Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

The following excerpts clarifies what virtue ethics is

An ethical act is the action that a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances. Virtue ethics
is person-based rather than action-based. It looks at the virtue or moral character of the person
carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules or the consequences of particular
actions.

Virtue ethics does not only deal with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions. It provides
guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviors a good person will seek to achieve. In that
way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a person's life, rather than particular episodes or
actions. A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and lives the virtues.

This is how it is done:

Virtue ethics uses the following as a framework for ethical decision making. This is how it is done:

In the Virtue framework, we try to identify the character

traits (either positive or negative) that might motivate us in a
given situation. We are concerned with what kind of person we
should be and what our actions indicate about our character. We
define ethical behavior as whatever a virtuous person would do in
the situation, and we seek to develop similar virtues
Obviously, this framework is useful in situations that ask
what sort of person one should be. As a way of making sense of
the world, it allows for a wide range of behaviors to be called
ethical, as there might be many different types of good character
and many paths to developing it. Consequently, it takes into
account all parts of human experience and their role in ethical
deliberation, as it believes that all of one's experiences, emotions,
and thoughts can influence the development of one's character.

Stated similarly, virtue ethics is "the ethics of behavior" which "focuses on the character of the
persons involved in the decision or action. If the person in question has good character, and
genuine motivation and intentions, he or she is behaving ethically." The rightness or wrongness of
one's action, or the goodness or badness of one's personality depends on his character, motivations,
and intentions

Virtue ethics, “is an ethics whose goal is to determine what essential to being a well-functioning or
flourishing human person. Virtue ethics stresses an ideal for humans or persons. As an ethics of
ideals of excellences, it is an optimistic and positive type of ethics."

Basic Types of Virtue (Excellence)

Aristotle gave two types of virtue. These are 1) intellectual virtues and 2) moral virtues. Intellectual
virtues refer to excellence of the mind while moral virtues refer to a person's dispositions to act
well. Intellectual virtues include ability to understand, reason and judge well while moral virtues
dispose a person to act well.
In the context of Aristotle, virtue is an attained, actualized or self-realized potential or possibility. It
can serve as a moral framework. When one has the potential or possibility of becoming a musician,
he tries to train and study to become a musician following a musician's virtue as a
framework

Aristotle (384-323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be

termed "self realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person
acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential,
he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person,
but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's
inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration
are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed
goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain."
Therefore, it is imperative for people to act in accordance with their
nature and develop their latent talents in order to be content and
complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other
things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end.
Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development
of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.

The material world is in state of actualizing, realizing what it is potential for. Everything has its
potency for something, its nature. Nature unfolds naturally, it has no obligation to be so. It has no
intellect and will. But a person has an obligation to be what he/she is meant or in potency to be. It
his/her obligation to develop his/her talent and virtues. The highest good or end, telos, of a person
is the fullness of his/her self-development or actualization. The concomitant result of this
development or actualization of his/her potentials is what Aristotle termed as happiness or the
experience of
happiness.

In short, virtue means excellence and virtue ethics is excellence ethics.

Virtue as a Mean
For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two extremes. The virtue of courage is a mean
between two extremes of deficiency and extreme, namely cowardice and foolhardiness,
respectively. Too little courage is cowardice and too much courage is foolhardiness)

Virtue Ethics in Other Traditions

Confucius emphasized two virtues, jen (or ren) and I Jen means humaneness, human-heartedness
and compassion. Li means propriety manners or culture.

Hinduism emphasizes five basic moral virtues: non-violence, truthfulness, honesty, chastity,
freedom from greed. It also emphasizes mental virtues: calmness, self-control, self-settledness,
forbearance, faith
and complete concentration. hunger for spiritual liberation.
Buddhism also has its intellectual and moral virtues. From the eight fold path are the intellectual
virtues of right understanding and right mindfulness and the moral virtues of right speech, right
action and right livelihood

Jesus Christ preached the virtues of love, mercy and compassion, hunger for justice, patience,
kindness, gentleness, self-control St. Thomas Aquinas taught the theological virtues - faith, hope and
love. Christian tradition teaches four cardinal moral virtues, namely: prudence, justice,
temperance and fortitude.

St. Thomas being an eclectic philosopher, integrated into his own philosophy anything that is good
conceived by his predecessors like Aristotle. But he enriched their thoughts with his own insights
or learning. The attainment of the highest good, which is happiness, includes its diffusion "Bonum
difusivum est." Goodness as goodness necessarily diffuses itself. A person's virtue diffuses itself in a
right action. Goodness shares itself, like a light that shines before all men.

One more point regarding various potentials of man which when actualized becomes virtues is
Hans George Gadamer's re-interpretation of Aristotle definition of man as a "homo logos," a
speaking animal. In other words, in the light Aristotle's wisdom, the virtue of being man is being a
speaking animal, meaning, his attainment of a meaningful, refined, and civilized language. Gutter
language is vice; beautiful, meaningful and refined language is virtue. One who has a virtue of a
refined language
speaks rightfully.

The virtuous person did not inherit his/her virtues. Neither were these virtues simply passed on to
him automatically. His being a person of virtue is a product of deliberate, consistent, continuous
choice and practice of living the virtue or virtues.
St. Thomas’ Natural Law Ethics
Meaning of Natural law and Other Laws
Based on the phrase "natural law ethics," what is ethical is what the natural law says. What is
natural law? Natural law is the "ordinance of Divine Wisdom, which is made known to us by reason
and which requires the observance of the moral order." It may also be defined to be "The eternal
law as far as it made known by human reason." By the eternal law we mean all that God necessarily
decrees from eternity. That part of the eternal law which reason reveals as directive of human acts,
we call the
natural law....

Eternal law is what God wills for creation. We are part of God's creation and so we are part of Gods
eternal law. We may not be able to understand the eternal law fully given our limitations. However,
by reason we have a grasp or a sense of the eternal law. This is natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: ...

There is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature
of his reason, which nature is proper to him; thus man has a natural
inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society: and
in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the
natural law; for instance to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those
among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the
above inclination (Summa Theologiael-2 Question 94, Article 2)

Let us relate natural law to other kinds of law:

Rev. Charles Coppens, S.J. explains the various kinds of law according
to St. Thomas:

A law decreed by Almighty God is a divine law; one

established by man is a human law. Those laws for human
conduct which God, having once decreed creation, necessarily
enacts in accordance with that decree, constitute the natural
law; those which God or man freely enacts are positive laws.
Now, between the natural law and positive laws, there are
these four points of difference: 1 The natural law, unlike
positive laws, does not depend upon the free will of God; its
requirements flow from the intrinsic difference between right
and wrong, which is determined by the very essences of things.
Hence, under this law, certain acts are not evil primarily
because they are forbidden, but they are forbidden because in
themselves they are evil. 2. Consequently, the natural law is the
same at all times, in all places, and for all persons: but this is
not true of positive laws, which may be changed with changing
circumstances, or, if the law-giver so wills it, even without
change of circumstances. 3. The natural law emanates from
God alone; but positive laws may be enacted by men. 4. The
natural law is promulgated through the light of reason, positive
laws require for their promulgation a sign external to man.
In summary, we have an eternal law, God's law for the whole creation, which we cannot fully grasp
given our limitation. But with our gift of reason we have a grasp of that eternal law, that is natural
law. Divine law is decreed by God while human law is decreed by man.

Natural Law as a Universal Formula

As an ethical framework, the natural law or maxim may be applied as iimplicitly illustrated in the
following:

A universal formula which contains in brief an expression

of the whole natural law is this: "Keep the moral order," or
"Observe right order in your actions. "Some writers state
it simply as, "Do good and avoid evil." Now, the right order
of human acts consists evidently in their proper direction to
man s last end, which is, subjectively, his perfect beatitude and,
objectively. God Himself. God must direct His free creatures to
their last end, hence He commands them to observe the moral
order and forbids them to depart from it.

So what is natural and ethical for a human person is to keep the moral order, to "observe right
order," to "do good and avoid evil" to preserve his her being. Suicide and murder work against
preservation of human life, therefor, are a violation of the natural law.

St. Thomas Aquinas grounded the directedness of nature in God. All of creation is directed towards
their final end God, God Himself. To direct us to Himself, he gave the divine law. The divine law
given to us in the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament and the New Testament of “love God…”
and “love your neighbor…” by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. And in the we were St. Thomas
synthesized faith and reason. He believed that “natural law shares in the eternal law.” All of creation
is directed.

Law Defined
St Thomas explained that the natural law is promulgated through the light of reason. Positive laws
require for their promulgation an external to man. Laws that are enacted are called positive laws. St
Thomas defined law in general as an ordinance of reason which is for the common good and has
been promulgated by one having charge of the community.” For a law to be a law it must have the
four requisites, namely: a) ordinance of reason, b) for the common good, c) promulgation, and d)
by one who has charge of the community. Based on the definition, an unreasonable law is not law; a
law that favors one to the prejudice of another or does not equally protect all is not a law; a law that
is not promulgated or published or made known to all, is not a law; and a law that is enacted by
unauthorized persons is not a law

A law must be a product of reason not purely of emotion. When the heart rules the mind, we can be
highly unreasonable. A law is promulgated for the common good because we are meant to be social,
we belong to a community. A law that favors the male gender at the expense of the female gender
cannot be a law. A law must be promulgated by one whose primary task is to care for his/her
people, the community. The primary task of our lawmakers is to care for and protect their people
by legislating laws for the common good. The law must be made known or communicated to all
people to ensure correct understanding and compliance. A law that is promulgated does not take
effect immediately. In the Philippines, laws take effect after fifteen days following the completion of
the publication in the Official
Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation unless it is otherwise provided
Kant’s Deontological Ethics: The
Duty Framework
Kant's Deontological Ethics
Kant's Ethics is now referred to deontological has its root from the Greek "deon” which means
“duty”. Hence deontological ethics focuses on “duty, obligation, and rights” instead of consequences
or ends. An act that proceeds from the will which wills it because it can be the will of all is a right
action. Willing and doing the will of all is a duty, regardless of the consequences. The following
clarifies
Kant's duty-based approach:

The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological

ethics argued that doing what is right or what the
consequences of action (something over which we
ultimately have no control) but about having the proper
in performing the action. The ethical action one taken from duty, that is, it is done
precisely because it is our obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligations
are the same for all rational creatures (they are universal)
and knowledge of what these obligations entail is arrived at
by discovering rules of behavior that are not contradicted by reason.

Kant's famous formula for discovering our ethical duty

is known as the categorical imperative. It has a number of
different versions, but Kant believed they all amounted to the
same imperative. The most basic form of the imperative is:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.” So, for
example, lying is unethical because we could not universalize
a maxim that said "One should always lie.” Such a maxim
would render all speeches meaningless. We can, however,
universalize the maxim, "Always speak truthfully,” without
running into a logical contradiction. (Notice that the duty-
based approach says nothing about how easy or difficult it
would be to carry out these maxims, only that it is our duty
as rational creatures to do so.) in acting according to a law
that we have discovered to be rational according to our own
universal reason, we are acting autonomously (in a self-
regulating fashion), and thus are bound by duty: a duty we
have given ourselves as rational creatures. We thus freely
choose (we will) to bind ourselves to the moral law. For Kant,
choosing to obey the universal moral law is the very nature of
acting ethically. (Mackinon, B. and Fiola A., 2015)

The example, borrowing money with no intention to pay back,

cannot be universalized and therefore cannot be ethical. If this becomes
universalized, there will be no more lenders and all banks will close.
The Duty Framework
Correspondingly, the duty-based approach can be applied as a framework for ethical decision
making:

In the Duty framework, we focus on the duties and

obligations that we have in a given situation, and consider
what ethical obligations we have and what things we should
never do. Ethical conduct is defined by doing one's duties and
doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the correct action.

This framework has the advantage of creating system of rules

that has consistent expectations of all people, if an action is ethically correct
or a duty is required, it would apply to every person in a given situation. This
even-handedness encourages treating everyone with equal dignity and respect.

This framework also focuses on following moral rules or

duty regardless of outcome, so it allows for the possibility that
one might have acted ethically, even if there is a bad result.
Therefore, this framework works best in situations where
there is a sense of obligation or in those in which we need to
consider why duty or obligation mandates or forbids certain
courses of action.

However, this framework also has its limitations. First,

can appear cold and impersonal, in that it might require
actions which are known to produce harms, even though they
are strictly in keeping with a particular moral rule. It also
does not provide a way to determine which duty we should
follow if we are presented with a situation in which two or
more duties conflict. It can also be rigid in applying the notion
of duty to everyone regardless of personal situation.

Kant's theory of right

According to Kant, the universal principle of right" is that "an action is right if it can coexist with
everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of
each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law" (6:230). In other
words, your exercise freely whatever rights you have on your property but only in accordance with
universal law. Universal law means a maxim that can be the maxim of all. You can use, dispose,
enjoy its fruits, but only in such a way that you do not violate the rights of others. This exercise of a
right bearing in mind the obligation to respect the right of others is tantamount to good faith or
good will.

Legally and Morally Right

It appears that in Kant, what is legal must be at the same time moral. An action is legally right if it is
at the same time in accordance with universal law, that is, in accordance with the categorical
imperative. In another context, what is legal is not necessarily moral. For instance, what is legal is
limited to compliance with law, be it laws of a state or country: but being moral may not be just
following the law, but doing more than what the law requires like responding to the need of
another. Paying an employee his minimum wage is legal; but paying more than his minimum wage
because of care and concern of his needs is more than what is legal.
Good will
Kant says, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called
good without qualification, except a good will.” Kant's criteria or framework of what is right or
wrong is "good
will". An act is said to be right or wrong depending on whether it is done with or without good will.
The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on one's good will or intentions. The usual
criticism, or weakness intentions." Is good will enough?

Categorical Imperative: To serve the will as a principle Kant has (2) versions of the categorical
imperative. The first version states “ I never to act other than so that I could will that my maxim
should become universal law." If one cannot wish or want that a certain rule or maxim becomes the
maxim of all, that it is not right to follow it. For instance, one cannot will that "thou shalt steal"
becomes a rule to be followed by all because others may ultimately and steal his property. One
cannot wish that “killing” becomes the maxim of all because he would not of course wish that
someone will come to kill him.

The second version is as follows: "Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end." Treating other merely as
a means to an end means equating him to a mere instrument, a tool, an object which is cast aside
after use, or can be sold or exchanged when no longer needed, or has value only for as long as it is
useful. Such act makes one a "user." In contemporary philosophy, like Marcel or Buber's tern, it is
treating the
other as an IT, a thing. That's why they call the act as "thing-ization." In the parable of "Hope for the
Flowers" by Trina Paulus, Stripe's climbing the caterpillar's pillar to reach to top, where all that
could be seen as a reward of climbing are other caterpillar's pillars, was no other way than stepping
on other caterpillars as a means of moving up higher.

Ought implies Can. This means that If and only if we can or are free to act in certain ways can we
be commanded to do so. This is one more moral principle ascribed to Kant, derived from two
passages in his works. One is stated as follows: "For if the moral law commands that we ought to be
better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human
beings." Another one states as follows: "The action to which the "ought" applies must indeed be
possible under natural conditions." The Situation Ethics author, Joseph Fletcher, used this maxim
several times to illustrate his situationism. In full statement the Saying would be, "If I ought to do
something, then I can do it." By way logical analysis, the statement means, one's ability to do
something is a necessary condition for his being obliged to do it. In Fletcher's terms, "you de obliged
to do only what you can where you are."

“I an” may also be interpreted to mean one’s degree of freedom, if by freedom we understand as
what Hornedo said about it, “the autonomous energy of being.” Since the degree of one’s freedom is
the degree of one’s responsibility. Hornedo says, the stuff of freedom is energy or strength. It
follows that the degree of one’s obligation is also the degree of one’s freedom. One can no mor be
responsible that what he can knowingly, freely, and voluntarily do.
Utilitarianism: The Consequentialist
Ethical Framework
Origin and nature of the Utilitarianist Framework

Two British philosopher, namely Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, are known to be the original
advocates of utilitarianism, the former being considered the founder. Bentham(1789), describes
this moral philosophy s follows:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is
for them alone to point out what we ought to do... By the principle of utility is meant that principle
which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to
have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is
the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action
whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of
government.

Similarly, John Stuart (1861) Mill's What Utilitarianism Is, opens with the
following paragraph:
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals "utility"
or the greatest happiness principle" holds that
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence
of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.

In brief, utilitarianism as a moral principle is "the principle of utility or the greatest happiness
principle." It is also phrased as the principle of “the greatest good of the greatest number." This is
the quality (greatest good) and quantity (greatest number) criteria. Among various options, that
which is objectively good in quality and most like by a majority is possibly the greatest good for the
greatest number. An illustration may be the passage of a minimum wage law. The quality of the law,
its determination as the
greatest good, the best among other bills, is arrived through the debates and discussions in
Congress. Once the best version of the law is forged, it is put into a vote. The vote may reflect
whether or not it will be accepted and will benefit the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a "form of
consequentialism," focusing on the consequences of action." in contrast with deontology.

There are two versions, namely, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. "Act utilitarianism:
consider the consequences of some particular act such as keeping or breaking one's promise." "Rule
utilitarianism: consider the consequences of some practice or rule behavior For example, the
practice of promise-keeping or promise-breaking.” Whichever, whether act or practice of rule, if
they produce good consequences, the act or the practice of the rule would be right. Simply put, what
is ethical according to the consequentialist, utilitarianist ethical framework? That which is ethical is
that which gives pleasure and happiness as a consequence. That is what the song " In heaven here is
no beer; that's why we drink beer here” implies. That which is unethical is that which gives pain
and unhappiness. That which is ethical is that which produces the greatest good (happiness) for the
greatest number.

The Consequentialist Framework

The following describes the application of the consequentialist framework:
In the Consequentialist framework, we focus on the future effects of the possible courses of action,
considering the people who will be directly or indirectly affected. We ask about what outcomes
are desirable in a given situation, and consider ethical conduct to be whatever will achieve the best
consequences. The person using the Consequences framework desires to produce the most good.

For Bentham and Mill, avoid pain, pursue pleasure. That is what it means to be ethical. What kind of
pleasure is morally preferred? Mill asserts intellectual pleasure. So it is not physical pleasure as
expressed by the song of the alcoholic "In heaven, there is no beer; that's why we drink beer here."
Mill wrote:
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
And if the fool, or the pig is, of a different opinion, it is
because they only know their own side of the question. The
other party to the comparison knows both sides.

The Love and Justice Framework

The principle of love
There are three well-known concepts of love originating from the Greeks, namely, agape or charity,
erotic or passionate sexual encounter, and philia, the affection between friends. Love as a moral
framework is the agapeic. Agape is the love principle preached by Jesus Christ. What Christ did as
narrated in the New Testament are all acts of love. Feeding the hungry, giving drinks to the thirsty,
healing the sick, rendering service to those in need. In general, as St. Thomas defined it, agape is
"willing the good of another." It is the act of sharing, or giving more than what is just because justice
is just the minimum of love. In the language of contemporary thinkers, this is love as "affirmation of
the other's being," "being-with-others." "being conscious of the other's presence."

In Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics, agapeic love is absolute norm, the absolute framework for the
determination of the right thing to do or wrong to avoid. In moral reasoning, it is asked, is it an act
of loving? Fr. Bernard Haring, the advocate of ethics of personalism, was also quoted as saying,
"(t)he heart of moral life is charity to one's neighbor."

Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Good as a Moral Framework

a. Social Justice
Social justice is equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society. Hence,
promotion of social justice is equivalent to promotion of the common good. It may also be said that
promotion of
the common good is promotion of social justice. The common good is explained as follows: In
ordinary political discourse, the "common good" refers to those facilities-whether material, cultural
or institutional that the members of a community provide to all members in order to fulfill a
relational obligation they all have to care for certain interests that they have in common. Some
canonical examples of the common good in a modern liberal democracy include: the road system;
public parks; police protection and public safety; courts and the judicial system; public schools:
museums and cultural institutions; public transportation civil liberties, such as the freedom of
speech and the freedom of association; the system of property; clean air and clean water; and
national defense. The term itself may refer either to the interests that members have in common or
to the facilities that serve common interests. For example, people may say, the new public
library will serve the common good" or "the public library is part of the common good.

In other words, it may be said that when the government improves public property and services,
and develops the natural resources, it simultaneously promotes equal access to wealth,
opportunities and privileges within society. Farm to market roads, expressways, railways, etc. will
allow every individual The opportunities to bring their products to the market. Free public schools
will allow all children the opportunity to go to school. This means social justice

For Plato, justice means giving what is due by doing one's own function. In Plato's Republic, there
are three classes of people, namely, the craftsmen, soldiers and rulers or guardian. The virtues
expected to be inherent in each class are correspondingly temperance, courage and wisdom. Each
member of its class must acquire and maintain the virtue in their class. Craftsmen should be
temperant in all aspects of their lives, temperant in acquiring, using and keeping their wealth;
temperant in their ambition. If they become ambitious and hypocritical by aspiring to become
soldiers and pretending to be soldiers, injustice arises because they won't be able to secure the
country. A policeman is just when he does his job, providing security of his people with courage. He
becomes unjust when instead of patrolling the streets to drive bad elements, he is going around
soliciting tongs. When he does not do his job by sleeping while on duty, then a lot people will suffer
from the unrestrained criminalities. A guardian is a philosopher king. He possesses all the virtues of
temperance, courage and wisdom. He has the duty of wisely studying and identifying solutions to
the problems of peace and order, equitable distribution of wealth, etc. If he is not temperant, i.e. he
is number one in graft and corruption, if he is a coward and has no will power, or political will to
introduce what is best for the people, and if he is not a wise president, then injustice results and the
people suffer.

b. Justice as the Minimum Demand of Love

William Luijpen, referred to justice as the minimum demand of love." To do justice is already an act
of love, the minimum demand of love. Which means that love is more, gives more than what is just.
Mathematically, if love is 100 percent of being for others, then justice may just be only 10 percent. A
just employer pays the minimum wage to employees, a loving employer, pays more than the
minimum wage, even when it hurts. If there are two people lost in the cold and one has two jackets
and the other has none, justice demands that one should share the other his jacket, the least that he
can do, but that is just the minimum demand of love.

c. Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is "justice that is concerned with the distribution or allotment of goods, duties,
and privileges in concert with the merits of individuals, and the best interests of society" The
following have features of distributive justice:
a) Egalitarianism is the doctrine of political and social equality. "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law; nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the law." This is not equalization in terms of quantity, it is
equalization in terms of entitlement to due process of law and equal
protection of the law.

b) Capitalist and free-market systems let the law of demand and supply
follow its course. Ideally it is a self-regulation process. It lets any
excess of demand be regulated by the limits of supply, and lets any
excess of supply be regulated by the limits of demand. This means
no artificial control or regulations. It is supposed to arrive naturally
at its own equilibrium. Free market is supposed to be an equalizer
During waiting time for natural course of things, public necessities or
utilities may demand immediate intervention which should be more
of an exception than the rule.

c) Socialists follow the rule, "from each according to his ability, to

each according to his needs." This requires collective ownership of
the means of production, distribution and exchange with the aim of
operating for use rather than for profit. Possible downside of this
system is there is no motivation for expansion and growth.

d) Taxation is government's getting a part of what its people earn

in order have money to spend for public services, operating and
maintaining public places or properties, for people's use. It is
practically demanding from taxpayers a minimum of justice, to
make the enjoyment of the wealth at least more equitable although
not equalizer. It is a government interference with private property,
more or less compelling people to give a share from the fruits of their
labor, a way of compelling diffusion of wealth.

e) Protection and Preservation of Public Welfare - The government

has constitution-granted power to govern, to make, adopt and
enforce laws for the protection and preservation of public health,
justice, morals, order, safety and security and welfare.
Constitution also gives a government the right to take private
property for public use under the doctrine of eminent domain.

f) Property for Public Use- The government has a Constitution

granted power to take private property for public use with just
compensation. Citizen's ownership of property is not absolute.
For the sake of the public, the government exercises this power to
equitably distribute opportunity for the use enjoyment of wealth or
property.
Justice as moral framework, be it social or distributive justice, states that whatever promotes
justice is the morally right thing to do.

The Better Moral Framework: Garner and Rosen's Synthesis

Richard T. Gamer and Bernard Rosen (1967) tried to identify the most acceptable criterion of the
rightness or wrongness of action, the goodness or badness of character or of personal life. For these
authors, the best framework is a synthesis of the teleological and deontological framework. The
rightness or wrongness of action and the goodness or badness of character or trait is a
function of (meaning it depends on) not only the end, object, or consequences of applying a
rule (rule utilitarianism) or doing an act (act utilitarianism), but also other bases like one's
sense of duty and good will (rule or act deontology). This means one arrives at an assessment of
the rightness or wrongness of an act, goodness or badness of a character or trait by considering not
only the consequences (affecting not only the self but also others) of applying a rule or doing an act,
but also considering other factors like the situation or conditions involved

In summary, what is ethical based on the various ethical frameworks? What are the questions to
ask? Will it actualize my potentialities, my abilities? (Aristotle's virtue ethics). Is the act in
accordance with
Natural Law? (St Thomas). What are the consequences of doing the act? (Utilitarianism). Will it
benefit myself (egoistic utilitarianism) or others (altruistic utilitarianism). Do I see it as my duty or
obligation?
(deontological). Is it my duty to follow the rule (rule deontology) or is it my duty to do the act (act
deontology). Is it a rule I can follow or an act to do to the limits of my ability where I am at a
particular time? (situation ethics). Does my principle of love demand a creative response requiring
me to go beyond the limits sacrificing myself even unto death? (Love ethical framework).
framework) Does it promote justice, the common good? (Justice ethical