BELLESCO, ANTON O.

ACC1-B
GEC107 – ETHICS: 7TH REQUIREMENT

Engage

Share an experience or a situation wherein you do an act or make decision that shows call of duty.
(5 points)

One experience of mine wherein I did an act or a decision that shows a call of duty was when I was in
my darkest moment in my life. I was down and drowned by depression and anxiety due to the huge problems
I had encountered. I was in my suicidal moment at that time, to be exact. At that moment, I felt like I’m
worthless and my life seems so dark and empty. In the midst of deep silent crying, as I supposedly commit
that worst thing, an unexplainable divine moment occurred. I actually felt like there is someone who was
embracing me without me seeing it. Yes, I may not see it, but I can feel it. At that very moment, I suddenly
got frozen. I felt like my world had stopped for a very quick moment. Then, I realized how worst that thing if
I pursued it. Then, I cried and cried, realizing what decision I had made. Since then, I promised to myself not
to commit that again. I said to myself that I would transform myself into a new, positive, and motivated person.
That experience served as the key to my duty, to become a mental and emotional awareness advocate. Maybe,
God let me encounter that experience in order to open myself to my real mission or duty; to become a person
who will serve as a person to motivate, a person to lean on, and a friend to comfort. I now bring happiness and
positivity despite the challenges in life. Encouraged each of my friends, classmates, and other acquaintances
to look into the brighter side of life. This is me, and this is my call of duty.

Activity 1.
Read other discussion about Deontology and differentiate this theory to Utilitarianism. (5 points)

In the interim, deontology is another ethical hypothesis that is reliant upon the Scriptures — which
might allude to rules, moral regulations, and instinct. It depends on the Greek words "deon" and "logos,"
meaning the "investigation of obligation." It fixates on the standards of eighteenth-century thinker, Immanuel
Kant. Deontology advocates that both the activities and results should be moral. It calls attention to that the
activity's profound quality is of more prominent weight, and the consequence of an off-base activity doesn't
make its result something similar. One specific model is the birthing system wherein the mother and the child
are at equivalent gamble. The specialists realize that saving no less than one of the two is better, yet attempting
to save them both would be ideal. Deontology sports a fair preliminary of right or off-base as it relies upon an
all-around acknowledged profound quality methodology. It additionally makes the savant concentrate on the
two sides of a circumstance without compromising the results. To differentiate this from utilitarianism,
utilitarianism spins around the idea of "the end legitimizes the means." It is the brainchild of scholars John
Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. It accepts that results because of activity have a more prominent worth
contrasted with the last option. It likewise expresses that the most moral thing to do is to exploit joy to
ultimately benefit the general public. Therefore, utilitarianism relies upon weightiness. The utilitarian
methodology can be available in medical care. Instances of these may include: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)
orders and Euthanasia. Despite the fact that stood up to intensely by pundits, the philosophical point of view
toward these cases is simply dependent on its beneficiaries. The utilitarian methodology can likewise be self-
centered in nature as it gears on decisions more ideal to the rationalist.
Activity 1.
1. State precisely what Kant means by the “good will” and explain the difference between hypothetical
and categorical imperatives? (10 points)

Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good without
qualification is “goodwill”. While the phrases “he’s good-hearted”, “she’s good-natured” and “she means
well” are common, “the goodwill” as Kant thinks of it is not the same as any of these ordinary notions. The
idea of goodwill is closer to the idea of a “good person”, or, more archaically, a “person of goodwill”. This
use of the term “will” early on in analyzing ordinary moral thought prefigures later and more technical
discussions concerning the nature of rational agency. Nevertheless, this idea of goodwill is an important
commonsense touchstone to which Kant returns throughout his works. The basic idea, as Kant describes it in
the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way
“determined” by, or makes its decisions on the basis of, whatever basic moral principles there may be. The
idea of goodwill is supposed to be the idea of one who is committed only to making decisions that she holds
to be morally worthy and who takes moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding
her behavior. This sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value, Kant thought. He believes
we value it without limitation or qualification. By this, we believe, he means primarily two things.
Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. It is imperative
because it is a command addressed to agents who could follow it but might not (e.g., “Leave the gun. Take the
cannoli.”). It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possess rational
wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to us
on the condition that we have antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves.
On the other hand, there are “oughts” other than our moral duties, according to Kant, but these oughts are
distinguished from the moral ought in being based on a quite different kind of principle, one that is the source
of hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is a command that also applies to us in virtue of our
having a rational will, but not simply in virtue of this. It requires us to exercise our wills in a certain way has
given we have antecedently willed an end. A hypothetical imperative is thus a command in a conditional form.

2. Think of any actions, attitudes, good policies that would be qualified by the universalizability test,
but you would still wish to maintain that they were morally permissible. (10 points)

Based on my prior analysis, an action or attitude that would be qualified by the universality test is the act
of respect and courtesy. This kind of act seem to be an achievable one here in our country, but I think, this
would be hardly achieved by other countries in the world due to their own culture and norms. In today’s
generation, we cannot deny that even here in our country which practices great courtesy, the absence of respect
in meeting and interacting people emergingly becoming a norm. If this would gradually happen, that virtue or
good action becomes insignificant, leading to a disrespectful society. Thus, I would really wish to maintain
these acts for this is in fact an ethical characteristic of a person that must be maintained, developed and
enhanced. By this, pretty sure we can have a world full of respect and honor together with the courteousness
which leads each individual to be comfortable in the society where they live.
Elaborate

Activity 1.
It is common for people who take drugs or drink too much to say, “I’m not doing anything wrong since
I’m not hurting anybody other than myself.” What are some ways that Kant or other Kantians would
respond to that? If you disagree with Kant, how would you reply? (10 points)

As based on Kant’s theory, I think the Kantians would respond that though it makes sense but it would
not fulfill the universalizability rules. They would say, or most of them would say that it is still not right nor
ethical because it would also impact oneself. Kant considered that formulation of the categorical imperative
to be equivalent to: “So act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else
always at the same time as an end and never merely as means.” From this statement, we can see directly how
Kantians would respond to the given situation. By that, I am agreeing with Kant, and thus, I would have the
same respond.

Evaluate
Activity 1. Suppose you are a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that
might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional
code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and
cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch, thousands
of people will die. (10 points)

Based on my thorough analysis regarding this scenario, I came up with this resolution; what I got to do
is to ask for permission or seek for authorization to certain persons and explain to them what would happen if
no actions shall be taken. This is to ensure that it would not be against my professional code of ethics to break
into any software system. If then, I would be permitted, then I could hack the network and be able to cancel
the launch but if I would not be permitted, I would rather use other ways, such as informing other personnel
in order for them to be aware and can be taken into action regarding the upcoming scenario. By this, I could
protect my professionalism together with saving the lives of thousands of people.