UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

College of Arts and Sciences

MODULE 1 in Soc Sci 101 (Ethics )

Course: Soc Sci 101

Course Title: Ethics
Course Credits: 3 units
Contact Hours/week: 2 hours
Prerequisite: none
Course Description:
Ethics deals with principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the
person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared resources. (CMO 20
s 2013)

Course Outcomes:
At the end of the trimester, the students are expected to:
1. Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems
2. Describe what moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human existence
3. Explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral experiences
and solve moral dilemmas
4. Describe the elements of moral development and moral experience
5. Use different ethical frameworks and principles to analyze moral experiences
6. Make sound ethical judgments based on principles, facts, and the stakeholders affected.
7. Develop sensitivity to the common good
8. Understand and internalize the ethical implications of globalissues in the modern
society such as digital technology, environment and other social interactions

Topic 1:
Frameworks and principles behind our moral disposition frameworks
a. Virtue ethics
i. Aristotle
ii. St. Thomas Aquinas
b. Kanianism
i . Categorical Imperative
ii, three rules
c. Utilitarianism
d. Capitalism
e. Socialism
f. Power Ethics
g. Authoritarian Ethics
h. Pragmatism

Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, students are expected to:
1. Recognize the relevance of the principles of natural law deontological ethics in guiding
ethical behaviors.
2. Understand the basis of respecting human rights and dignity, upholding justice, and
promotion of common good.
3. Evaluate how the principles of utilitarianism are used in social, economic and political
 policies and practices.

Instructional Materials:
Powerpoint

Video Lecture

Teaching-Learning Activity/Lesson Proper:

MORAL THEORIES

I. VIRTUE ETHICS

There is a long tradition in ethics that places great importance on the "kind of person one is." We not
only want those around us to "tell the truth" (for example, according to the Categorical Imperative), but
also to be honest. Both Aristotle (arete) and Aquinas (virtu) emphasized this aspect of ethics by
highlighting the role of what we would today call character in their discussions of ethics (and the
classic virtues of courage, justice, and moderation). David Hume also gave virtue and personal merit a
key role in his ethical theory. The recent revival of interest in virtue ethics can be traced back to
Philippa Foot. She writes that a person’s "virtue may be judged by his innermost desires as well as by
his intentions; and this fits with our idea that a virtue such as generosity lies as much in someone’s
attitudes as in his actions" (Virtue and Vices, 1977, 5).

The Moral Concept of Virtue

We should distinguish the virtues found in a particular society or culture (e.g., chastity) from those
virtues that can be supported by moral reasoning (e.g., honesty). "A virtue is a trait of character that is
socially valued, and a moral virtue is a trait that is morally valued…Moral reasons must support a
claim…of moral virtue" (B&C, 27).

By emphasizing the priority of character in discussions of ethics, virtue theorists can say: "…rather than
using rules and government regulations to protect subjects in research, some claim that the most reliable
protection is the presence of an ‘informed, conscientious, compassionate, responsible researcher’"
(Beecher, quoted in B&C, 28-29). The underlying view here is that "character is more important than
conformity to rules and that virtues should be inculcated and cultivated over time through educational
interactions, role models," etc. (B&C, 29)

A practical consequence of this view is that the education of, for example medical doctors, should
include the cultivation of virtues such as compassion, discernment, trustworthiness, integrity,
conscientiousness as well as benevolence (desire to help) and nonmalevolence (desire to avoid harm).

Critical Evaluation of "Virtue Ethics"

Often times we encounter "morality between strangers" (as when one enters an Emergency Room after
a car accident). At these times, it’s not the person’s character, but his/her need to follow rules and
procedures that seem to come to the forefront ("Virtue is not enough"). Furthermore, persons of ‘good
character’ can certainly formulate ‘bad policy’ or make a ‘poor choice’ -- and we need to evaluate those
policies and choices according to moral principles.

Constructive Evaluation of "Virtue Ethics"

Yet "…ethical theory is more complete if the virtues are included…motives deserve to be at center
stage in a way that some leading traditional theories have inadequately appreciated" … "To look at acts
without also looking at the moral appropriateness and desirability of feelings, attitudes, forms of
sympathy, and the like is to miss a large area of the moral picture" (B&C, 4th Ed., 69)

II. DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

Deontological normative ethical theories place the locus of right and wrong in autonomous adherence to
moral laws or duties.

Monistic deontology -- Kant's Categorical Imperative ("Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at
the same time will that it should become a universal law") provides the source of right action. Its first
formulation states "Act as if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a universal law
of nature;" its second formulation states "Always act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own
person or that of another, as an end in itself, never as a means only." Actions that conform to these
imperatives (i.e., right actions) and are, furthermore, done from a sense of duty, are the epitome of
morally praiseworthy actions.

Critics of Kant's approach claim that his Categorical Imperative does not contain within it a way to
resolve conflicts of duties. "Lying is wrong" can be interpreted as "Never lie" and thus Universal
Principles can 'harden' into Absolute Principles.

Pluralistic deontology -- For the 20th Century philosopher W. D. Ross, there are a number of duties that
reflection reveals -- and these form a group of prima facie obligations. The phrase "prima facie" ('all
things being equal') refers to the fact that these duties do not bind us absolutely, but rather that they
generally hold -- absent any further considerations. Two key duties are nonmaleficence (don't harm
others) and beneficence (help others). Other prima facie duties include 'don't lie,' 'don't kill,' keep
promises,' etc.

When conflicts occur between duties, our actual duty becomes that which "intuitive judgment" discerns
as the right thing to do (e.g., lying to save the life of an innocent person). Critics are cautious about
referring to 'intuition' as the criterion for determining our actual course of action. Stephen Toulmin
(Reason in Ethics, 1950) suggested that we "weigh up, as well as we can, the risks involved in ignoring
either, and choose 'the lesser of two evils'." Thus, while the principles may be deontic in nature, a
resolution of conflicts of principles could appeal to probable consequences.

III. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ( KANTIANISM )

For Immanuel Kant, categorical imperative refers to the fixed, unyielding and unconditional principle of
morality, a law by which reason unconditionally binds itself. This rest not on hypothetical imperatives
and some interests, but on the motive of an act and the means employed by an act. Thus, it binds
unconditionally and morally.

1. Motive or intention
A person’s action has moral value only if his motive for acting is to do what is right stems
from a person’s goodwill. Kant declared that “ nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or even
out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except the goodwill.”
He explained that intelligence, temperance, fearlessness and other qualities of man are good
but cannot stand as basis or as firm foundations for moral acts since they can be used to promote evil.
 However, if a man acts from goodwill or the intention to do what is right, then his acts are
good regardless of consequences. Kant believed that there exists in man a sense of duty or a moral
sense. Man therefore, has innate ideas of what is good, of what must be done, and what should not be
done

2. Means employed
The act must be respectful of human dignity, i.e, it should not use persons as means,
instruments or tools for other ends. Before an act can be considered morally right, it should respect and
treat human beings as ends in themselves.

The Theory of Categorical Imperative assesses moral act solely on the basis of the nature of
the motive and the means used by an act, not on its consequences. Hence if stealing is unethical, then
the act of stealing is always unethical, even if it is likely to result on the happiness of the many. On the
other hand if telling the truth is good, the act is always good, even if great number of people will suffer
from its consequences.

IV. SELF REALIZATION ETHICS

– Focuses on the fulfilment or the maximum realization of human potentials or capacities. It
inspires training and excellence in thinking, feeling, and acting.
– For Plato, the good life begins when man learns how to control his emotion with rationality. A
good life is a life of reason.
– For Aristotle, the good life is the pursuit of excellence or the life following the principle of this
Golden Mean

Aristotle criticized Plato's belief in a separate realm of Forms. He argued, instead, that rational beings
can discover the 'essences' of things and that a being's essence is its potential fulfillment (as the essence
of an acorn is to become an oak tree). The essence of 'human being' is rationality and, therefore, a life of
contemplation (a.k.a. Philosophy) is the best kind of life for true human flourishing. But in order to
have this kind of life, a degree of leisure must be possible -- and to guarantee this, to assure that we are
not always hunting or fighting, a good State (polis) must be in existence. Hence, for Aristotle, the
creation of a good politician and a good political order are of the highest practical importance. It is in
this context that he writes his works on 'ethics' and attempts to describe the nature of good character and
the way in which humans who possess 'practical wisdom' determine right and wrong courses of action.

The Nicomachean Ethics

All humans seek happiness ("well being"), but in different ways.

True happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of human life.

The essence of human beings (that which separates and distinguishes them as a species) is Reason.

Reason employed in achieving happiness (human telos) leads to moral and intellectual virtues:

-- Moral virtues (e.g., moderation, courage, magnanimity)

-- Intellectual virtues (e.g., `science,' art, practical wisdom, theoretical wisdom)

In one sense, we can view Aristotle's 'ethics' as cataloging what he took to be the best features of a 'well
bred Athenian gentleman' -- a person liberal and generous in spirit, embodying such 'cardinal virtues' as
justice, courage, and moderation and knowing how to employ those virtues appropriately in particular
circumstances (practical wisdom). Such a person is both worthy and capable of good friendships and
certainly worthy and capable of good citizenship. Furthermore, if such a person also has the inclination,
good fortune, and leisure to reflect upon the very nature and place of these virtues in the context of
human well being, such a person would be cultivating aspects of the intellectual virtues. Indeed, such a
person might be, like Aristotle, a philosopher writing about ethics. Excerpts from the Nicomachean
Ethics

V. UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the
outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves
beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.

A theory in ethics by which actions are judged to be right or wrong solely according to their . causal
consequences i.e., actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness or pleasure to the greatest
number of people

Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life,
(2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about
i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and
pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').

In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION,
CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its
"fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain &
vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT.

John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It
is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the
calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and
'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to
promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is
its "extent").

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The
former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-utilitarianism."

Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation of
choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least amount
of bad results).

 Criticisms of this view point to the difficulty of attaining a full knowledge and certainly of the
consequences of our actions.
 It is possible to justify immoral acts using AU: Suppose you could end a regional war by
torturing children whose fathers are enemy soliders, thus revealing the hide outs of the fathers.

Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral
principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in
which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. Right and wrong are
then defined as following or breaking those rules.

RULES OF MORALITY:

1. If the end of an act promotes unhappiness, even if it is intended to promote the greatest happiness,
the act can be considered morally wrong.
Here, the consequence determines the moral rightness of an act.

2. If the end of the act has promoted the greatest amount of happiness of the greatest number of people,
whatever means the act employed, then the act is morally justified.
This rule implies that regardless of an act’s means to achieve its end, as long as the act achieves the
happiness for a great number of people, the act is good and the means morally justified.

3. If an act unintentionally produces the greatest amount of happiness, the act is still morally good.
This rule means that as long as the consequence accidentally brought by an act, satisfies the utilitarian
end ( i.e., promotion of the greatest happiness), then the act is morally good.

For the utilitarian theory, it is not important whether the consequence of an act is by design or chance;
the question is if the consequence promoted the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.

VI. AUTHORITARIAN

The ethics that comes to us naturally through evolution is “authoritarian ethics,” based upon obedience
to the most powerful. Thus, historically we have tended to legitimize our ethics by claiming that what
we should do is what God wants us to do. However, there has never been agreement (nor is there likely
to be in the foreseeable future) about whether there is a God or not, or if there is, what that God is like,
or what that God would like us to do, if anything. Because there has never been any such authority
agreed upon by everyone, we have had multiple religions that have kept us divided and sometimes even
in conflict. This has even given religion somewhat of a bad name, with the growing belief that our
religions have been more of a problem than a solution. Some have regarded religion as something to be
“stamped out” (or allowed to die out), with no alternative sociocultural activity that is specifically
designed for working on our ethics and that is also generally available and even sometimes expected.

VII. PRAGMATIC ETHICS

Pragmatic ethics is the result of the application of the principles of pragmatism to moral issues.
Pragmatism was founded by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and was developed by
the American philosophers William James and John Dewey.

Pragmatism is epistemological by nature but can be applied to ethics. As an epistemological doctrine,

pragmatism holds the belief that the true and meaningful form of knowledge is one that is practical,
workable, beneficial, and useful. Thus, in pragmatism, if an idea works or brings good results, then it is
true and meaningful. If it does not, then that idea is meaningless, that is, it has no value.

According to the pragmatists, an idea is practical if it produces good results, workable if it can be put to
work, beneficial if it benefits people, and useful if it can be used to attain good results.

How do we know that an idea is practical, workable, beneficial, and useful? In other words, how do we
know that an idea is true and meaningful?

According to William James, ideas are proven to be true and meaningful through the process of
experimentation. Hence, for James, ideas are value-neutral from the beginning; their truth and meaning
can be proven through testing or experimentation. For example, how do we know that Coca Cola tastes
good? Of course, according to James, by tasting it. Or if someone claims that condoms are the most
effective and reliable contraceptive, then its truth and meaning can be proven by using and comparing
them with other contraceptives.

John Dewey, on the other hand, argues that ideas are proven to be true and meaningful if they proved to
be an effective instrument in attaining something. Thus, Dewey’s model of pragmatism can be viewed
as a form of instrumentalism.

Applying Pragmatism to Ethics

When applied to moral issues, a pragmatist may view the morality of a human act from the vantage
point of its practicality, workability, beneficiality, and usefulness. Hence, in pragmatic ethics, an action
is considered morally right if it is practical, workable, beneficial, and useful; otherwise, it has no moral
worth.

Let us take, for example, the moral issue of aborting a deformed fetus.
As we can see, in Christian ethics, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas’s model of ethics, abortion in
whatever form is absolutely immoral because in the first place the act is evil because it implies killing.
For the pragmatists, however, it is better to abort a deformed fetus than let it suffer for a lifetime. The
act of aborting a deformed fetus for the pragmatists, therefore, is:

1) practical because it will produce good results, such as sparing the parents and the child himself from
physical, mental and emotional suffering that may be brought by the deformity;

2) workable because obviously the act of aborting a deformed fetus can be put to work;

3) beneficial to both the parents and the child, especially in terms of freedom from physical and
emotional suffering that may be brought by the deformity; and

4) useful because it can be used to attain good results, such as, again, sparing the parents and the child
himself from physical, mental and emotional suffering that may be brought by the deformity.

Let us take another example. A medical doctor may say to her patient: “The injection of this chemical
compound is good for one who is suffering from diabetes.” For the pragmatists, if the patient regains his
health after the injection of the chemical compound, then the act is judged as morally right. This is what
William James meant by his famous phrase “truth happens to an idea”. In ethics, the pragmatists claim
that “goodness” or the moral worth of action happens to the act itself.

As we can see, in pragmatic ethics, a human act is always value-neutral from the beginning. The
morality of a human act depends on the quality of the results, that is, on its practicality, workability,
beneficiality, and usefulness. Hence, in pragmatic ethics, morality does not seek final and absolute
answers, yet it is not relativistic. Pragmatic ethics is not relativistic in the sense that it recognizes that
there are different circumstances and that in different circumstances, different actions might be
appropriate.

VIII. ETHICAL RELATIVISM

Distinctions within Relativism

There is a distinction between "morals" and "mores" -- the latter can be defined as "harmless customs"
(e.g., "tea at 4"); the former as "treatment of others" (e.g., "the practice of Apartheid"). In discussing
Relativism, we are concerned only with "moral practices."

The Problem of Relativism: What one society considers Right, another Society considers Wrong.
Therefore, RIGHT AND WRONG are RELATIVE to a PARTICULAR SOCIETY. Here we need to be
aware of two things:

(1) Confusing "harmless conventions" (The British drive on the left side of the road) with
"harmful practices" (Clitorectomy is customary among the Somali).

(2) Even if "moralities" may differ from society to society, it need not follow that Morality
Itself is relative -- for there is a further distinction between CULTURAL ("descriptive")
RELATIVISM and NORMATIVE ("Ethical") RELATIVISM.

Cultural ("descriptive") Relativism:

The descriptive relativist simply notes certain sociological FACTS:

(a) Factual Claims: "x is considered right in Society y at time t" and "x is considered wrong in
Society z at time t."

(b) Empirical Conclusion: Moralities are relative [Note that the claims of Cultural Relativism
are either true or false.]

Normative (ethical) Relativism

The normative relativist goes BEYOND any sociological facts.

(a) Normative Claim: "What is considered right in Society x at time t IS right for that Society."

(b) Theoretical (metaethical) Claim: Morality Itself is Relative.

Note that ethical relativism does not logically follow from any truths uncovered by descriptive
relativism. Note also that the ethical relativist has a hard time explaining how radical moral change can
occur within a certain society (as with slavery or women's suffrage in the United States).

IX. COMMUNIST ETHICS

– An ethical theory which focuses on equal distribution of goods and services of society’s
burdens
– From each according to ability, to each according to needs
– It preaches universal brotherhood of men, society without class distinction, a world without
states and nationality, existence without God and religion.
– It promises the liberation of men form superstition and ignorance
– Good is something that will advance the realization of communism and the bad will hinder the
fulfilment of the communist life

X. ETHICAL EGOISM

Psychological and Ethical Egoism

As a metaethical theory of motivation, psychological egoism asserts the descriptive claim that all of our
actions can be reduced to self-interest: "Whenever people do something, it is only because they think
something desirable for themselves will result from it." The claim is descriptive and thus open to
counterexamples, and it is broad, stating a reductionistic thesis regarding all of our actions. (Contrast
psychological egoism with the psychological state of sympathy, where 'the weal and woe of the other
becomes the motive for our action'.)

It is interesting to note that while egoism rests on the principles of human psychology, a number of
studies in the psychology of moral development seem to suggest that 'egoism' is in fact only a first stage
in actual moral development.

Ethical egoism is a normative theory that states that our actions ought to be done from the perspective
of self-interest. One of the problems with this position is that it might not be in one's self-interest to
have everyone act from the perspective of self-interest. This 'state of nature' would not be desirable (in
Hobbes' terms, life would be "beastly, brutal, and short") and so it might ultimately be in one's self-
interest to enter into a contract with others that would place restraints upon self-interested actions.

XI. POWER ETHICS

The “will to power” is a central concept in the philosophy of 19th-century German philosopher

Friedrich Nietzsche. It is best understood as an irrational force, found in all individuals, that can be
channeled toward different ends. Nietzsche explored the idea of the will to power throughout his career,
categorizing it at various points as a psychological, biological, or metaphysical principle. For this
reason, the will to power is also one of Nietzsche's most misunderstood ideas.

Origins of the Idea

In his early twenties, Nietzsche read "The World as Will and Representation" by Arthur Schopenhauer
and fell under its spell. Schopenhauer offered a deeply pessimistic vision of life, and at the heart of it
was his idea that a blind, ceaselessly striving, irrational force he called “Will” constituted the dynamic
essence of the world. This cosmic Will manifests or expresses itself through each individual in the form
of the sexual drive and the “will to life” that can be seen throughout nature. It is the source of much
misery since it is essentially insatiable. The best thing one can do to reduce one’s suffering is to find
ways to calm it. This is one of the functions of art.

In his first book, "The Birth of Tragedy," Nietzsche posits what he calls a “Dionysian” impulse as the
source of Greek tragedy. Like Schopenhauer’s Will, it is an irrational force that surges up from dark
origins, and it expresses itself in wild drunken frenzies, sexual abandon, and festivals of cruelty. His
later notion of the will to power is significantly different, but it retains something of this idea of a deep,
pre-rational, unconscious force that can be harnessed and transformed in order to create something
beautiful.

The Will to Power as a Psychological Principle

In early works like "Human, All Too Human" and "Daybreak," Nietzsche devotes much of his attention
to psychology. He doesn’t talk explicitly about a “will to power,” but time and again he explains aspects
of human behavior in terms of a desire for domination or mastery over others, oneself, or the
environment. In "The Gay Science" he begins to be more explicit, and in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" he
begins to use the expression “will to power.”

People unacquainted with Nietzsche’s writings may be inclined to interpret the idea of the will to power
rather crudely. But Nietzsche is not thinking only or even primarily of the motivations behind people
like Napoleon or Hitler who expressly seek military and political power. In fact, he typically applies the
theory quite subtly.

For instance, Aphorism 13 of "The Gay Science" is entitled “The Theory of the Sense of Power.” Here
Nietzsche argues that we exercise power over other people both by benefiting them and by hurting
them. When we hurt them we make them feel our power in a crude way—and also a dangerous way,
since they may seek to revenge themselves. Making someone indebted to us is usually a preferable way
to feel a sense of our power; we also thereby extend our power, since those we benefit see the advantage
of being on our side. Nietzsche, in fact, argues that causing pain is generally less pleasant than showing
kindness and even suggests that cruelty, because it is the inferior option, is a sign that one lacks power.

Nietzsche’s Value Judgments

The will to power as Nietzsche conceives of it is neither good nor bad. It is a basic drive found in
everyone, but one that expresses itself in many different ways. The philosopher and the scientist direct
their will to power into a will to truth. Artists channel it into a will to create. Businessmen satisfy it
through becoming rich.

In "On the Genealogy of Morals," Nietzsche contrasts “master morality” and “slave morality,” but
traces both back to the will to power. Creating tables of values, imposing them on people, and judging
the world according to them, is one noteworthy expression of the will to power. And this idea underlies
Nietzsche attempt to understand and evaluate moral systems. The strong, healthy, masterly types
confidently impose their values on the world directly. The weak, by contrast, seek to impose their
values in a more cunning, roundabout way, by making the strong feel guilty about their health, strength,
egotism, and pride.

So while the will to power in itself is neither good nor bad, Nietzsche very clearly prefers some ways in
which it expresses itself to others. He doesn’t advocate the pursuit of power. Rather, he praises
the sublimation of the will to power into creative activity. Roughly speaking, he praises those
expressions of it he views as creative, beautiful, and life-affirming, and he criticizes expressions of the
will to power that he sees as ugly or born of weakness.

One particular form of the will to power that Nietzsche devotes much attention to is what he calls “self-
overcoming.” Here the will to power is harnessed and directed toward self-mastery and self-
transformation, guided by the principle that “your real self lies not deep within you but high above
you.”

– The ultimate good of man is power

– Christian morality is the morality of the weak and of the slave
– It focuses on the trans valuation of morality, where the traditional bad is moral and good
– Man is encouraged to be a law of his own existence; to be a superman who is ever willing to
bear the burden of his existence without illusions.
– Friedrich Nietzsche emphasized on this (based on his existentialist teachings)
XII. CAPITALIST ETHICS
– It focuses on the distribution of goods based on individual contributions to the economic pool
of society
– It emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and the right to accumulate wealth, to
possess and enjoy private property
– Wealth fulfils the desire of man to a good life

Enhancement Activity/Outcome:

Application of Moral Theories

The following are commercials that you are going to watch. The links are already provided so there
should be no difficulty in watching the commercials. You will answer an activity found in the
Discussion Area of Canvas next meeting.

Discussion 1
1. Coke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdPXQLrueRg
2. Gilette https://vimeo.com/171012729
3. Lucky Me https://youtu.be/UuvF0tycBn4
Discussion 2
4. Christmas Kids https://youtu.be/EQ3ePGr8Q7k
5. Hyundai https://youtu.be/KwUUdl22mkA
6. Liar https://youtu.be/dBw5rjWjZSk
Discussion 3
7. Wet Cement https://youtu.be/X-rVWOqeAnk
8. Smart https://youtu.be/CHp-9aSQrk0
9. Kanye West Power https://youtu.be/L53gjP-TtGE
Discussion 4
10. Pfizer https://youtu.be/yJdtWf8MKgs
11. Edeka https://youtu.be/V6-0kYhqoRo
12. Happy https://youtu.be/buoJZUIHp80