, religion, and culture. We will
say that lying is bad because it is against the law.
Others will say that it is prohibited in our religion. Some would even declare that it
is not acceptable in their culture. Now, can law, religion, and culture be the source of
authority in ethics?
Let us try to analyze them. Can a law be a source of authority in ethics? On the
surface, we can easily say that law can be the source of authority in ethics.
Law guides every country in this world. It prohibits things that should not be
done. It does not allow bad actions. Law can easily claim that actions like stealing or
murder are unethical because it is prohibited by law. An action is considered good if it is
not prohibited by law. Very simple. Law seems to be a good source of authority in
ethics. But let us analyze it further. In the Philippines, Family members who steal from
you may not be criminally liable.
According to Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:
states that persons exempt from criminal liability in the event of the crimes of theft,
swindling or malicious mischief include spouses of relatives by affinity in the same line,
the widowed spouse with respect to the property that belonged to the deceased spouse,
and brother and sisters or brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. So, this means that
stealing is permitted only to your family members. You can steal from them. Now
imagine, if the law will be the source of authority in ethics. Will you agree with it?
Perhaps we should think that ethics does not simply identify it with obedience to
the law. Remember the cliché: “What is legal is not necessarily moral”. Now, can
religion be a source of authority in ethics? In religion, it talks about what is pleasing and
not pleasing in the eyes of God. It tells us that if it is pleasing in the eyes of God then it
is good and if it is not pleasing then it is bad. Religion greatly contributes to molding
their faithful to be good.
We members of particular religions are guided by God’s commandment, to be
specific it is the Ten Commandments. This commandment gives us the guiding principle
on how to be a good person. It simply tells us that to become a good person we must
avoid the following do not kill, steal, lie, and commit adultery. When we look closer, we
will realize that most of our laws are patterned on the precepts of God’s Ten
Commandments. Now for us believers, we can see that religion has a strong case to be
the source of authority in ethics. Let us analyze it further. Let us assume that religion is
the source of authority in ethics. If this is true, it will just lead us to more confusion.
Why? Because of the multiplicity of religion.
There are thousands of religions in the world. The problem lays on which among
these thousands of religions is the ultimate source of authority on ethics. One religion
may say that they are the ultimate source of authority but definitely, other religions have
the same claim. Here in the Philippines, you can already see the conflicts of religions.
This kind of problem could clarify that religion cannot become the source of authority in
ethics.
Another problem it may bring is the reality that there are people who are atheists,
persons who do not believe in deities (God), who do good actions. So how can we say
that religion is the source of authority in ethics if there are persons who do not have
religion and yet do good actions? This is why we do not bring religion into the
arguments of ethics. Lastly, can culture be the source of authority in ethics?
Culture sets standards in our community. It tells the community what we should
do and not to do. Philippine culture for example sees that it is moral for a man and
woman to live together after they get married. It seems that culture could be a source of
authority in ethics. But with the great number of different cultures in this world, there will
be different standards.
Take the example of the Namibian tribes, the Ovahimba and Ovazimba tribes
have a unique culture. When a man visits the tribe and knocks on the door, the husband
gives him the Okujepisa Omukazendu treatment. This means that his wife is given to his
guest to spend the night while the husband goes out of the house. In other cultures, this
kind of practice is unacceptable. But we are not in the position to say that it is
unacceptable. We cannot deny the fact that culture is something relative to us. It means
that we can say it is good or bad depending on one’s culture.
This brings us to the same criticism that religion face. Due to the multiplicity of
culture which culture is the standard in ethics. We must bear in mind that the standards
of ethics must be universal. It must be acceptable for you and me even we have a
different culture. That is why culture cannot be the source of authority in ethics. So what
is the source of authority in ethics?
Ethicists would confer that the source of authority in ethics must be common to
all. It must be something universal. So let us try to see what is common to all men that
makes him unique from other creatures. All of us would agree that what is common to
all men is our ability to reason. There is no other creature that can reason out. The
reason is the source of authority in ethics. Let us see how reason works in ethics. Have
you ever asked yourself: Why I am not stealing goods? Our initial answer would be: “I
do not steal because I am afraid I can get punish and I don’t like to be punished”. But
this reason is to shallow. So man realizes that we must be able to give a good reason
that will be acceptable to all something that would make sense.
A better answer is that stealing is wrong because it violates the principle of
fairness and the respect of other’s property. This principle becomes the ground of our
judgment that justifies our decisions. This moral principle is established in moral theory.
This theory is a system of ideas which is used to evaluate our valuing of actions and
concludes decision on a certain action. The moral theory will be the center of this
course. The succeeding modules will be centering on moral theories.

Quiz 1: Keywords to remember and contrast.

1. Define ethics.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

2. What is the difference between ethics and morals?

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

3. Differentiate ethics from aesthetics, etiquette, and technique.

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Activity 2: Analyzing Case

Last June 11, 2020, the Lucban Municipal Police Station (LMPS) posted on their
Facebook page: “Mahalin natin ang mga kababaihan at huwag nyo abusuhin ang
kanilang kabaitan. Kayo naman mga ghErlsz, wag kayo magsuot ng pagkaikli-ikling
damit at pag naman nabastos ay magsusumbong din sa amin. Isipin nyo rin!” This post
became viral on the worldwide-web. Comments on this post flooded the different social
media platforms. This particular post tells women to avoid wearing certain clothes.
You need to analyze this case. There are conflicting thoughts on the post of
LMPS. Are clothes just a matter of aesthetic? or Can clothes become an ethical
problem? Explain your answers. Explain it in 7 to 10 sentences.
 MODULE 2: VIRTUE ETHICS
Do you remember the last part of Module 1?
It discussed the source of authority in ethics. It is said that a good source of authority in
ethics is moral theories. So what are we going to do in module 2 is to discuss one of the
moral theories,
Virtue Ethics.
This theory is a product of Aristotle's intuitive mind. We will start on the background on
how Aristotle arrived in conceptualizing Virtue Ethics.
The module would also focus on the important concepts in Virtue Ethics like telos,
eudaimonia, arete, mesotes and phronimos. We will characterize actions as virtuous
acts or non-virtuous acts. Then we will try to apply the concept of virtue ethics in a
reallife setting. You will analyze a case for you to experience how virtue ethics work.
OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this module, you should be able to:
1. explain the important concepts and principles of virtue ethics;
2. differentiate virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts;
3. use the principles of virtue ethics in real-life situations.
Historical Background
Aristotle lived from 384-322 BC. He was a student of Plato in Academia in
Athens. Most of the time Aristotle was in an intellectual dispute with Plato. Due to these
disputes with Plato, he founded his school, the Lyceum. Aristotle made a good account
of himself. He was able to create different works in different fields. Some of the notable
works of Aristotle were Metaphysics, De Generatione et Corruptione (biology), De
Anima (psychology), Nicomachean Ethics, and the Organon (logic). Some historians
claimed that Aristotle was greatly influenced by his father who was a physician. Aristotle
was very observant of the surrounding like a physician who tries to observe his patients.
He had a son and named him Nichomachus. The book of Aristotle in ethics was named
after his son and it was called Nichomachean Ethics.
Nichomaen Ethics
Aristotle establishes his ideas in Ethics using the Platonic understanding of
reality and its concept of good as his springboard. He abandons the idea of Plato about
reality and good. Aristotle particularly contests the separation of matter and form. If you
are going to look at Plato's understanding of reality and its concept of good it is quite
ideal. He believes that everything outside the world of forms or ideas are not true. Take
this example: Juan is a good boy. Plato argues that Juan is not a good boy. Because he
is in a world of matter. Everything in the world of matter is not true because they are
subject to change. Plato would claim that Juan's goodness is just a copy of the real
goodness that is found in the world of forms or ideas. But Aristotle did not agree with
this. He contests that we will not be able to understand a thing without having matter
and form. We will not understand that Juan is a good boy if there is no matter and form.
We will not be able to know Juan is a good boy if we don't see the body (matter) of
Juan, his looks, and his built, and if we don't have the idea (form) of what is a good boy.
When we say that Juan is a good boy, it means that being good does not exist
independently of Juan. Our experience dictates when we say that Juan is a good boy,
we are referring to Juan in his totality as a composition of matter and form, not as a
separate entity.

TELOS
As we establish the ground of Aristotle's ethical framework, we now look at how it
works. Aristotle's ethical framework starts with observing what is there in nature.
Aristotle is keen on looking for what is common in nature. In his observation, he sees
that when you throw a stone upward it will go down. It will not suspend in the air. If you
throw it up ten thousand times, it will go down ten thousand times. Similar to a ball place
on a slope. If you put a ball on a slope, it has nothing to do but to roll downwards. When
a person performs actions, it is always directed towards something. It is directed
towards a purpose.
A person can't perform actions without a purpose. Aristotle sees that there in
common in all of these. He concludes that everything in this world including a person
has "telos". The word telos means end, goal, or purpose. When we go back to our
example, a stone thrown upward will end downward, a ball place in the top of the slope
will end on the lower part of the slope and a person jumps into action because of the
goal or purpose. We already know that a person acts towards a goal or purpose. We
cannot deny the fact that there is a purpose why we do something. Now a person will
perform an act when she sees the purpose as good. No person will do something if she
sees the purpose as bad. We eat because we know that it is good. It will give much-
needed sustenance to our bodies.
You enroll in this course because you see good on it. You believe that it will
provide you a good future. So it means that the telos or the purpose is always good. A
person performs an act because she sees that the telos or the purpose as good. But
you may ask why are there some people who do bad acts.
Let us take the example of a drug dependent. She takes an illegal drug because
she believes that it will solve all her problems. Here you will find that the purpose is
good, to solve all her problems. The problem lies in the action she has taken. It is bad.
Taking illegal drugs is bad. We do not say that taking illegal drugs can become good
what we are showing is that the telos or purpose is good. It is what all of us seek to
achieve. In our experience, we act because we seek to achieve a specific purpose. But
we cannot also deny that this purpose is used to attain a higher goal or purpose. Let's
have the example of a student. We all know that you are here to study so you can earn
a degree. You are moved to study because of the purpose of earning a degree. But it
does not end there. You want to earn a degree so you can find a job. Because Filipinos
believe that if you have a degree you can find a job easily. But it does not end there.
You want to find a job so that you can earn money. You want to earn money so you can
buy things you want. There seems to be a hierarchy of telos, goal, or purpose.
EUDAIMONIA
In the hierarchy of telos, goal, or purpose there must be the highest purpose,
this must be ultimate. It is the ultimate good of a human being. Now let us see what is
the ultimate purpose of a person. When we say ultimate it means that it is last and final.
Nothing follows. According to Aristotle, to consider the telos to be ultimate it must fit the
criteria. The first criterion says that it must be final. It means that it is the final end or
purpose and it is not used to attain any other higher ends. Unlike the examples in the
earlier discussion, we can see that the end is used to attain another end. Studying to
earn a degree and earning a degree to find a job. So these goals cannot be considered
as ultimate telos because they are not final. The second criterion of the ultimate telos is
that it must be self-sufficient. Meaning that when we attain it nothing else will be sought.
It will completely satisfy our desires to attain something once we attain the ultimate
telos. The last criterion of the ultimate telos is that it must be attainable. It is non-sense
if the ultimate telos of a person is not attainable. It is absurd to say that the ultimate
telos of a person cannot be attained. So what is the ultimate telos of a person?
According to Aristotle the ultimate telos of a person is "eudaimonia". It means
happiness. But mind you the happiness that Aristotle is telling is not an emotion. Like
the happiness that we experience when we receive gifts during our birthdays. This kind
of happiness is on the level of feelings. Aristotle is not referring to this kind of happiness
because it is temporary. He argues this happiness is permanent and it is what
everybody desires to attain. Eudaimonia being the ultimate telos makes every person
desires it.

ERGON
We already established that the ultimate telos is eudaimonia or happiness, but
how can we attain it. According to Aristotle, we can achieve eudaimonia by fulfilling a
person's "ergon". The word ergon means function. So, it only means that we can attain
the ultimate telos by fulfilling our function. But what is the function of a person? A
function is what distinguishes or characterizes the thing from other beings. Example:
key, it is used to lock or unlock doors, cabinet, etc. This makes the key unique from
other things. Again, what is the function of the person? What distinguishes a person
from other beings? What sets a person apart from other beings? The function of a
person is the ability to reason. This ability distinguishes a person from other beings.
There is no other being that can reason. To be a person is to act in accordance with
reason. Aristotle argues that we can attain eudaimonia by performing our ergon which is
the ability to reason but it is not enough by just performing it. He would say that we
should perform our function well. We must perform it in a good or excellent way.
ARETE
In Greek, performing in a good or excellent way is "Arete". The word arete is
equated to the word virtue. The word virtue is associated with the words good,
excellent, and noble. Now, how do we attain virtue? According to Aristotle, virtue cannot
be accomplished in a single act. Virtue is accomplished through repetitive actions. It is
acquired through habits. But remember that habit is not always good. That is why
Aristotle distinguishes what habit we need to have. Habit is essential to the formation of
one's character. So to be able to have a good character, we need to habitually do the
good, thus we will acquire virtue. But acquiring virtue is not that easy. The test is on how
to act out the right feelings and passions. It is how we can control our feelings and
passions because they are neither good nor bad. According to Aristotle, virtue is the
excellent management of one's feelings and passions. Let us take an example. We all
know that anger is an example of feelings and passions. It is neither good nor bad. To
be a virtuous person, we must have excellent management of anger. We can get angry
for the right reason, time, manner, and to the right person. Which is something difficult
to attain. The difficulty lies in finding the mesotes (mean) according to Aristotle. "Hence
it is hard work to be virtuous since in each case it is hard work to find what is the mean
(mesotes)...So also getting angry, or giving and spending money, is easy and anyone
can do it, but doing it to the right person, in the right amount at the right time, for the
right end, and in the right way is no longer easy, nor can everyone do it. Hence, well is
rare, praiseworthy, and fine. " (Nichomachean Ethics Bk. II, 1109a24) To become a
virtuous person, we need to find the mesotes. Aristotle believes that when a person is
already habituated on finding the mesotes she will be called "phronimos". This
phronimos is a virtuous person who does not have to control oneself because one's
resolution has been habituated to always do the right act, self-possessed.

VIRTUE
"Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with a choice, lying in a mean, i.e., the
mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, by that principle by
which the man of practical wisdom would determine it". (Nichomachean Ethics Bk. II,
1106b36-1107a2) It simply means that virtue is the mean between two vices. It is the
mean between excess and deficiency. Vices are either excess or deficiency. Let's have
an example. Let us see what is the mean (mesotes) of fear and confidence. The mean
is courage, the excess is rashness and the deficiency is cowardice. The mean
(mesotes) is always exact or as the maximum act, not an excess nor a deficiency. It is
not good if the person is "sobrang bait, sobrang tapang at medyo palakaibigan"
because this is not exact. You must also be careful on genaralizing that all actions have
mesotes. Many actions do not have mesotes and they are considered as wrong actions.
Examples would be stealing, committing adultery and killing. Can you find their
mesotes? None, there is no such thing as stealing the right amount of money. No matter
what a person steals, whether it is in a small amount or a big amount they are both
stealings.
Activity 1: Recalling Terms
Define the following concepts in virtue ethics:
1. Telos –
2. Eudaimonia -
3. Ergon -
4. Arete –
5. Mesotes –

Activity 2 Filipino Virtue

Pagmamalabis Birtud Pagkukulang
Pakikisam
Utang na loob
Kayabangan Hiya Duwag/Takot
Magalang sa Matanda
Relihiyoso

Activity 3: Wait or Marry?

You will analyze the case using virtue ethics. You will analyze a case about the virtue
of prudence. Don't use your feelings. Analyze it well.
A piece of news broke out that Juan, a soldier was killed in an encounter with
the rebels. But the news on the death of Juan was sketchy. There are no clear details
about Juan's death. The sketchy news reached Maria, Juan's wife. Due to this, there is
uncertainty on the part of Maria. Years had passed and there is no certain news about
Juan. The long years of wait allowed Pedro to court Maria. True enough Pedro's
perseverance made Maria fall in love. Pedro had found that it is the right time to
propose to marry Maria. Now if you are Maria will you give in to Pedro's proposal or wait
for the confirmation on the death of Juan? What if you already married Pedro and Juan
was alive and ready to come home, what will you do?
________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.