Moral dilemmas are part of human experiences.
➢ a way of thinking about the world, the
Events in daily lives challenge us to make moral
decisions. Beset by real-life moral questions, there is
a need to reflect, analyze, and evaluate different
competing ethical theories and moral positions. Such
reflection, analysis, and evaluation will not only help
us justify our choices but will also help us decide
when confronted by a moral dilemma.
● Moral dilemmas
➢ reflect
➢ analyze
➢ evaluate
○ to be able to decide and justify (reasons)
decisions and actions
Ethics is a practical and normative science, based
on reason, which studies human acts and provides
norms for their goodness or wrongness (Timbreza,
2013). Also referred to as Moral Philosophy, it is
one of the many branches of Philosophy. It primarily
tackles the philosophical meaning and
justifications of right and wrong.
MODULE 1 | PHILOSOPHY AND
PHILOSOPHIZING
(T1) PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOSOPHIZING
The imperfection of human existence makes people
wonder, doubt, and ask questions. People have an
innate desire to know. It is in people's desire to find
answers to the questions and imperfections of
human existence that they philosophize.
Philosophy etymologically means love of wisdom.
It is more than just knowing. It is giving meaning
and making sense about human existence (and
life experiences / being human).
The act of questioning and desire to know is the
beginning of philosophizing. Philosophy started in
Greece at around 600 B.C.E. as an intellectual
activity. It was not only a matter of seeing or
believing, but of thinking, and philosophy meant
thinking about the basic questions with an
attitude of genuine and free inquiry (Stumpf and
Fieser, 2003).
DEFINITIONS OF PHILOSOPHY
❖ Philosophy
universe, and society
➢ an activity (intellectual process) people
undertake when they seek to understand
fundamental truths about themselves, the
world in which they live in, and their relationships
to the world and to each other
➢ “Philosophy is for those who are willing to be
disturbed with a creative disturbance.
Philosophy is for those who still have the
capacity to wonder.”
❖ Characterization of Philosophy
1. A sustained inquiry into the principles and
presuppositions of any field of inquiry
- Philosophy is not a subject of study like
other fields of inquiry.
2. An attitude, an approach, or sometimes
regarded as a calling to ask, answer, or
comment upon certain kinds of questions.
3. Concerned with assumptions upon which a
field of inquiry is based, and these questions
directly relate to the results discovered in that
field of inquiry.
❖ Philosophy is both:
➢ an activity involving thinking about these kinds
of ultimate questions and...
➢ an activity involving the construction of sound
reasons or insights into our most basic
assumptions about understanding our lives and
our place in the universe
PHILOSOPHY AND STUDENTS
● To help students to understand various kinds of
deeply difficult intellectual problems
● To interpret texts regarding these problems
● To analyze and criticize the arguments found in
them
● To express themselves in ways that clarify and
carry forward reflection upon them
❖ The basic aim of education in philosophy is not
and should not be primarily to impart
information.
➢ Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of
any definite answers to its questions since there
is no definite answers can, as a rule, be known
to be true, but rather for the sake of the
questions themselves; because these questions
 enlarge our conception of what is possible,
enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish
the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind
against speculation; but above all because,
through the greatness of the universe which
philosophy contemplates, the mind is also
rendered becomes capable of that union with
the universe which constitutes its highest good.
(Bertrand Russell)
THREE TYPES OF INQUIRY
❖ People philosophize because there is tension in
human existence that calls for inquiry,
questioning, and search for meaning.
➔ Experience-shared interaction of the I and the
other:
➔ Characterized by tension and incoherence
(inconsistent, illogical, unclear, confusing,
incomprehensible)
➔ Inquiry is a human being’s effort to integrate, to
bring harmony to this tension. This may be:
◆ Common sense: sound judgement based on a
simple perception of the situation or facts
◆ Scientific inquiry: careful investigation into
some aspect of the natural world whereby
quantifiable relationships may be propounded
◆ Philosophical inquiry: goes beyond the
scientific; it inquires the coherence quality,
sense of human life itself as a comprehensive
quality.
SOURCE OF PHILOSOPHIZING
❖ When man is confronted with mystery or
something whose causes are still unknown, he
wonders why (the beginning of wisdom) -
Socrates
1. Wonder (Plato)
● Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and
philosophy begins in wonder
● “To wonder means to realize that there is
something strange behind the things that we
ordinarily perceive.” (to realize)
● “To wonder is to notice something
extraordinary in the ordinary things we see.” (to
assume)
2. Doubt (Rene Descartes)
● Rene Descartes:
○ Known for his Methodic Doubt; he started a
new way of philosophizing
○ He doubted everything until he identified
something which cannot be doubted (that he is
doubting)
○ Doubt paved the way for the beginning of a
new period in Philosophy
○ One of the many modern philosophers who tried
to provide philosophy with exactness of
mathematics
3. Grenzsituation - Limit Situations (Karl
Jaspers)
● It is any of certain situations in which human
being is said to have differing experiences from
those arising from ordinary situations
● “Inescapable realities that we can only
acknowledge but could not change (e.g.
death, birth, aging). One may not be able to
control but we can make sense and give deeper
meaning.” - Karl Jaspers
4. Metaphysical Uneasiness (Gabriel Marcel)
● Contrasted with curiosity
● To be curious is to start from external objects
(outside of me) which I have a vague idea of
● Metaphysical uneasiness is beyond the physical
(external) but more internal.
● Philosophizing begins from the inner
restlessness which is linked to the drive of
fullness.
(T2) CLASSIFYING AND GROUPING
PHILOSOPHIES
Philosophizing
- an activity in which one seeks to resolve a
particular type of issue using a particular type of
method, and which transpires in a particular
place and at a particular time
- it is neutral in the sense that it does not cling to,
and thus is not biased to, a particular
philosophical tradition or way of doing
philosophy
- it is very general in the sense that it can
accommodate any philosophical tradition or way
of doing philosophy and may even
accommodate other disciplines as well.
 GENERAL BASES FOR CLASSIFYING
PHILOSOPHIES
● according to topic
○ which concerns the type of issues or questions
being addressed in a given philosophical activity
● according to position
○ which concerns the kind of solution proposed or
put forward for the issue being addressed in
given philosophical activity
● according to method
○ which concerns the particular way by which a
certain proposed solution is arrived at or is
argued for in a given philosophical activity.
● according to region
○ which concerns the geographical location in
which a given philosophical activity transpires or
flourishes
● according to historical period
○ which concerns the time frame of the occurrence
of a given philosophical activity
ACCORDING TO TOPIC
Philosophical questions
➢ framework questions in that they deal with the
concepts that serve as our framework for
understanding phenomena (John Searle, 1999)
Rudolf Carnap
➢ made a distinction between internal and external
questions regarding linguistic frameworks
Linguistic frameworks
➢ generally correspond to what we call theories,
belief systems, or conceptual schemes.
➢ the “linguistic” qualifier is only meant to
emphasize the critical role of language in how
frameworks are formed
Internal questions/Internal to the framework
➢ questions that we ask in the course of using or
applying a framework to explain some
phenomena
➢ answerable using the rules and concepts of the
framework
External questions/External to the framework
➢ questions that we ask about the framework
itself, like whether it is a correct framework or
whether its beliefs objectively represent how
things are in the world
➢ not answerable using the rules and concepts of
the framework
The various areas of human knowledge, scientific or
otherwise, academic or not, obviously are
frameworks that we use or can use in dealing with
the world. Consequently, we have a philosophy for
each of these areas. This consideration, that
philosophy investigates the foundations of all the
other disciplines or areas of human knowledge and
that therefore there is a philosophy for each of these
areas must surely be one of the senses in which
philosophy is said to be the queen or mother of the
sciences.
Basic/Major Thematic Types of Philosophy
● logic: which concerns the structure of correct
reasoning
● epistemology: which concerns the justification
and validity of knowledge-claims
● metaphysics: which concerns the nature of
reality or existence (metaphysics is sometimes
called ontology)
● ethics: which concerns the nature of morality or
moral judgments
● aesthetics: which concerns the nature of beauty
or judgments about beauty
● social and political philosophy: which
concerns that nature of the state and social
justice
● philosophy of science: which concerns the
nature of scientific concepts
● philosophy of religion: which concerns the
nature of religious concepts and beliefs
● philosophy of language: which concerns the
generation of linguistic meanings
● philosophy of mind: which concerns the nature
of the mind and consciousness.
ACCORDING TO POSITION
Types of philosophies distinguished according to
their proposed solutions to philosophical issues
correspond to what are usually called philosophical
views, philosophical positions, or philosophical
schools of thought. (positional types of
philosophies)
It will be observed that some of the names of these ➢ When a philosophical view addresses a cluster
philosophical views directly speak of what these of philosophical issues in a coherent manner
views are, examples of which are materialism (the ➢ Examples are the philosophical views of the so-
view that reality is material), dualism (the view that called system builders of (Western) Modern
reality has a dual nature—material and mental), and philosophy, which include Descartes, Spinoza,
idealism (the view that reality is mental or non- Hume, Kant, and Hegel. Their views
material); while some are patterned after their consistently address issues in epistemology,
originators, examples of which are Epicureanism metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of religion, and
(after Epicurus), Platonism (after Plato), even social-political philosophy.
Confucianism (after Confucius), Thomism (after St. ➢ A good example of a philosophical system in the
Thomas Aquinas), and Cartesianism (after East is Buddhist philosophy
Descartes)
ACCORDING TO METHOD
Some representative examples of the
philosophical views for each basic branch of In dealing with philosophical issues, one necessarily
philosophy: uses certain types of methods—the so-called
● Metaphysics: Materialism, Idealism, Dualism, philosophical methods. The philosophical methods
Monism, Pluralism are devised according to what are deemed
● Epistemology: Rationalism, Empiricism, Critical appropriate by philosophers for evaluating the
Philosophy (of Kant), Pragmatism foundations of such frameworks.
● Ethics (Normative): Consequentialism,
Deontological Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Care Ethics, Philosophies are also classified according to the
Confucianism kind of philosophical method that they use; and the
● Social and Political Philosophy: Socialism, resulting types of philosophies here correspond to
Liberalism, Capitalism, Social Contractarianism, what has often been called philosophical
Anarchism, Egalitarianism movements, approaches, and traditions.
● Logic: Intensional Logic, Extensional Logic, (methodological types of philosophies)
Aristotelian Logic, Mathematical Logic
● Philosophy of Religion: Atheism, Theism Methodological Types of Philosophies:
(Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, ● Analytic philosophy: which uses conceptual
Pantheism), Religious Pluralism analysis or the clarification of concepts in its
● Aesthetics: Platonic Aesthetics, Humean philosophical investigations
Aesthetics, Kantian Aesthetics, Modernist ● Phenomenology: which generally uses
Aesthetics, Postmodern Aesthetics, Feminist experiential analysis
Aesthetics ● Hermeneutics: which uses textual analysis or
● Philosophy of Language: Ideal-language interpretation
Philosophy, Ordinary-language Philosophy, ● Marxism: which uses historical-economic
Referential Theory of Meaning, Millean Theory analysis
of Proper Names, Verificationism, Picture ● Existentialism: which uses existential analysis
Theory of Propositions, Use Theory of Meaning, (or daseinsanalysis, in the language of
Speech Act Theory Heidegger) or analysis based on human
● Philosophy of Mind: Dualism, Materialism, experiences that especially concern the
Realism, Non-realism, Reductionism, question of purpose in relation to human
Epiphenomenalism, Physicalism, Functionalism, freedom, mortality, and interpersonal relations
Computationalism, Biological Naturalism ● Feminism or feminist philosophy: which
● Philosophy of Science: Realism, generally uses gender analysis or analysis
Non-realism/Instrumentalism, Falsificationism, based on gender differences and the
Constructivism, Inductivism, Reductionism, inequalities or marginalization that results from
Coherentism such differences
● Postmodernism or postmodern philosophy:
Philosophical System which uses the methods, among others, of
 deconstruction or analysis based on
dichotomies and power analysis or analysis
based on power structures.
Some of the philosophical movements are
subsumed under a more general philosophical
tradition, for example:
➢ Continental philosophy: which covers
hermeneutics, phenomenology, existentialism,
the so-called Frankfurt School, and postmodern
philosophy
Now, as theory and method are inextricably
linked with one another in the sense that a certain
theory requires a certain type of method and a
certain method assumes or leads to a certain type of
theory, the positional types converge with the
methodological types. This explains why certain
types of philosophies that we classify as
methodological are also sometimes regarded as
positional types, and vice-versa. Perhaps here what
will make the difference is which between theory
and method is being emphasized.
Another thing to note is that some methodological
types are combined with one another, such as
existentialism with marxism, existentialism with
feminism, and feminism with postmodernism, etc.
ACCORDING TO REGION
Philosophical activity, however abstract it may be,
always transpires in a certain spatial location or
region
Regional Types of Philosophies (philosophical
activities that occur or that flourish in particular
regions)
● Two major kinds:
○ Western Philosophy
○ Eastern Philosophy
● Under each of these two major kinds are what
can be called as the national types of
philosophies, referring to philosophical
activities happening in particular countries or
nations, examples of which are German
philosophy, French philosophy, Indian
philosophy, Greek philosophy, Chinese
philosophy, and Japanese philosophy.
ACCORDING TO PERIOD
Philosophies are also classified according to the
period or particular time frames in which they
flourished. (historical types of philosophies)
The history of philosophy, especially in the West, is
conveniently divided into four periods:
● the Ancient period
● the Medieval period: comes after the Ancient
period and roughly runs until the late 15th
century and Renaissance
● the Modern period: comes after the Medieval
period and runs until the late 19th century
● the Contemporary period: covers the
philosophical developments of the 20th century
up to the present day
Consequently, Ancient philosophy refers to
philosophies that flourished during the Ancient
period, Medieval philosophy to philosophies that
flourished during the Medieval period, Modern
philosophy to philosophies that flourished during the
Modern period, and Contemporary philosophy to
philosophies that flourished during the
Contemporary period.
Ancient Philosophy
➢ includes the philosophies of the Ancient Greek
philosophers (foremost of which are the Pre-
Socratics, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) and
Roman philosophers (such as Seneca and
Marcus Aurelius)
Medieval Philosophy
➢ includes the philosophies of St. Augustine,
Boethius, John Duns Scotus, and St. Thomas
Aquinas, among others
Modern Philosophy
➢ includes the philosophies of the Rationalists
(Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) and
Empiricists (Hume, Berkeley, and Locke) of this
period, Kant, the German Idealists (Fichte,
Schelling, and Hegel), Schopenhauer, and
Nietzsche
Contemporary Philosophy
➢ includes the philosophies of Heiddeger, Sartre,
Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Quine, Davidson,
Rawls, the postmodern thinkers (such as
Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Lacan), the
Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse,
 Fromm, Habermas, and others), the logical
positivists (such as Carnap, Schlick, Waismann,
and Ayer), the hermeneutic thinkers (such as
Gadamer and Ricouer), and so many others
Philosophies in the Eastern region (such as Indian
philosophy, Chinese philosophy, Islamic philosophy,
and others) do not seem to fit nicely into these four
major eras—Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and
Contemporary; for they seem to have their own
ways of delineating their own historical periods.
CONCLUSION
Five general types or categories of philosophies:
(1) the thematic types of philosophies, referring to
types of philosophies distinguished according to the
kind of topic being addressed;
(2) the positional types of philosophies, referring
to types of philosophies distinguished according to
the position being advanced;
(3) the methodological types of philosophies,
referring to the types of philosophies distinguished
according to method used;
(4) the regional types of philosophies, referring to
types of philosophies distinguished according to the
region where philosophizing transpires; and
(5) the historical types of philosophies, referring
to types of philosophies distinguished according to
the historical period in which philosophizing occurred
Philosophies are those that investigate the
foundations of frameworks and not the
frameworks themselves; a particular
investigation on the foundations of a particular
worldview is what constitutes a particular type
of philosophy, not the worldview itself.
MODULE 2 | ETHICS: THEORY AND PRACTICE
(T1) THE TRADITIONAL BRANCHES OF
PHILOSOPHY
1. Epistemology (the Study of Knowledge)
➢ as a discipline includes the subjects of the
nature of knowledge and the extent of
knowledge, given its possibility.
➢ central concerns:
○ whether or not things be known with absolute
certainty
○ whether or not some things are unknowable
➢ common issue:
○ skepticism: the doctrine that genuine
knowledge is impossible
2. Metaphysics/Ontology (the Study of Reality)
➢ the philosophical study whose object is to
determine the real nature of things (reality and
existence)--to determine the meaning, structure,
and principles of whatever is insofar as it is.
3. Axiology (the Study of Value)
➢ the inquiry into the nature, criteria, and
metaphysical status of value
➢ subdivisions:
○ ethics/moral philosophy
○ aesthetics: the inquiry into feelings,
judgements, or standards concerning the nature
of beauty and arts; the analysis of the values of
sensory experience and the associated feelings
or attitudes in art and nature
4. Logic
➢ the study of the methods and principles used to
distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning
(T2) OTHER BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
1. Philosophy of Language
➢ a branch of philosophy that attempts “to give
philosophically illuminating descriptions of
certain general features of language, such as
reference, truth, meaning, and necessity.” (John
Searle)
➢ Linguistic Philosophy: is the name of
philosophical method for solving philosophical
problems by analyzing the language of those
problems
➢ mainly engaged in the activity of clarifying the
meanings of our linguistic expressions
➢ can be seen in role it plays in resolving
disagreements or disputes
➢ Disagreements may be:
○ in belief
■ Disagreements about facts, which are properly
resolved by verifying the facts or issue
■ Verification can be done by directly observing
the facts, examining documents or appealing to
appropriate authorities
○ in attitude
■ Disagreements over preferences, usually
resolved by persuasions, if not by compromise.
○ verbal disagreements
■ Arise out of misunderstanding of the meanings
of our linguistic expressions
■ Properly resolved by clarifying the meanings of
misunderstood linguistic expressions
➢ disagreement in beliefs and attitudes are
genuine and real; verbal disagreements are
not, because it is just thoughts that there are.
➢ Proper way to do it: (philosophy of language)
○ Clarifying of meanings of the critical terms
involved in disagreement
2. Philosophy of Science
➢ deals with the foundations, methods, and
implications of science
➢ inquiries on: what qualifies as science, the
reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate
purpose of science
➢ some issues: the demarcation problem refers
to the distinction between science and
nonscience (pseudoscience); Karl Popper
called this the central question of philosophy of
science
3. Hermeneutics
➢ a theory, methodology and praxis of
interpretation that is geared towards the
recapturing of meaning of a text, or a text-
analogue, that is temporarily or culturally distant,
obscured by ideology and false consciousness
➢ also known as Philosophy of Interpretation
4. Philosophy of Education
➢ is the branch of applied or practical philosophy
concerned with the nature and aims of
education and the philosophical problems
arising from educational theory and practice
5. Philosophy of Law
➢ is concerned with providing a general
philosophical analysis of law and legal
institutions
➢ investigates the nature of law, especially in its
relation to human values, attitudes, practices,
and political communities
(T3) PHILOSOPHY AND ONE’S FUTURE
PROFESSION
Philosophy
➢ has its roots in the ancient world as philo-sophia
➢ wisdom was sought by observing and
experiencing the whole of reality, and through
reflection and reasoning
➢ seeking to understand human life and
relationships and how to lead a good and
flourishing life
➢ In one’s profession, we can think of this as:
○ reflecting on the reality of the world of one’s
future professions;
○ using reasoning to examine the concepts;
○ how to use and how to apply the concepts in
practice.
■ “Philosophical thinking underlies our aim to
practice our profession in the best possible way;
it helps us to flourish as future professionals.”
➢ Philosophy is important because it is “a natural
extension of our interest of truth”
➢ That is, it helps us to identify different ways of
thinking about our future profession and different
approaches to the practices of our future
profession.
➢ Philosophy helps us individually and as a
profession to identify explicitly what we think is
true about our future profession.
➢ We know from experience that in good times
and in challenging times, what we think is true
about our future profession is what brings
most of us to our practice each day.
(T4) WHY MORAL EDUCATION REQUIRES
MORAL PHILOSOPHY
According to Dr. Aguas (2014), the rightness or
wrongness, or goodness or badness of an
action, is the focal point of morality. Morality sets
standards by which man can measure or judge
whether an action is good or bad. One of our
sources of morality is education. Formal and
informal education provide us with different
standards and norms to judge an action. In a
society surrounded by corrupt government officials,
heartless human beings, and selfish individuals,
there is a need to emphasize moral philosophy in
education.
(T4) ETHICS AND HUMAN EXISTENCE
notes taken on the video:

animals act on their urges without much regard for

other creatures, unlike humans. however, we are
part of the animal kingdom which connotes our
struggle with selfish urges and desires. we’ve
evolved a sense of morality or right and wrong. this
sense guides us to believe in certain values which
help us make ethical decisions. in other words,
ethics is a set of guidelines for behaving morally.

MODULE 3 | ETHICS AND THE ETHICAL
DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
(T1) ETHICS, HUMAN EXISTENCE, AND ITS SUB-
BRANCHES
Ethics a.k.a. Moral Philosophy
➢ The attempt to achieve a systematic
understanding of the nature of morality and what
it requires of us--in Socrates’ words of “how we
ought to live,” and why.
More than a common sense approach, Ethics:
➢ begins with explicit awareness of the moral
dimensions of our lives;
➢ focuses on the attitude of questioning;
➢ making deliberate efforts to reflect on issues,
problems, and concepts involved;
➢ searches for answers through rigorous methods
and examination;
➢ subjects its own claims to intense scrutiny;
Ultimate Aim of Ethics:
➢ to provide:
○ systematic explanations, and
○ well-grounded arguments regarding ethical
questions
*Ethics as thoughtful analysis and evaluation of
the standards and principles by which we issue
judgements in terms of moral values.
Divisions of Ethics
➔ Metaethics
➔ Normative Ethics or General Ethics
➔ Applied Ethics or Special Ethics
METAETHICS
➢ inquires about the nature and methodology of
moral judgements
➢ is not concerned with which actions are right or
wrong, good or bad
➢ is concerned with the meaning and use of
moral concepts in moral judgements
➢ explores the status, foundations, and scope of
moral values, properties, and words
Metaethical positions may be divided according
to how they respond to questions such as:
● What exactly are people doing when they use
moral words such as “good” and “right”?
● What precisely is a moral value in the first place,
and are such values similar to other familiar
sorts of entities, such as objects and properties?
● Where do moral values come from--what is their
source and foundation?
● Are some things morally right or wrong for all
people at all times, or does morality instead vary
from person to person, context to context, or
culture to culture?
Skepticism (Greek, “skeptis” meaning doubt)
➢ Forms of Moral Skepticism:
○ Relativism
■ doubts the existence of universal, absolute
moral values
■ basic claim: is that morality is created by
humans. as such, morality is relative to
particular individuals, societies, or cultures.
○ Subjectivism
■ doubts the objectivity of moral statements
■ basic claim: is that moral statements are merely
descriptions of our subjective states. thus,
morality is and is a matter of personal choice.
○ Emotivism
■ doubts that reason plays a significant role in
morality
■ basic claim: ethical judgements are just the
expression of our emotions. morality is a
matter of personal feelings.
NORMATIVE ETHICS (NORMS)
➢ involves arriving at moral standards that
regulate right and wrong conduct
➢ in a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus
test of proper behavior
➢ refers to all diverse ethical formulations of
general and universal concepts and
principles which serve as foundation of morality
APPLIED ETHICS
➢ a field of ethics that deals with ethical questions
specific to a professional, disciplinary, or
practical field
➢ subsets of applied ethics include: medical
ethics, bioethics, business ethics, legal
ethics, and others
(T2) ARTICLE ABOUT APPLIED ETHICS:
BIOMEDICAL ETHICS: CONTEXTS,
CHALLENGES, PROBLEMS, AND ISSUES
It shows how Ethics may be applied to a particular
field; in this case the medical field.
“What ought I do?” This is one of the questions that
Immanuel Kant posed as fundamental in the field of
philosophy. In pursuit of wisdom, the ethical and
moral self seeks not only to “know” things in the
abstract but also to be able to apply this
knowledge in the concrete level ,i.e., her everyday
life, particularly when moral decision-making is
involved. Values, good or bad, and what is morally
right or wrong, falls in the purview of normative
ethics, as it seriously seeks to establish which moral
views are justifiable, and thus ought to be accepted.
“Biomedical ethics,” also commonly referred to as
“bioethics” are two terms that are often used
interchangeably. The latter suggests a wider scope
transcending the practice of medicine to encompass
not only the professional activities of medical
practitioners, but rather in the context of the
innumerable and myriad activities involved in the
healthcare profession, including research and
development.
Bioethics is a neologism coined by the first
“original bioethicist,” Van Rensselear Potter who
saw it as a necessity in establishing “an ethic that
can incorporate our obligations, not just to other
humans, but to the biosphere as a whole”. While
medical ethics makes up a huge and central part of
bioethics, it transcends the spheres of medicine and
health care to encompass fields including
environmental ethics, ethical issues of sexuality and
reproduction, and “genethics” or ethics of genetic
choice and manipulation
As applied, bioethics is interdisciplinary in the sense
that it approaches issues and concerns with
consideration of different fields such as medicine,
law, public policy, sociology and occasionally, even
religion. However, despite this overlapping
discipline, it remains under the rubric of
philosophical ethics, where decision-making is
grounded on philosophical precepts, as ethical
theory and moral philosophy are both referring to
what Beauchamp and Childress call, “philosophical
reflection on morality’s nature and function...(where)
the purpose of theory is to enhance clarity,
systematic order, and precision of argument in our
thinking about morality.”
Ethical Principles
As Jean Paul Sartre and the existentialists put it,
our every action defines our being. In our quest for
authenticity we must have a stake in making not only
rational decisions but ethical ones as well. However,
making good moral decisions is not always easy as
we are burdened with having to make ethical
decisions in our everyday lives. In the context of
bioethics, all stakeholders, doctors, nurses, hospital
administrators, scientists and researchers and
patients must all make these decisions in one way or
another.
In the light of the case illustrated above, one handy
approach is to employ moral principles that have
already been derived from and justified by a
moral theory, which can provide a direct guide to
decision making and direct action.
First Do No Harm; Primum Non Nocere
The Oath of Hippocrates, the earliest known
statement written as an ethical code for physicians,
opens with this admonition, Primum Non Nocere in
Latin or, “First do no Harm.” The Principles of
Beneficence and NonMaleficence are two sides of
the same coin where the former is formulated as,
“We should act in ways that promote the welfare of
the people” (Munson 2000). This simply means that
a physician is duty-bound in acting only in ways that
actively promote good whereas the latter,
nonmaleficence, actively seeks to avoid harm.
Munson formulated this principle thus, “We ought to
act in ways that do not cause needless harm or
injury to others.” These are duties we expect of
physicians where failure to meet the standards are
left open to the charge of moral or legal maleficence
(i.e., medical malpractice).
The Principle of Autonomy
Our subjectivity is denied when other people make
decisions for us. Unless we are otherwise
incapacitated, we human beings enjoy a
fundamental right to choose and determine what is
the best for us. This is evident not only in our
constitution and the UN Bill of Rights but the active
promotion of one’s freedom is manifested in many
realms, moral or legal. It is premised on human
freedom i.e., that we are free to choose our path,
and that it is “our life” as we make it. In the medical
setting, patients are autonomous persons who
determine what sort of treatment they ultimately
decide on, after being informed of their options.
The Principle of Justice
There are two features of justice; one is non-
comparative justice, or when people get what they
are entitled to and their basic rights are secured;
while the other is comparative justice, or when
people are concerned with applying pre-existing
guides, rules and laws vis-a-vis the distribution of
costs and benefits. In the medical contexts this
concern is distributive justice, where each one’s
interest or need is weighed carefully against other
competing interests.
Virtue Ethics
Since the opening question of this article is framed
on what ought to be done (What to do?), there is a
shift in virtue ethics from “do” to “be” (How to
be?). Virtue is based on character and does not
necessarily require principles or rules to guide
one’s actions. Needless to say, only the right
character with the essential set of virtues can
bring out the right set of actions.
For example, moral virtues, as written in the works of
Chinese philosopher Mencius such as ren, li, yi and
zhi, or benevolence, compassion, propriety and
wisdom, lead to the right actions and support his
view that human nature is good. In the medical
context the ideal health professional or researcher
should be in good possession of these virtues,
including honesty in disclosing to her patients, and
integrity in doing research.
Care Ethics
They also reject abstract moral principles and put
great emphasis on contexts. Care ethics maintains
that it is inappropriate to think in terms of rigid rules
and principles when certain kinds of relationships
are concerned.
So in the medical context, relationships between all
stakeholders, the patients, their family, the health
professionals, requires a deep understanding of the
way that each one is bound in a complex situation
where abstract principles cannot possibly capture
everything relevant in coming up with sound and
caring moral decisions.
Contexts: Bioethics in the Philippines
Inevitably, the kind of media coverage this sub-
branch of ethics generates involves huge advances
in technology (e.g., the ethics involved in stem cell
research or human cloning, euthanasia). Incidentally
this is a field where our country lags behind. It is
excruciating to talk about euthanasia in contexts
where patients die before they are brought in to
hospitals because of hospital bed shortages,
inadequate professional care, or financial
deficiencies. To die honorably is a luxury that many
impoverished Third World people do not experience
in the hands of health professionals.
Context is vital especially as we consider who has
access to advanced scientific knowledge and
technological resources. In Shannon’s book, his
discussion on technology impacts the way we view
nature, as this includes the belief that the rise of
science and technological improvements, as well as
the ordinary person’s access to them, affect the way
that we live and consequently, the way that we die.
Concluding Remarks
It is difficult to miss the relevance of Bioethics
especially as we come to realize and value health
concerns and increasing the quality of life. As an
applied ethics, this sub-field presents issues that
have universal significance as well as personal
impact when one ponders on the quality of life. If
health and physical well being are among the
conditions for the pursuit of happiness then it
becomes an important task to reflect on these
matters. However, this field also opens a myriad of
questions directly linked to what ought to be done.
Moral decision making always happens in
particular contexts. Whether about the case of
contraception, as cited above or the morality of
cloning humans, the reflective individual is urged to
carefully and rationally think things through, make a
stand, and defend it when the time arises.
(T3) ETHICS AND HUMAN EXISTENCE
THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN
EXISTENCE (PART 1)
Ethics
➢ A practical and normative science, based on
reason, which studies human acts and provides
norms for their goodness and badness
➢ As a practical science: deals with systematized
body of knowledge that may be applied to
human actions
➢ As a normative science: establishes norms for
the regulation and direction of human actions
Etymology
➔ Greek: Ethos (custom or habit)
➔ Ancient Greek: Ethikos (character; arising from
habit)
➔ Latin: Mores (manner, custom, usage)
➔ Ordinarily, they (morality and ethics) refer to
social or cultural standards and principles by
which we customarily judge things as right,
wrong, good, and bad.
Ethics from other philosophy
➢ Whereas much of philosophy is concerned with
knowledge of “what is” (e.g. metaphysics, philo
of religion), ethics is concerned with theory and
practice
➢ It is concerned with values, not the “whats” of
things, but what ought to be
Ethics as subject of our study:
➢ about determining the grounds for values with
particular and special significance to human
importance
Kinds of Valuation
➢ Valuations that fall under the domain of
aesthetics:
○ Aesthetics: aesthesis (sense or feeling)
■ refers to the judgements of personal approval or
disapproval that we make about what we see,
hear, smell, or taste
➢ Technical valuation
○ Greek: Techne
○ refers to the proper way (right way) of doing
things
➢ Etiquette
○ the customary code of polite behavior in
society or among members of a particular
profession or group
○ the conduct or procedure required by good
breeding or prescribed by authority to be
observed in social or official life
○ concerns with right and wrong but are not quite
grave enough to belong to the discussion of
ethics
Use of terms
● Ethics, a discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal
ways of thinking
● The term “morals” may be used to refer to
specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or
to describe acts that people perform
THE ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN
EXISTENCE (PART 2)
❖ Law: a certain rule and measure of acts
whereby man is induced to act or is restrained
from acting
Sources of Authority
A. 1. Positive Law
➢ refers to different rules and regulations that are
posited or put forward by an authority figure that
require compliance
2. Divine Law
➢ refers to laws derived from a transcendent
source
3. Natural Law
➢ the moral standards that govern human behavior
are, in some sense, objectively derived from the
nature of human beings and the nature of the
world
➢ it does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws
that science aims to describe
B. 1. Religion
➢ human beings’ relation to that which they regard
as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or
worthy of special reverence
➢ it is also commonly regarded as consisting of the
way people deal with ultimate concerns about
their lives and their fate after death
2. Divine Command Theory
➢ is the view that morality is somehow dependent
upon God, and that moral obligation consists in
obedience to God’s commands
C. 1. Culture
➢ is the total shared, learned behavior of a
society or a subgroup
➢ historically transmitted pattern of meaning
embodied in symbols
Senses of the Self
❖ Subjectivism
➢ The individual thinking person is at the heart of
moral valuations
➢ Subjectivism teaches that there is no objective
moral truths out there
➢ There are no objective moral facts
❖ Psychological Egoism
➢ The ego or the self has its desires and
interests, and all our actions are geared towards
satisfying these interests
➢ “Human beings are naturally self-centered.
Hence, all our actions are always already
motivated by self-interests.”
❖ Ethical Egoism
➢ claims that one morally ought to perform some
action if and only if, and because, performing
that action maximizes my self-interest
➢ It prescribes that we should make our own ends,
our own interests, as the single overriding
concern
Terms crucial in our study of Ethics
● Issue (in general)
○ refers to those particular situations that are often
the source of considerable and inconclusive
debate
● Moral issue
○ a situation that calls for moral valuation
● When one is placed in a situation and confronted
by the choice of what act to perform, one is
called to make a moral decision
● There is a moral dilemma when an individual
can only choose from a number of possible
actions, and there are compelling ethical
reasons for various choices.
● Moral theory
○ a systematic attempt to establish the validity of
maintaining certain moral principles
○ may also be referred as a framework
● Framework
○ theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same
time a structure through which we can evaluate
our reasons for valuing a certain decision or
judgement.
MODULE 4 | MORAL THEORIES
Whatever one chooses and in whatever manner he
chooses, he is responsible for that choice and for its
consequences. The extent of one's knowledge
and freedom determines the extent of one's
responsibility. Hence, when there is greater
freedom and knowledge, there is greater
responsibility.
Because of human freedom and responsibility,
people are concerned with what is right and what is
wrong. People contemplate on the right thing to do,
and what is the bad thing to avoid. The purpose of
all these considerations is the desire to live a well-
lived life. Human beings do not just want to live
their lives; they want to live life well, as the saying
goes: a well-lived life is a happy life.
The rightness or wrongness, or goodness or
badness of an action, is the focal point of
morality. Morality sets standards by which man can
measure or judge whether an action is good or bad.
(T1) ETHICAL THEORIES FROM THE DIFFERENT
PERIODS OF PHILOSOPHY
(Article: Ethics by Dr. Florentino Timbreza)
It thus becomes increasingly clear that morality plays
a very significant role not only in maintaining a
meaningful existence with others but, most of all, for
human survival as well. In fact the immeasurable
value of morality finds itself in human
relationships. This is so because the human being
is a social individual who lives with other individuals.
Hence, without morality no social unit or human
relationship can survive.
Basic human situations bring with them certain
rights and obligations which are necessary not only
to maintain peaceful and well-ordered relations but
also for their own survival. Such rights and
obligations, be they written or unwritten, constitute
morality, a group’s or community’s code of
behavior or, in some ways, its system of values by
which the members are supposed or ought to treat
themselves and relate to one another. This system
of values is sometimes referred to as group
morality or ethics, without which the group as such
will perish. It goes without saying then that
morality can either make or unmake an
individual; it can either foster or destroy any
human relationship.
Ethical theories are usually classified as general
ethics which refer to all the diverse ethical
formulations of general and universal concepts and
principles which serve as the foundation of
morality.
In an attempt to resolve specific moral problems,
general ethical precepts are applied, and thus are
now called special or applied ethics. Professional
ethics is an applied type of ethics insofar as it deals
with certain moral precepts or rules by which
persons should behave and act in the exercise of
their calling or profession.
Ethics does not subscribe to the so-called ‘divine
revelation’ for the final answers or resolutions of
certain moral issues. This makes ethics different
from religion, for the latter relies on “revealed truths.”
Here lies the disparity of two claims: The religionist
contends that there can be no morality without
God, whereas the ethician maintains that
morality remains possible even without God.
One can determine the goodness or badness of
one’s behavior even if one does not believe in God.
A nonbeliever also possesses a sense of right
and wrong insofar as he likewise perceives the
oughtness of his moral decisions.
Ethics deals only with human acts insofar as they
are performed with intellectual deliberations and
freedom. Personal responsibility presupposes
knowledge and volition.
Will a person be held morally responsible for all his
or her acts? For human acts, yes; but not for acts of
man. Human acts are those which are done with
knowledge and full consent of the will. One
knows what he is doing and one does it freely and
willingly. Acts of man refers to those which are
performed in the absence of either or both of the
two elements of human act.
Related to this matter is the problem of ignorance:
Should a person be held morally responsible for an
act performed in ignorance? Ignorance is the
absence of knowledge in an individual who is
supposed to know it. It may be either vincible or
invincible ignorance. The former is one which can
be overcome by exerting some effort, unlike the
latter which can hardly be removed even if one
were to exert extra effort to overcome it.
(Ex: A student, for instance, does not know about a
test to be given in class tomorrow. This student was
absent during the previous meeting, but knows the
e-mail addresses or cell phone numbers of some of
the people in that class. If one does not care to
inquire from them, even if one knows that they
can furnish the necessary information, this
becomes a case of vincible ignorance, for which
the student is held morally responsible. One can
overcome one’s ignorance in such a situation if one
wants, but prefers not to. It is a case of knowing that
one does not know about something but prefers not
to know it, so that one’s ignorance is given as an
excuse of not knowing what one is supposed to
know. Ignorance is used as a means to excuse
oneself from a particular responsibility. However, if a
student in question exerts all efforts to verify the
test, and yet cannot obtain the necessary
information, it would be a case of invincible
ignorance. This student exhausted all possibilities
to overcome his ignorance but this was to no avail.)
ETHICAL THEORIES
Every moral theory has its own strengths and
weaknesses depending upon one’s own moral
convictions. This explains why no single ethical
doctrine, perhaps, can satisfactorily resolve one’s
moral predicaments. The diversity of moral theories
is an explicit acknowledgment of the complexities of
life, and of the gray areas of morality. We should,
therefore, take the competition, or even the conflict
and the opposition, among the ethical schools of
thought not only as challenges for further
reflection and discernment; thus, honing the
critical mind to continue searching for new
horizons of human meanings and value.
Ethical Relativism
➢ Also known as moral relativism, this ethical
doctrine claims that there are no universal or
absolute moral principles.
➢ Standards of right and wrong are always relative
to a particular culture or society.
➢ There is no objective basis for saying that a
particular action is right or wrong apart from a
specific social group.
➢ Every culture has its own norm of moral actions.
Some societies consider as right several kinds
of actions or practices that other societies
consider to be wrong.
➢ Whether an action is regarded as right or wrong
depends upon the society judging it. Of equal
value are the different sets of moral principles,
and when an individual legitimizes one set over
another, it is simply an outcome of having been
raised in a particular culture.
➢ Thus, every moral norm is relative insofar as it
varies from one culture to another.
Hedonism
➢ An ethical doctrine which claims that pleasure
is the norm of morality.
➢ By pleasure, in this context, is meant the
satisfaction of desire; hence the greater the
pleasure, the better.
➢ Pleasure is the one and only good; hence, it
must be the basis for moral judgment. Desire
may be either intellectual, aesthetic, or physical
(sensuous or sexual).
➢ The experience of intellectual pleasure derives
from one’s discovery of truth, the formulation of
a certain theory, or the final resolution of a
particular problem that involves intellectual
deliberation. Aesthetic pleasure refers to one’s
disinterested feeling of beholding a beautiful
thing or scenery, an appreciating a work of art;
whereas physical pleasure means the
satisfaction of sensuous or sexual desire.
➢ Pleasure, being the moral norm whenever an act
is pleasant and/or pleasurable, is good and must
be done under all circumstances; whenever an
act is unpleasant and/or painful, it is bad and
must be avoided as much as possible. In other
words, whatever act that gives pleasure is
morally right; whereas an act that gives pain
is morally wrong. Every person, therefore,
seeks his/her own pleasure and avoids pain.
➢ For a hedonist, happiness is the highest
good. And so it must be made the ultimate goal
of life. To realize and attain the highest good,
first and foremost, we have to satisfy our
desires in order to live and survive. By the time
an individual ceases to desire, he ceases to live
as well and will ultimately perish. Now, as we
satisfy our desire, we experience pleasure
and the feeling of pleasure makes us happy.
Happiness, therefore, is attainable through
pleasure; and the latter can be gained by
satisfying our desires.
➢ If we are going to suppress our desires, we will
experience pain, insofar as the suppression of
desire is painful. Thus, suppression of desire
is the cause of suffering. To avoid pain which
causes suffering, we have to follow the pleasure
principle: satisfy your desire, experience
pleasure, and then attain happiness.
Stoicism
➢ As an ethical doctrine, it considers apathy or
indifference to pleasure as the moral norm.
➢ Its advocates are called “stoics,” who are known
for their exemplary patience, self-sacrifice,
perseverance, forbearance, and long-
suffering attitude. Their highest virtues or
ideals are mental tranquility, temperance,
contentment, serenity, and composure. Of all
of these, the greatest is peace of mind. It is for
this reason that the basis for moral action for
them is apatheia or a state of imperturbability
which is attainable through apathy or
indifference to pleasure.
➢ The stoics contend that pleasure as the basis
for moral action leads to an endless cycle of
pleasure and pain. While it is true that the
 satisfaction of desire gives us pleasure and the
latter makes us happy, this happiness lasts only
for a while and so we desire again and go
through the same cycle endlessly.
➢ To attain lasting happiness, we have to minimize
our desires and passions, if we cannot suppress
them altogether. Our firm resolution to suppress
our passions (or at least to minimize them) will
enable us to develop the virtues of self-
discipline, self-conquest (control), and self-
mastery which, for the stoics, are very
significant in the moral development of an
individual. The most difficult individual to
discipline is oneself, so the stoics say, but once
a person learns to discipline himself, then he
can discipline all that are supposed to be
disciplined.
➢ For the stoics, the value of self-control or self-
discipline enables an individual to attain
apatheia, or the state of mental peace or
imperturbability, in which one has complete
control of his mind and body.
➢ Authentic and lasting happiness can only come
from mental tranquility. An individual, then,
who is at peace with himself and with others
attains mental serenity and is thus happy.
Epicureanism
➢ Whereas hedonism teaches an all-out pleasure
or no pleasure at all, Epicureanism professes
moderate pleasure as the moral norm.
➢ Moderate pleasure is one that is consonant
with reason, which is neither too much nor
too little. Anything that is taken in excess is
bad, so we should avoid the extremes and live
moderately
➢ What the Epicureans mean pleasure is not
fleeting but permanent, or that state of deep
peace and perfect contentment in which we
feel secure against the storms of life.
➢ The Epicureans agree with the hedonist that
pain must be avoided, so that even the pleasure
which leads to pain must be evaded. There are
three causes of pain: the excessive use,
abuse, and the nonuse of bodily organs. To
avoid these extremes (which may cause pain
and suffering), one should observe moderation
in all undertakings (i.e., moderate or slight use of
bodily organs).
➢ The Epicureans consider prudence
(sagacious: keen mental discernment and
good judgment) as the highest virtue which
enables an individual to govern himself by the
use of reason. Intelligent choice and practical
wisdom are needed to measure pleasure
against pain, “accepting pains that lead to
greater pleasures and rejecting pleasures
that lead to greater pains.”
➢ Of great interest and significance are the
Epicurean’s two kinds of pleasure, namely,
dynamic and passive. Dynamic pleasures are
those which are accompanied by pain, like
sexual love, gluttony, fame, and drinking (we
may now add drug addiction). Passive
pleasures are those that are not accompanied
by pain, like friendship, philosophical
conversation, playing with kids. These kinds of
pleasure ought to be cultivated, for the good life
consists in acquiring pleasures of this sort.
➢ The Epicureans teach about the three kinds of
desire: natural and necessary, natural but
unnecessary, and unnatural and unnecessary
desires. Natural and necessary desires refers to
our need for food and water, rest, and sleep,
which should be satisfied moderately. Natural
and unnecessary desire refers to man’s need for
sex and marriage. Sexual desire is natural but
an individual can still survive without it. It is
optional for everyone. The third type, unnatural
and unnecessary desire, refers to man’s need
for power, wealth, fame, smoking, drinking and
other vices.
Utilitarianism
➢ It states that the rightness or wrongness of
actions is determined by the goodness and
badness of their consequences.
➢ There is one and only moral principle, namely,
the principle of utility: “Actions are good
insofar as they tend to promote happiness,
bad as they tend to promote unhappiness.”
➢ We ought to choose the action (among many
other possible ones) that produces the most
benefits (comfort or happiness) at the least cost
of pain and unhappiness. Some unhappiness
may possibly result from the action we take, but
what matters is the greatest possible balance
of happiness over unhappiness for all
individuals affected.
➢ Utilitarianism gives an alternative formulation of
the utility principle; namely the principle of the
greatest happiness: “An action is good
(right) insofar if it produces the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people;
bad (wrong) insofar as it produces more
harm than benefit for the greatest number of
individuals.” Hence, faced with a moral
decision, one should not just consider one’s
happiness or benefit, or the happiness of a
particular person or a group of persons, but the
overall balance of the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of people.
➢ Hence, the more people who profit from a
particular moral decision, the better. This can be
carried out by remaining impartial and as
disinterested as possible. One must be
personally detached and disengaged.
Utilitarianism describes this point of attitude of a
“benevolent spectator” who kindly watches over
the welfare or happiness of all concerned ,
without taking a self-serving, active part in the
process. One must intend to please all. At least
the greatest number of individuals must be
benefited by moral acts or decisions.
Situationism
➢ This ethical theory states that the moral norm
depends upon a given situation, but whatever
the situation may be, one must always act in
the name of Christian love.
➢ What is Christian love? The situationist cites
three types of love, namely: eros, philia, and
agape.
Eros: Erotic love means sexual love, which normally
relates a man to a woman, but it may also exist
between a tomboy and another woman or between a
gay and another male.
Philia: Filial love refers to the affection that binds a
parent to his/her child, a brother to his sister, s
brother to his brother, or a sister to her sister.
Agape: Agapeic love refers to one’s care, concern
and kindness towards others. Christian love,
according to the situationist, best exemplifies
agape. It is characterized by charity, respect, and
responsibility to and for the other. This is the kind of
love by which an individual should act and settle
what is right and wrong, just and unjust, in any
complicated situation.
➢ Why not eros or philia? These two are biased
and partial; they have preferences and
inclinations. They are usually motivated by
selfish interests and ulterior motives.
➢ For the situationist, an evil means does not
always nullify a good end; for only the end
justifies the means: nothing else; it all depends
upon the situation. An act which is right in some
circumstances may be wrong in others, that is,
we may do what would be evil in some situation,
if, in this one, agape gains the balance: “the
relative weight of ends and means and
consequences all taken together, as weighed
by agapeic love.” To illustrate the point, if by
lying I can save the life of another person, then
by all means I have to lie. If and when the
emotional and spiritual well-being of the parents
and children in a particular family, under a given
situation and circumstance, can best be served
by divorce, then so be it, as love requires it. In
both instances, agapeic love gains balance.
Mightism
➢ Otherwise known as power ethics, mightism
claims that might is right. Might in this context is
taken as force, strength, and capacity to rule.
It also means power, influence, control, and
domination.
➢ As an ethical doctrine, it professes that
whenever an act enhances one’s strength or
capacity to rule or control others, it is good
or morally legitimate; whereas if it causes
one’s ineffectiveness, weakness, and
feebleness, it is regarded as wrong.
➢ By way of implication, mightism takes on the
Darwinian principle of nature, “survival of the
fittest.” Only those who are brave enough to
chart destiny by fair or foul means are fit to
survive.
➢ For the mightist, rulers and the strong ones
dictate what is just and unjust, what is right or
wrong. Whenever an act promotes the interest of
the stronger, it is just and right; and any that
weakens him/her is wrong and unjust. The
ruler’s authority is absolute and does not
compromise or bargain. The weak ones or the
subordinates have no choice but to obey and/or
follow. Regarded as morally wrong are acts of
disobedience, resistance, revolt, and disloyalty
to the ruler.
➢ For the individual person, any act that will
enhance his strength or power is god, whereas
any act that will retard or hinder its growth is evil
and, thus must be avoided. All that proceeds
from power is good and all that springs from
weakness is bad. This type of morality values
courage, self-reliance, high-mindedness,
candor, and creative leadership; it scorns
cowardice, humility, sympathy, and weakness.
➢ Exploitation is a consequence of the intrinsic will
to power, which is precisely the will to life or
survival; passive submission is the opposite of
this will to life.
➢ On mightistic principles, any ruler or person in
authority, if he wants to maintain a strong
government, may use every means necessary,
fair or foul, to implement government policies or
laws. If law proves ineffectual, then force is
called for, if only to maintain peace and order. In
this case, the end justifies the means, even
though that end is for the benefit of the tyrant. If
necessary, one must do evil as the only
alternative to succeed in governance. In short,
one may use evil means in order to attain a
good end. Mightism underlies the ideology of the
terrorist and the rebels, coup plotters,
revolutionist, and warmongers.
Deontologism
➢ Also known as duty ethics, deontologism
stresses duty as the norm of moral actions.
➢ Immanuel Kant, the prominent advocate of this
ethical doctrine, teaches that one acts morally
or performs a moral act if and only if one
does whatever one is obliged to do. But what
is that act which an individual is obliged to do? It
is one that is performed or done from a sense of
duty or obligation.
➢ This leads to the distinction between an act
done in accord with duty (nonmoral arts;
without any moral significance) and an act done
from a sense of duty
➢ Thus, for the deontologist, the essence of
morality is to be found in the motive from which
an act is done. The rightness or wrongness of
an action is determined by the motive from
which it is being carried out, regardless of the
consequences which doing so or not doing so
will produce. The motive here refers to the duty
that one ought to perform; it is what makes an
act morally good. A good person is a moral one
who acts from a sense of and respect for duty.
➢ The duty ethicist, Kant, says that to be able to
determine whether or not one acts from a sense
of duty in a particular situation, one must judge
his action in the light of how it would appear if it
were to become a universal precept or code of
behavior. One must test the act’s
universalizability by means of the categorical
imperative: “Act only on that maxim which
you can take at the same time will become a
universal law.”
Humanistic Ethics
➢ Known under various names such as
eudaemonism, Nichomacheanism,
perfectionism, self-realization or self-
actualization, humanistic ethics claims that self-
realization is the true ultimate standard of
morality.
➢ Self-realization is understood as self-fulfillment
of life, and full development of all functions of an
individual. And inasmuch as the aim of self-
realization ethics is the development of the
entire self, the greatest good then is the full
realization of an individual.
➢ Whatever behavior is conducive to self-
actualization, or the fullness of personality of
growth is right, and any conduct that serves to
destroy or stunt human life and personality is
wrong.
➢ All that serves life is good and all that serves
death is evil. That is to say, the good is
reverence for life, all that enhances life, growth,
and the unfolding of self. Evil is all that retards
growth, stifles life, narrows it down, and cuts it to
pieces. In this regard, one must seek self-
fulfilling acts and avoid self-destroying ones.
➢ Self-realization has a dimension of reciprocity,
for the meaning of our lives is related to the
presence of others.
➢ The true self, therefore, is the social self,
insofar as personal well-being is bound up with
social well-being. Personal development
involves social development, for self-enrichment
is tied up with social enhancement. In this
context, cooperation, unity, solidarity,
harmony, mutual helpfulness, brotherhood,
peace, and universalism are among the
virtues of humanistic ethics. On the contrary,
 all acts that stifle and obstruct the establishment
of peace and order, harmony and fraternity,
growth and prosperity, solidarity and globalism
are deemed bad and inhuman.
➢ For Aristotle, the foremost proponent of
humanistic ethics, self-realization consists in
the fulfillment and actualization of man’s
threefold nature: vegetative, sentient, and
rational.
Vegetative: The physical body represents the
vegetative aspect which must be cultivated by
wholesome food and proper exercise (or any form
of bodily activity is the essence of life), and rest in
order to survive and keep one physically fit.
Sentient: As a sentient being, man’s sensual
feelings and emotions, too, must be fully developed
through appropriate sex activity within the limits
of social conventions.
Rational: An individual must also develop and
actualize his/her rational nature. One develops
his/her rational nature in the pursuit of scientific
knowledge, philosophical truth, political activity,
religious commitment, and creative, artistic
endeavour. The highest, richest, and supernal
form of self-realization, then, stems from the full
cultivation of man’s highest nature, namely,
rational. Man’s rationality is his most God-like
nature, in Aristotle’s view, and once it is actualized
and realized, then he is blessed with a sense of
sheer joy, euphoria, and happiness.
Natural Law Ethics
➢ This ethical doctrine teaches that there exists a
natural moral law which is manifested by the
natural light of human reason, demanding the
preservation of the natural order and forbidding
its violation.
➢ For the natural law ethician, the source of the
moral law is reason itself, which directs us
towards the good as the goal of our action. In its
operation, reason recognizes the basic principle
“do good and avoid evil,” which is otherwise
known as the voice of reason or voice of
conscience.
➢ How does one know that a particular act is or is
not suitable to human nature as such? By
means of whether or not one is following and
obeying the voice of reason (conscience) or
acting contrary to it. It is for this reason that
some natural law ethicists consider human
nature as the proximate norm of morality.
➢ First, according to the natural law ethician, the
good is built into human nature, and it is that to
which we are directed by our natural inclinations
as both physical and rational creatures. We have
three natural inclinations: self-preservation,
just dealings with others, and propagation of
our species.
➢ Second, reason by nature leads us to treat
others with the same dignity and respect that we
accord ourselves. This is the basis of justice
which arises out of human relations.
➢ Third, we are naturally inclined to perpetuate our
species which is viewed as a natural good. We
are obliged not to pervert or thwart this natural
inclination.
Pragmatism
➢ (Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and
realistically in a way that is based on practical
rather than theoretical considerations.)
➢ Pragmatism is more of a theory of knowledge
than of morality. As an epistemological view,
pragmatism holds that the true and valid form of
knowledge is one which is practical, workable,
beneficial, and useful. And how can one
determine whether or not an idea or knowledge
is practical, beneficial, useful, and workable? By
means of its consequences or results,
otherwise, it is consequential and meaningless.
For example, the effectivity or the ineffectivity of
a student’s study method is determined by his
final grades.
➢ Pragmatist’s view: “truth happens to an idea; it
becomes true and is made true by events. Its
verity is, in fact, an event, a process: the
process namely of its verifying itself, its
verification. Its validity is the process of its
validation.”
➢ The pragmatist’s consideration of the
practicality, usefulness, workability, and
beneficence of the true and valid nature of
knowledge can render a disparately needed
service to applied ethics by providing a means
for settling moral disputes. It becomes
increasingly clear that pragmatism may prove to
be an effective method of justifying one’s moral
decisions. In the medical context, for instance,
one can gauge whether a particular act or moral
 judgment is right or wrong, legitimate or not, by
considering its practical usefulness, and
beneficence to a patient
➢ To determine whether an idea is true or false, it
must be tried and tested by experiment. That’s
why pragmatism has been called
“experimentalism.” Truly enough, pragmatism
has permeated the American way of life, its
morality, and culture.

Postscript

Our reflection on the various schools of thought has

shown that each has its own strengths and
legitimacy as well as weaknesses and flaws. This is
an explicit acknowledgement of the perplexities and
apparent incomprehensibility of human nature. That
an ethical theory is open to objections, however, is
not necessarily a sufficient ground for dismissing it
or for giving up the attempt to assimilate and discern
its good points and establish a more acceptable
view. The conflicting teachings of these theories
should serve as grounds for further reflection and
discernment, thus participating in the rigorous
search for new moral perspectives and paradigms.

Not only is human life a series of situations which

every individual has to surmount in order to continue
living; it is likewise a series of moral decisions which
every person has to make in order to survive.
Everyone will thus become the totality of his/her
decisions and choices. For as one decides, so does
one reap the outcomes of such decisions; and as
one chooses, so does one create oneself. You
shape your own destiny, your own world, through
your moral decisions. You are, indeed, made by the
decision you make.

Individuals who hesitate to decide by and for

themselves will become content with mere
prescriptions, proscriptions, and routines. But those
who dare to confront their moral problems will grow
in self-awareness and freedom. This is the
paramount and overriding message of ethics.

MODULE 5 | VIRTUE ETHICS AND NATURAL
LAW ETHICS
(T1) PLATO ON VIRTUE
“The most virtuous are those who content
themselves with being virtuous without seeking to
appear so.” - Plato
Virtue is one of the concerns of ancient
philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. The book of
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, is a comprehensive
discussion of Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics is the
ethical framework that is concerned with
understanding the good as a matter of developing
the virtuous character of a person.
Plato believed that good life is the life of inner
harmony, of well-being, and of happiness. The use
of the word "good" to things is analogous to how it is
used in human life. For Plato, the soul's unique
function is the art of living.
Plato's philosophy tells us that the art of living
requires knowledge of limits and of measure. In
Plato's work, the Republic, he described the soul as
having three parts. These are reason, spirit, and
appetite. Plato further discussed that the soul is the
principle of life and movement. These three parts of
the soul are evident in the different kinds of activity
that person's experience. These are:
a.) awareness of a goal or a value, and this is the
act of reason;
b.) the drive toward action- the spirit- which is
neutral at first but responds to the direction of
reason;
c.) the desire for the things of the body, the
appetites.
It is the function of reason or the rational part of
the soul to seek the true goal of human life, and it
does this by evaluating things according to their true
nature. It should be the rational part that governs the
body.
As to passions or appetites, Plato had this to say:
The passions or appetites might lead us into a world
of fantasy and deceive us into believing that certain
kinds of pleasures will bring us happiness. It is, then,
the unique role of reason to penetrate the world of
fantasy and to discover the true world and thereby
direct the passions to objects of love that are
capable of producing true pleasure and true
happiness.
Corresponding to the three parts of the soul are
three virtues, which are achieved when those parts
are respectively fulfilling their functions:
The appetites need to be kept within the limits and in
their measure, avoiding excesses so that they do not
usurp the position of the other parts of the soul. This
moderation in pleasures and desires leads to the
virtue of temperance. (practice of restraining
oneself from indulging in something)
The energy of the will, which issues from the spirited
part of the soul, also needs to be kept within limits,
avoiding rash or headlong action and becoming
instead a trustworthy power in aggressive and
defensive behavior. By doing this we achieve the
virtue of courage.
Reason achieves the virtue of wisdom when it
remains undisturbed by the onrush of appetites and
continues to see the true ideals in spite of the
constant changes experienced in daily life.
At the same time, each part of the soul has its
function, and when each is in fact fulfilling its special
function, a fourth virtue, justice, is attained, for
justice means giving to each its own due. Justice,
then, is the general virtue, which reflects a person's
attainment of well-being and inner harmony,
which, in turn, is achieved only when every part of
the soul is fulfilling its proper function.
(T2) ARISTOTLE ON VIRTUE
“Virtue lies in our power, and similarly so does vice;
because where it is in our power to act, it is also in
our power not to act.” ― Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics
Aristotle considered two kinds of reasoning: these
are theoretical and practical reasoning.
Theoretical reasoning gives us knowledge of fixed
principles or philosophical wisdom while practical
reasoning gives us a rational guide to our moral
action under particular circumstances in which we
find ourselves, and this is practical wisdom.
Aristotle believed that goodness is in us all
potentially. Aristotle argued that moral virtues do not
arise by nature. Morality for him is developing
habits, the habits of right thinking, right choice,
and right behavior. In carrying out a morally
virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of
practical wisdom in steering the self toward the
right choices and actions.
Aristotle believed that a person’s act is directed to a
particular purpose, aim, or goal. The Greeks called it
telos. It may be the reason, purpose or objective of
one’s action. Aristotle believed that human beings
have a highest goal, which is the highest purpose. It
is happiness, which the Greeks called eudaimonia.
We choose honor, power, fame, money because
they are instrumentality or means towards
happiness.
How to attain happiness?
For Aristotle, the general rule of ethics is to act in
accordance with Right Reason. This means the
rational part should govern the irrational part. He
described the soul as having two parts: rational
and irrational.
The irrational part is divided into: a.) vegetative
part- that gives us the capacity to take in nutrition
and sustain our biological lives; b.) appetitive part-
that gives us the capacity to experience desires,
which in turn prompts us to move around and fulfill
those desires.
Both of these irrational parts oppose and resist
Reason, the rational part. As a manifestation, there
are instances when our mind tells us not to do
something but our body (governed by vegetative
& appetitive parts) says otherwise. The conflict with
the rational and irrational part raises the problems
and subject matter of morality.
The attainment of happiness for Aristotle is acting
in accordance with reason. This means that the
rational aspect is controlling the irrational part.
Achieving the highest purpose of a human person
concerns the ability to function according to reason
and to perform an activity well or excellently. This
excellent way of doing things is called virtue or
arete by the Greeks. Aristotle was quick to add that
virtue is something that one strives for in time. One
does not become an excellent person overnight.
Virtue as the Golden Mean (Excerpts from the
book Socrates to Sartre and Beyond, pages 93-94)
The proper course of action--that is, the virtuous
course-- is the middle ground or mean between
excess and deficiency. We should seek out this
middle ground with all of our passions, such as
those of fear, confidence, lust, anger, compassion,
pleasure, and pain.
We control our passions through the rational power
of the soul, and thereby form virtuous habits that
lead us to spontaneously follow the middle course.
The virtue of courage, for example, is the mean
between two vices: cowardice (a deficiency) and
rashness (an excess). Virtue, then, is "a state of
being, a state apt to exercise deliberate choice,
being in the relative mean, determined by
reason, and as the person of practical wisdom
would determine." Therefore, virtue is a habit of
choosing in accordance with a mean.
The mean is not the same for every person, nor
is there a mean for every act. Each mean is
relative to each person to the degree that our
personal circumstances vary. Although a large
number of virtues stand between two extreme vices,
there are other actions that have no mean at all.
Their very nature already implies badness, such as
spite, envy, adultery, theft, and murder.
Plato had listed four main virtues (later called
"cardinal" virtues), which Aristotle also endorses,
namely courage, temperance, justice, and
wisdom. In addition to these, Aristotle also
discusses the virtues of magnificence, liberality,
friendship, and self-respect.
In short, moral virtue is a state of character
concerned with choice, lying in a mean, that is,
the mean relative to us, this being determined by
a rational principle, and by that principle by
which the man of practical wisdom would
determine it. - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
(T3) NATURAL LAW ETHICS PART 1
❖ Natural Law Philosophy
➢ Reason as source of moral law, found in human
nature
➢ Reason directs towards the good as the goal of
our action, and good is discoverable within our
nature
➢ In reason’s operation, it recognizes the basic
principle “do good, and avoid evil.” - voice of
reason or voice of conscience
❖ Are natural law and laws of nature identical?
➢ Natural law does not refer to the laws of
nature, the laws that science aims to describe
➢ According to natural law moral theory, the
moral standards that govern human behavior
are, in some sense, objectively derived from the
nature of human beings and the nature of the
world.
❖ For St. Thomas Aquinas (an Italian,
Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic priest,
and Doctor of the Church):
➢ Morality is not an arbitrary set of rules for
behavior for the basis of moral obligation is
human nature. Built in our nature are various
inclinations:
■ Preservation of life;
■ Propagation of species;
■ Being rational, the inclination to search for
truth
➢ Human laws are made for the direction of
community’s behavior.
Preservation of Life
➔ There is in man an inclination to good in
accordance with the nature which he has in
common with all substances: inasmuch as every
substance seeks the preservation of its own
being, according to its nature: and by reason of
this inclination, whatever is a means of
preserving human life, and of warding off its
obstacles, belongs to natural law.
Propagation of Species
➔ There is in man an inclination to things that
pertain to him more specially, according to that
nature which he has in common with other
animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those
things are said to belong to the natural law,
which nature has taught to all animals, such as
sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so
forth.
The Search for Truth
➔ 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.
(T4) NATURAL LAW ETHICS PART 2
❖ Why is it called Natural Law?
➢ For Aquinas, human nature has certain fixed
features and the rules for behavior that
correspond to these features are called natural
law.
❖ Early Formulation of Aristotle
➢ Conventional Justice (A behavior becomes
wrong only after a law has been made to
regulate such behavior) vs. Natural Justice
(Laws derived from nature that the behavior they
regulate are always wrong)
❖ Formulation of Thomas Aquinas
➢ Human reason is the standard of our actions
because it belongs to reason to direct our whole
activity toward our end.
➢ Since God created all things, human nature
and natural law are best understood as the
product of God’s wisdom or reason.
➢ Hence, he distinguished four kinds of law:
■ Eternal Law
■ Natural Law
■ Human Law
■ Divine Law
❖ Kinds of Law (according to St. Thomas
Aquinas)
➢ Eternal Law ■ Comes directly from God through revelation and
■ refers to the fact that the whole community of is a gift of God’s grace
the universe is governed by Divine Reason ■ Through this we are directed to our supernatural
■ The very nature of the government of things in ends and obtain the theological virtues of faith,
God, the Ruler of the Universe, has the very hope, and love- virtue infused into our human
nature of law nature by God’s grace and not the result of
■ The Divine Reason’s conception of things natural abilities.
■ Why Eternal? Divine Reason’s conception of
things is not subject to time but is eternal. ❖ Summary
➢ The natural law is therefore the rule of reason,
➢ Natural Law promulgated by God in person’s nature, whereby
■ portion of eternal law that pertains to humans man can discern how he/she should act
■ “all things share somewhat of the eternal law,
from its being imprinted on them” and from this
all things derive their respective inclinations to
their proper acts and ends
■ Our rational capacity has a share of Eternal
Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to
its proper act and end
■ Hence, natural law is rational creatures
participation in the Eternal Law

➢ Human Law
■ Specific statutes of the governments
■ Derived from general precepts of the natural law
■ Repudiated the notion that a law was a law only
because it was decreed by the sovereign
■ Some laws are opposed to Divine Good; such
are laws of tyrants including idolatry, or to
anything else contrary to the Divine Law.
■ “We ought to obey God rather than human
beings.”

➢ Divine Law
■ Law given by God directing people to their end
■ Given to us through revelation and is found in
Scriptures
■ It is not a product of human reason but given to
us through God’s grace to ensure that we know
what we must do to fulfill both natural and
supernatural ends

❖ Distinction bet Natural Law & Divine Law

➢ Natural Law:
■ Represents our rational knowledge of the good
by which our intellect directs our wills to control
our appetites and passions;
■ Leads to achieving cardinal virtues of justice,
temperance, courage, and prudence
➢ Divine Law:

MODULE 6 | MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE PHILOSOPHY
(T1) DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
KINDS OF JUSTICE
Plato views justice as some kind of harmony among
the basic constituents of a certain organization. On
the level of the person, it is the harmony among
the basic elements of the soul, namely reason, spirit
(passion), and appetite (desire); while on the level
of the society, it is the harmony among the three
main classes of people, namely the rulers (the
philosopher-kings), the military, and the artisans and
farmers.
Nowadays, however, justice is generally understood
as giving what is due to a person, or giving to a
person what he deserves to receive. In this light, a
just society is a society that gives what is due to its
citizens; a just company is one that gives what is
due to its employees; and a just person is one who
gives what is due to his fellowmen.
Three Basic Kinds of Justice
1. Distributive Justice
➔ refers to the just distribution of benefits (such as
rights and socio-economic goods) and burdens
(such as sacrifices and obligations)
2. Retributive or Retaliatory Justice
➔ refers to the just imposition of punishments and
penalties on those guilty of performing wrongful
acts
3. Compensatory Justice
➔ refers to the just way of compensating people
for what they lost as a result of wrongful actions
done on them
Generally speaking, a certain kind of distribution is
just if the recipients of the distribution receive what
they deserve, an imposition of a certain type of
punishment is just if the guilty person deserves such
punishment, and a certain type of compensation is
just if the victim of a wrongful act deserves such
compensation. The critical question here, of
course, is what determines what one deserves in
a given circumstance.
Among the three kinds of justice, the distributive
kind is considered to be the most comprehensive
for it can accommodate the other two kinds:
punishments can be regarded as a kind of burden
while compensations as a kind of benefit that can be
distributed.
The Distribution of Rights and Socio-economic
Goods
Among the things that can be distributed, two
primary social goods are rights and socio-
economic goods. The distribution of socio-
economic goods is dependent on the distribution of
rights (for to deserve a socio-economic good one
must first deserve the right to have it).
❖ Rights and Duties
➢ Rights are entitlements or interests one is
allowed or permitted to pursue, or more simply,
things one may or may not do. Duties, unlike
rights which one may or may not exercise, are
things one ought to perform.
➢ There usually are sanctions (in the form of
blame or punishment) if one fails to perform a
duty, while there are none if one fails to
exercise a right.
➢ Rights and duties, however, are tightly
correlated in that rights impose duties and
duties exist in recognition of rights. For
example, the mother has the right to impose
duties on the boy but the boy recognizes them to
be his duties only because he recognizes the
right of his mother to impose such duties on him.
❖ Kinds of Rights
➢ Rights are classified in two ways:
■ The first uses for its basis the kind of duties
imposed by rights; and in this classification,
rights are either positive or negative.
■ The second uses for its basis the relevant
features for the acquisition of rights; and in this
classification, rights are either legal,
contractual, or human.
a. Positive and Negative Rights
➔ Two kinds of duties imposed by rights: duties
of non-interference and of positive performance
➔ Duties of non-interference are duties not to
interfere in the exercise of rights, while duties of
positive performance are duties to provide the
necessary conditions for the exercise of rights.
➔ All rights impose the duties of non-interference
while some rights impose the duties of positive
performance.
➔ If rights only impose the duties of non-
interference such rights are called negative
rights, whereas if rights impose both duties of
non-interference and positive performance such
rights are called positive rights.
b. Contractual, Legal, and Human Rights
➔ Members of a family, for instance, have their
rights and duties, and so are members of an
academic community, of a church, of a sports
club, of a nation, and of the whole human race.
Membership in a certain group, however, is
based on possession of a certain relevant
feature or a set of these features that varies
according to the nature of the group.
➔ In some cases, a person does not have a choice
as regards the groups that he belongs to. But in
some cases, a person has a choice. Still in
some cases, a person initially does not have a
choice but later on acquires it.
➔ Now in cases where a person has such choice,
in addition to possessing the relevant features,
his or her membership in such group, from an
ethical point of view, should also have his or her
voluntary and informed consent—that is, he
or she must be fully aware of the nature of such
group and he or she must not in any way be
forced to join it.
➔ Membership in a group, therefore, is what gives
an individual a certain kind of rights and duties.
The groups that we can be members of can
be classified into three general kinds:
namely, contractual groups or institutions,
nations or states, and humanity or the
human race. Accordingly, rights are classified
as contractual, legal, and human or moral.
◆ Contractual rights
● rights one acquires when one enters into a
contract or an agreement with another party,
which can be a person, a group of persons, a
company, or an institution. Contracts are
basically agreements, consisting of rights and
duties, between two or more parties, which can
be formal or informal. Formal contracts are
written in that the rights and duties of the parties
involved are explicitly specified in some
document. Informal contracts are unwritten
agreements in that the rights and duties of the
parties involved are merely implied.
◆ Legal rights
● rights that one possesses by virtue of one's
citizenship—which is acquired either by birth or
by choice. Such rights are specified in the
constitution of the country in which one is a
citizen, and are binding only within the
jurisdiction of the legal laws of such a country.
● Legal rights, like contractual rights, are
temporary rights for once a person changes his
or her citizenship he or she acquires a different
set of legal rights.
◆ Human rights
● rights all humans possess simply by virtue of
being humans. The only relevant feature to be
entitled to such rights is being human. Thus,
differences in gender, race, character,
intelligence, wealth, physical appearances, and
nationality, among others, do not have any
bearing on one’s possession of such rights.
● Since being human is the most general feature
of all humans, human rights are therefore
universal and the highest kind of rights. For
this reason, human rights serve as the basis for
evaluating (instituting, amending, or repealing)
legal and contractual rights.
➔ How are human rights known? More importantly,
how do we know whether a certain contractual
or legal right conforms to or violates human
rights?
◆ The moral theory of Immanuel Kant, known as
the categorical imperative, provides a good
answer. Two general principles constitute this
moral theory; namely, universalizability and
respect for persons.
◆ The principle of universalizability states that
an act is morally good if its maxim (the personal
rule that it follows, which ensures that the act is
intentional) can meaningfully be made as a
universal law (or as a law for everyone). The
resulting universal law is meaningful if its key
concepts do not contradict one another;
otherwise it is a meaningless law and hence is
non-universalizable.
◆ The principle of respect for persons, on the
other hand, states that an act is morally good if it
does not use persons merely as means to
satisfy one’s personal interests but treats them
as ends-in-themselves as well (that is, respects
their choices and preferences as well).
❖ Equal and Unequal Distributions
➢ Distributions can either be equal or unequal, and
the basic problem of distributive justice is to
ascertain the conditions under which equal and
unequal distributions are just. Much of the
confusions and disagreements over this problem
can be avoided by introducing the distinction
between horizontal and vertical distributions.
➢ A horizontal distribution distributes goods to
people with the same relevant features, while a
vertical distribution distributes goods to people
with different relevant features. By relevant
features we mean those features that qualify us
to be members of a certain group and thereby
entitle us of the rights attached to such
membership—for this reason, we shall also refer
to such features as qualifying features.
➢ With regard to horizontal distributions, logical
consistency requires that they be equal. That is,
to give persons unequal share of the distribution
when they have the same qualifying features is
logically inconsistent.
➢ In the context of the distribution of rights,
persons who have the same qualifying features
should be given or recognized as having the
same rights. Consequently, since the only
qualifying feature for one to be entitled to
human rights is to be human, then all humans
must be recognized as having the same human
rights. Likewise, since the only qualifying
feature for one to be entitled to legal rights is
citizenship in the country that guarantees such
legal rights, then all citizens of such a country
are entitled to the same legal rights.
➢ Unlike human and legal rights, contractual
rights have both vertical and horizontal
distributions; but like human and legal rights,
their horizontal distributions should likewise be
equal.
➢ In contrast to horizontal distributions, logical
consistency requires vertical distributions to
be unequal. In the realm of rights, vertical
distributions, for reasons already stated above,
are only applicable to contractual rights.
Each position in a hierarchy of positions or
functions requires its own qualifying features; as
such, the same contractual rights cannot be
given to the different positions. And since their
functions differ, their rights should differ as well.
❖ The Case of Socio-economic Goods
➢ Socio-economic goods are things that are
desirable for their social and economic (or
monetary) value. Social goods include wealth,
honor, office, and power; while economic goods
include food, house, cars, books, computers,
and other material possessions. Socio-economic
goods are also referred to as public goods for
they are contrasted with private goods whose
value is privately determined, such as those
things said to have a sentimental value for an
individual.
➢ It shall, however, be observed that what entitles
us to possess socio-economic goods of a certain
kind and amount are rights. Thus, if we attach a
certain kind and amount of goods to human and
legal rights, then such goods can only be
distributed horizontally and hence should be
distributed equally. On the other hand, if a
certain kind and amount of such goods is
attached to contractual rights, then such goods
can both be distributed horizontally and
vertically, and hence should be distributed
equally and unequally.
➢ Since the attachment of socio-economic goods
to a certain right makes such a right positive—
for here the duty is basically one of positive
 performance, the amount of such goods that can
be attached to certain rights will be dependent
on the economic status of the one that will
provide such goods.
Bases of a Just Distribution
❖ Equality
➢ Egalitarianism claims that a certain distribution is
just if every member of a group receives an
equal share of the distribution. On the level of
state distributions, this view has two versions;
namely, Political Egalitarianism, which argues
for equality in the distribution of legal rights, and
Economic Egalitarianism, which argues for
equality in the distribution of socio-economic
goods
➢ Equality of legal rights is a widely accepted
social ideal. As humans are equal in terms of
their possession of human rights, they ought to
be equal, too in terms of their possession of
legal rights.
➢ Equality of socio-economic goods, however,
is acceptable only on the level of the basic
necessities of the citizens, the satisfaction of
which will enable them to live a decent life. This
is what is supposed to be guaranteed by the
minimum wage law, wherein citizens are equal
in terms of the lowest possible wage that they
can receive from doing work that is legal.
❖ Contribution
➢ Capitalist Justice claims that a certain
distribution is just if every member of a group
receives his or her share in the distribution
according to or in proportion to his or her
contribution to the success of the goals of
the group. Consequently, the greater is one's
contribution the greater should be his or her
share in the distribution, and the lesser is one’s
contribution the lesser should be his or her
share in the distribution.
➢ This is the kind of justice that exists in the free
market system where the value of goods and
human labor is determined by the market forces
such as how they fare in an open and free
competition and the law of supply and demand.
A major thinker behind the free market system is
Adam Smith who argues that allowing people to
freely pursue their selfish economic interests
(that is, without any government intervention)
will eventually lead to the good of society.
❖ Need
➢ Socialist Justice claims that a certain distribution
is just if every member of a group receives his or
her share in the distribution according to or in
proportion to his or her needs. Consequently,
the greater one's needs the greater should be
his or her share in the distribution, and the
lesser is one’s needs the lesser should be his or
her share in the distribution.
➢ This view seeks to balance off natural
inequalities—referring to the inequality in our
initial endowments in life which include our
genes, natural talents, inherited economic
resources, and the social status of our parents
➢ Socialist justice is actually a critical reaction to
capitalist justice, which, from the point of view of
socialist justice, simply worsens the said natural
inequalities thereby resulting in the widening
gap between the rich who are few and the poor
who are many. More specifically, some people,
because of their unfortunate initial endowments
in life, are initially disadvantaged thereby making
it difficult for them to compete with those who
are initially advantaged.
➢ Justice based on needs is actually a part of a
larger principle enunciated by Karl Marx in his
critique of capitalism; namely, “from each
according to his abilities, to each according
to his needs”.
➢ According to this principle, the kind of work that
people should do should be based on their
natural talents. This is to ensure that their work
will be fulfilling and not dehumanizing or
alienating. On the other hand, their share of the
proceeds of their work should be based on their
needs. And this is to prevent inequalities
concerning resources.
❖ Efforts
➢ Justice Based on Fair Opportunity claims that a
certain distribution is just if every member of a
group receives his or her share in the distribution
according to or in proportion to the effort he
or she has exerted in achieving the goals of
the group. Consequently, the greater is one’s
effort the greater should be his or her share in
the distribution, the lesser is one’s effort the
lesser should be his or her share in the
distribution.
➢ This view is advanced by Joel Feinberg who
argues that the proper criterion for a just
distribution should be a human feature that
everyone involved in the distribution should
have a fair opportunity to acquire or to work for
in varying degrees, thereby making those who
possess such feature responsible for it.
➢ The point is that we should only be rewarded or
punished for something we are responsible for.
In this light, Feinberg rejects the criteria of
needs, merits and achievements, and
contribution or productivity, which he
regards as heavily influenced by one’s initial
endowments in life; and favors effort, which
he believes to be the criterion that satisfies
the fair opportunity requirement.
❖ Utility
➢ Utilitarianism, a moral theory developed by
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, has a
different take on the issue. The issue for
Utilitarianism is not whether a distribution is just,
but whether it is morally good according to its
own standard of morality.
➢ To fully understand this claim, we need to
distinguish between those that are desired for
their own sake, which are considered to be
inherently good, and those desired for the sake
of attaining some other desirable things, which
are considered to be instrumentally good.
Consequently, something that is inherently
good will always be good whatever the
circumstances are, while something that is
only instrumentally good is good only under
certain circumstances.
➢ Utilitarianism regards justice merely as an
instrumental good, for Utilitarianism regards
happiness or pleasure as the only inherent
good and pain as the only inherent evil. This
view further contends that since happiness is
the only inherent good, then our moral duty is to
maximize it both in terms of quantity and quality.
➢ The guiding principle of such duty is the so-
called Greatest Happiness Principle, which
states that an act is morally good if it
promotes the greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people. This principle,
however, does not mean that the happiness of
the greater number always constitutes the
greatest happiness. Consequently, for this view,
any form of distribution, whether just or unjust, is
morally good if it accords with the Greatest
Happiness Principle.
❖ Fair Principles of Justice
➢ Justice as Fairness is advanced by John Rawls
and it claims that a certain distribution among
members in a group is just if the principles that
govern such distribution are chosen by the
members in a fair manner.
➢ Rawls claims that in a fair manner of choosing
the principles that will govern distributions
(basically, one in which biases are temporarily
put aside), two principles will be chosen;
namely, the principle of equality, which claims
that everyone should have equal rights and
liberties, and the difference principle, which
claims that inequalities in the distribution of
socio-economic goods should likewise
benefit the least advantaged members of
society and should be attached to positions and
offices open to all.
➢ Rawls comes up with a mechanism or
procedure that will ensure the fairness of the
choice of the principles of distribution. He calls
this procedure the original position, where
people are to imagine that they are under the
veil of ignorance—a condition where people
are supposed to forget the particular
characteristics of their lives, such as their social
status, gender, religious beliefs, and others.
What should be included in the veil of ignorance
are features of one’s life that are irrelevant to the
issue at hand and thus will only make one’s
decisions on the issue biased.
❖ Moral Rights
➢ Libertarianism is advanced by Robert Nozick
and it claims that distributions are just when no
moral rights are violated in the two
processes involved in the act of distribution
—the process of acquiring ownership of the
goods to be distributed and the process of
transferring the ownership of the goods to be
distributed.
➢ More specifically, this view claims that a
distribution is just if the goods to be distributed
are acquired by their owner in a manner that
does not violate moral rights and that such
goods are distributed by the owner to other
people in a manner that does not likewise
violate moral rights.
➢ Nozick speaks of a minimum moral limitation or
constraint to our dealings with one another. This
limitation is set by Kant’s principle of respect
for persons, which we have discussed earlier in
relation to human rights. In its modern version,
this principle states that we should treat our
fellow humans only in a manner to which
they will give their informed and voluntary
consent. Consequently, this principle serves as
the test for whether the two processes of
distribution are done in violation of moral rights.
➢ Nozick classifies the various theories of
distributive justice as either end-result-
oriented, if they judge the justice of a certain
distribution on the basis of what happens
after the distribution; or means-oriented, if
they judge the justice of a certain distribution on
the basis of how the distribution is carried
out.
➢ Nozick classifies his own theory as means-
oriented while all the others as end-result-
oriented. The problem with end result-
oriented theories, according to Nozick, is that
in ensuring that the end result of a distribution
complies with a certain pattern, say according to
needs, effort, or contribution, the moral rights
of some persons involved in the distribution
may be violated.

Conclusion

Situations, however, are conceivable where these

competing theories supplement one another. One
such situation can take place in the context of the
workplace. But here we need to make a distinction
between the primary and secondary kinds of
rights and socio-economic goods being
distributed. The primary kind refers to the basic
wages while the secondary kind refers to the
bonuses, incentives, commissions, loans, and the
like. Considerations about productivity or
contribution seem to be the more appropriate ones
in regard to the primary kind; while considerations
about effort, need, and utility seem to be the more
appropriate ones in regard to the secondary kind.
The considerations about respect for moral
rights and fairness or objectivity in making
decisions, however, should apply to both primary
and secondary kinds.