Preliminary Reviewer
Ethics
Lesson 1
Meaning of Ethics and Morality
Ethics or moral philosophy discusses the set of rules
for human conduct
 comes from the Greek word ethos which
means custom, habit, character or
disposition
 involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong
behaviour
 also defined as the study of judgment of value,
of good and evil, right and wrong
 at its simplest, ethics is a system of moral
principles
 affect how people make decisions and lead
their lives
Our concept of ethics have been derived from
religions, philosophies, and cultures.
Morality on the other hand refers to the rightness or
wrongness of an action (Mañeb6g et a3., 2013)
 comes from the Greek word mos or moris or
in Latin moralitas which means manner or
characteristics
 the terms ethical and moral are being use
interchangeably (dictionary of philosophy)
Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into
three general subject areas:
1. Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral
judgment
 Looks at the origins and meaning of
ethical principles
2. Normative ethics is concerned with the
content of moral judgments and the criteria for
what is right or wrong
3. Applied ethics looks at controversial topics
like war, bioethics and capital punishment
Significance of the Study of Ethics
It is very evident in contemporary societies
the manifestation of continuing collapse in the
standards of morality. Ethical issues are becoming
huge, complicated, subjective, and eventually
confusing so much so that people begin to act in
accordance with the ethical norms. This becomes the
main concern of today’s sociologists and social
philosophers. They are driven to reassess the main
structures of morality and rebuild necessary measures
to address the present characteristics of moral issues
today. It requires a rigid reevaluation of the norms of
morality which seem to be acceptable and easily
applicable in all situations during the past decades
compared to the types of people to whom these norms
are expectedly applied.
Ethics in Moral Life
1. Ethics needs to provide answers.
If ethical theories are to be useful in practice,
they need to affect the way human beings behave.
Some philosophers think that ethics does this.
They argue that if a person realizes that it would
be morally good to do something, then it would be
irrational for that person not to do it. But human
beings often behave irrationally. They follow their
“gut instinct” even when their head suggests a
different course of action. However, ethics does
provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.
2. Ethics can provide a moral plan.
Most moral issues get us pretty worked up – think
of abortion and euthanasia for starters. Because
these are such emotional issues they often let our
hearts do the arguing while our brains just go with
the flow. But there’s another way of tackling these
issues, and that’s were philosophers can come in –
they offer us ethical rules and principles that
enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems.
So, ethics provides us with a moral plan which
gives a framework that we can use to find our way
through difficult issues.
3. Ethics can identify a disagreement.
Using the framework of ethics, two people who are
arguing a moral issue can often find that what they
disagree about is just one particular part of the
issue, and what they broadly agree on everything
else. That can take a lot of heat out of the
argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for
them to resolve their problem. But sometimes
ethics doesn’t provide people with the sort of help
that they really want.
4. Ethics does not give right answers.
Ethics does not always show the right answer to
moral problems. Indeed more and more people
think that for many ethical issues there isn’t a
single right answer – just a set of principles that
can be applied to particular cases to give those
involved some clear choices. Some philosophers
go further and say that all ethics can do eliminate
confusion and clarify the issues. After that it’s up
to each individual to come to his/her own
conclusions.
5. Ethics can give several answers.
Many people want there to be a single right answer
to ethical questions. They find moral ambiguity
hard to live with because they genuinely want to
do the ‘right’ thing, and even if they can’t work
out what that right thing is, they like the idea that
‘somewhere’ there is one right answer. But often
there isn’t one right answers – and the individual
must choose between them. For others moral
ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to
take responsibility for their own choices and
actions, rather than falling back on convenient
rules and customs.

Lesson 2
Ethics and the People
Ethics about the “other”.
Ethics is concerned with other people. At the heart of
ethics is a concern about something or someone other
than ourselves and our own desires and self-interest.
Ethics is concerned with other people’s interests, with
the interests of society, with God’s interests, with
‘ultimate goods”, and so on. So when a person ‘thinks
ethically’ they are giving at least some thought to
something beyond themselves.
Ethics as source of group strength.
One problem with ethics is the way it’ often used as a
weapon. If a group believes that a particular activity is
“wrong” it can then use morality as the justification for
attacking those who practice that activity. When
people do this, they often see those who they regard as
immoral as in some way less human or deserving of
respect than themselves; sometimes with tragic
consequences.
Good people as well as good actions.
Ethics is not only about the morality of particular
courses of action, but it’s also about the goodness of
individuals and what it means to live a good life.
Virtue ethics is particularly concerned with the moral
character of human beings.
Searching for the source of right and wrong.
At times in the past some people thought that ethical
problems could be solved in one of two ways: by
discovering what God wanted people to do by thinking
rigorously about moral principles and problems. If a
person did this properly, he would be led to the right
conclusion. But now even philosophers are less sure
that it’s possible to devise a satisfactory and complete
theory of ethics - at least not one that leads to
conclusions. Modern thinkers often teach that ethics
leads people not to conclusions but to decisions. In this
view, the role of ethics is limited to clarifying ‘what’s
at stake’ in particular ethical problems. Philosophy can
help identify the range of ethical methods,
conversations and value systems that can be applied to
a particular problem. But after these things have been
made clear, each person must make their own
individual decision as to what to do, and then react
appropriately to the consequences.
Four Ethical “Isms”
1. Moral Realism
Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real
objective moral facts or truths in the universe. Moral
statements provide factual information about those
truths.
I might be making a statement about an ethical
fact.
“It is wrong to murder.”
2. Subjectivism
Subjectivism teaches that moral judgments are nothing
more than statements of a person’s feelings or
attitudes, and that ethical statements do not contain
factual truths about goodness or badness.
In more detail: subjectivists say that moral statements
are statements about the feelings, attitudes and
emotions that particular person or group has about a
particular issue. If a person says something is good or
bad he/she is telling us about the positive or negative
feelings that he/she has about that something.
3. Emotivism
Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no more
than expressions of approval or disapproval. This
sounds like subjectivism, but in emotivism a moral
statement doesn’t provide information about the
speaker’s feelings about the topic but expresses those
feelings.
So when someone makes a moral judgment, he/she
shows his/her feelings about something. Some
theorists also suggest that in expressing a feeling the
person gives an instruction to others about how to act
towards the subject matter.
4. Prescriptivism
Prescriptivists think that ethical statements are
instructions or recommendations. So if I say something
is good, I’m recommending you to do it, and if I say
something is bad, I’m telling you not to do it.
Man as Social Being: His Perception of the
Importance of Rules
As a social being, man has four-fold
relationships: intrapersonal, interpersonal, societal, and
relationship with God. This is the cross-dimension of
human relationship.
The horizontal line shows the relationship of a
person to himself, as well as his relationship with
others; while the vertical line points towards a person’s
relationship with the society and environment, as well
as with God. In these kinds of relationship, man’s
actions are considered “right or wrong”, “good or
bad”, “proper and improper”, etc. The perceptions of
rightness or wrongness of actions may primarily start
from the concepts of rules.
Why Rules?
When rules exist, order is achieved. Imagine a
home without rules, either implicit or explicit; a school
without policies and regulations, either written or
unwritten; a basketball game without rules; a road
without signs and directions, without laws, a society
without judicial courts; what would happen. Rules are
meant to ensure order in every organization, either in
small or big community of people.
When rules exist, to get things done is easy. In
an organization, job descriptions are defined. Every
member acts according to his or her role. When each
performs job accurately, the vision and the goals of the
organization is realizable. Sometimes, rules are not
written yet people behave properly, because of the
norms.
When rules exist, we acquire social values that
strengthen our relationship with others. Being with-
others-in-society requires values and skills necessary
to sustain harmony among members of society.
Because of rules, our actions are tamed which
eventually lead towards positive relationship with
others.
Usual Rules in our Lives
1. Etiqutte – standards by which we judge manners
to be good or bad normally dictated by a
socioeconomic elite
2. Legal – standards by which we judge legal right
and wrong in a democracy, formulated by
representative of the people
3. Language – standards by which we judge what is
grammatically right or wrong evolved through use
4. Aesthetics – standards by which we judge good
and bad art usually dictated by a small circle of art
specialists
5. Athletic – standards by which we judge how good
or bad a game is played usually formulated by
governing bodies.
According to Rachels (2007), morality is, first and
foremost, a matter of consulting reason. Thus, what is
morally good, in any circumstance, is that which has
the best reasons for doing.
Lesson 3.1
Moral and Non-Moral Standards
Difference between Moral and Non-Moral
Standards
The following characteristics of moral standards
provide a clear distinction of these two concepts.
First, moral standards deal with matters that
can seriously injures or benefit human beings. These
refer to good or bad actions that may bring help or
harm to others. Examples of good acts are charitable
programs that may help others who are in need; while
examples of bad acts are theft, rape, fraud, slander,
and murder.
Second, the validity of moral standards rests
on the adequacy of reasons to support and justify them,
not on decisions of majority or authoritative bodies.
Example, if someone is ought to tell the truth, his or
her decision does not depend on how many people will
agree or disagree to him or to her. It holds that truth
remains though nobody accepts it, while falsity does
not turn into truth though everybody accepts it. One
indication of justification is the consensus of
participants in communication (Habermas).
Third, moral standards are to be preferred
than other values including self-interest. Example,
honesty is to be preferred than cheating although
cheating can make me graduate. It holds that even if an
act is rewarding, it cannot justify a wrong deed.
Fourth, moral standards are based on
impartial considerations. Another way of expressing
this is ‘universalizable’ or taking the point of view of
an ideal observer still this impartiality must be
balanced with partiality towards those we have a
special relationship (family and friends) and the poor
and the disabled. Rachels stated that the basic idea of
impartiality is that each individual’s interests are
equally important, which in the moral point of view, it
means that there are no privileged persons. It
acknowledges therefore that my importance is equally
as yours, and vice versa. This concept of impartiality is
backed up by good reasons, thus, these two concepts
are very important in addressing ethical issues.
Fifth, moral standards are associated with
special emotions such as ‘guilt’, ‘remorse’, ‘praise’,
‘indignation’. Aside from reason, another
consideration is person’s feelings. Most of the time, we
include our feelings in every action that we do.
We sometimes react not only based on reason
but most of the time with our feelings involved in the
process.
What is common to all five characteristics? All
of these characteristics of moral standards consider in
its broadest sense the existence of society or in more
philosophical term, “other.” It means that individual
responsibility cannot be taken in isolation from social
responsibility. Therefore, it is good to note that we act
not just for ourselves but always for others, with
others, and also by others. Noncompliance with moral
standards seriously injure us as human beings.
“Nababawasan ang ating pagkatao.” The challenge of
moral standards is that in violating them, effect is not
always immediate and visible.
What are Moral Dilemmas?
Moral dilemmas are displayed by being
“bothered” – nababagabag. Why am I bothered?
When did you have that “bothered” feeling?
Confronted with choices whose ends result to one
positive and another negative; or two negatives, one
less and another lesser, we naturally have this bothered
feeling. We find it difficult to make decisions because
of moral considerations. This experience happens
when an agent is confused about the right decision to
make because there are several competing values that
are seemingly equally important and urgent.
A moral dilemma is a problem in the
decision-making between two possible options, neither
of which is absolutely acceptable from an ethical
perspective. It is also referred to as ethical dilemma.
The Oxford Dictionary defines ethical dilemma as a
“decision-making problem between two possible moral
imperatives, neither of which is unambiguously
acceptable or preferable. It is sometimes called an
ethical paradox in moral philosophy.” (Oxford
Dictionary)
Based on these definitions, moral dilemmas
have the following in common: 1) “the agent is
required to do each of two (or more) actions which are
morally unacceptable; 2) the agent can do each of the
actions; 3) but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the
actions The agent thus seems condemned to moral
failure; no matter what she does, she will do something
wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).
This means that moral dilemmas are situations
where two or more moral values or duties make
demands on the decision-maker, who can only honor
one of them, and thus will violate at least one
important moral concern, no matter what he or she
decides to do. Moral dilemmas present situations
where there is tension between moral values and duties
that are more or less on equal footing. The decision-
maker has to choose between a wrong and another
wrong. The decision-maker is a deadlock.
Meaning of a False Dilemma
On the other hand, a false dilemma is a
situation where the decision-maker has a moral duty to
do one thing, but is tempted or under pressure to do
something else. A false dilemma is a choice between a
right and a wrong. For example, a lawyer or an
accountant can face an opportunity to prioritize self-
interest over the client’s interest.
What to Do When Faced with a Moral Dilemma
Ultimately, dilemmas are conflicts in the
application of moral standards. The question is which
moral standards must be followed? In a state of
emergency, necessity demands no moral law. You
have to decide based on your best judgment or choose
based on the principle of lesser evil or greater good or
urgency.
Three Levels of moral dilemmas:
1. Individual Level (Individual Dilemmas)
It is a situational problem for an individual
who is experiencing a difficulty in choosing between
two or more options. Factors like peer pressure,
perspective, and any other personal cultural beliefs
may vary and make a difference on the individual’s
decision.
This refers to personal dilemmas. It is an
individual’s dam-if-you-do-and-damn-if-youdon’t
situation
2. Organizational Level (Organizational
Dilemmas)
This level usually occurs when a dilemma is
made and the standards of the person’s standards are
already attached or are being affected by policies or
procedures of an organization.
To be ethical requires pause:
1) to get hold of emotions before they do damage,
and
2) distance from what everyone else is saying.
To be ethical also requires critical thinking:
1) to analyze the situation, consider stakeholders’
interest, make the right choices, and
2) to see the bigger picture and align the choice with
the values important to me.
An organizational dilemma is a puzzle posed
by the dual necessities of a social organization and
members’ self-interest. It may exist between personal
interests and organizational welfare or between group
interests and organizational well-being….(Wagner, J.
2019)
3. The Systemic Level or the Macro Level
(Structural Dilemmas), defined ethics and is
influenced by the wider environmental operation
where the company exist. Political pressures,
economic status, societal attitudes to some
businesses and even business regulation are the
factors that influence the standard of company
operation and policies. Business owners and
managers must be informed about how pressures
like these can affect operations and relationships,
and how they may impact on markets locally,
nationally and internationally.
A structural dilemma is a conflict of perspective of
sectors, groups and institutions that may be affected by
the decision
Structural dilemmas concern dilemmas faced by group
or individuals as a result of structural relationships.
Lesson 3.2
Moral and Non-Moral Standards
Moral Standards or Moral Frameworks and Non-
Moral Standards
Since ethics is a study of moral standards, then
the first question for the course is, what are moral
standards. The following are supposed to be examples
of moral standards: “Stealing is wrong.” “Killing is
wrong.” Telling lies is wrong.” “Adultery is wrong.”
“Environment preservation is the right to do.”
“Freedom with responsibility is the right way.”
“Giving what is due to others is justice.” Hence, moral
standards are norms or prescriptions that serve as the
frameworks for determining what ought to be done or
what is right or wrong action, what is good or bad
character
Moral standards are either consequences
standards (like Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism) or
nonconsequence standards (like Aritstotle’s virtue, St.
Thomas’ natural law, or Immanuel Kant’ good will or
sense of duty).
The consequence standards depend on
results, outcome. An act that results in the general
welfare, in the greatest good of the greatest number, is
moral.
The non-consequence standards are based on
the natural law. Natural law is the law of God
revealed through human reason. It is the “law of God
written in the heart of men.” To preserve human life is
in accordance with the natural law, therefore it is
moral. Likewise, the non-consequence standard may
also be based on good will or intention, and on a sense
of duty. Respect for humanity, treatment of the other
as a human person, an act that is moral, springs from a
sense of duty, a sense of duty that you wish will apply
to all human person
On the other hand, non-moral standards are
social rules, demands of etiquette and good manner.
They are the guides of action which should be
followed as expected by society. Sometimes they may
not be followed or some people may not follow them.
From time to time, changes are made regarding good
manners or etiquette. In sociology, non-moral
standards or rules are called folkways. In short, non-
moral actions are those where moral categories cannot
be applied.
Examples of non-moral standards are rules of
good manners and right conduct, etiquette, rules of
behaviour set by parents, teachers, and standards of
grammar or language, standards of art, standards of
sports set by other authorities. Examples are “do not
eat with your mouth open,” “observes rules of
grammar,” and “do not wear socks that don’t match.”
Classification of the Theories of Moral Standards
Garner and Rosen (1967) classified the various
moral standards formulated by moral philosophers as
follows:
1. Consequence (teleological, from tele which means
end, result or consequence) standard states that an
act is right or wrong depending on the
consequences of the act, that is, the good that is
produced in the world. Will it do you good if you
go to school? If the answer is right, because you
learn how to read and write, then going to school is
right. The consequence standard can also be a
basis for determining whether or not a rule is a
right rule. So the consequence standards states that
the rightness or wrongness of a rule depends on
standard or the good that is produced in following
the rule. For instance, if everyone follows the rule
of a game, everyone will enjoy playing the game.
This good consequence proves the rule must be a
correct rule.
2. Not-only-consequence standard (deontological),
holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action
or rule depends on sense of duty, natural law,
virtue and the demand of the situation or
circumstances. The rightness or wrongness of an
action does not only depend or rely on the
consequence of what action or following that rule.
Natural and virtue ethics are deontological
moral standards because their basis for determining
what is right or wrong does not depend on
consequences but on the natural law and virtue.
Situation ethics, too, is deontological because the
rightness or wrongness of an act depends on situation
and circumstances requiring or demanding exception
to rule.
Lesson 4
Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts
Freedom as Foundation for Moral Acts: Absolute
and Relative
As universal paradox, on freedom, states that
“You are free to choose, but you are not free from the
consequence of your choice.” This statement already
implies the concept of freedom and responsibility, as
well as the concept of absolute freedom and relative
freedom. Human as we to, we always have to make
choices, from simple to the most complicated issues.
Some objects of our choice do not necessitate moral
decisions on our part. For instance, when we wake up
in the morning, we already have something to decide
on, whether to take our breakfast, to take a bath or
even to go to school or work or not. These are non-
complicated choices however the consequences may
lead to conflicts. For instance, if we choose not to
attend classes or go to work, our tasks will be pending,
and as such others who may also be affected.
Eventually, the simple choice that we make may
become a huge problem.
The concept of freedom cannot in any way be
separated from the concept of moral obligation and
accountability. This explains why freedom is a
foundation for moral acts. Man is free, yet there are
things that he “ought” to act or follow, like rules,
policy, practices, or principles. A contemporary
secularist, Kai Neilsen, recommends that man must
perform what he “ought” to perform to maximize
happiness and minimize pain. Neilsen further explains
this moral obligation in relation to this concept of
justice.
 He argues that it is not enough to just seek
maximization of human happiness and minimization of
suffering, man is “ought” to achieve both fairly.
Mañebog et al also quoted the outspoken atheist
Richard Dawkins who declares that there “moral
instructions” on how we ought to behave.”
From these views, we can now understand
freedom as man’s capacity to select from choices, and
to perform his choices, nevertheless, such freedom
does not imply that he has the absolute power to make
choices. Man must consider what he “ought” to do.
For instance, if he chooses to relax and set his
karaoke set in its full volume, he truly has the freedom
to do so. However, such freedom is not absolute
because as he enjoys, he also has been mindful and
conscious of the freedom of his neighbours who may
also have the freedom to relax and take complete rest.
This means therefore that freedom is not absolute but
relative. It always in relation to others’ freedom, thus,
we can say that “where your freedom ends, the
freedom of others begin”.
Ethics Applies Only to Human Persons
Unlike the lower form of animals, human
persons have a choice or freedom, hence morality
applies only to human persons.
Ethics therefore, applies only to human
persons. We cannot say a cat is “unethical” when it
eats the food at table for you or when a dog urinates on
your favourite bag lying on the floor.
Dilemmas presuppose freedom. Freedom-
loving societies have customary ways of training the
young to exercise their freedom. Parents regularly give
their children opportunities to choose. Later in life,
they come face to face with hard choices. The
dilemmas come along. There is such a thing as a
dilemma because there is such a thing as freedom. If
there is no ability or power of choice, then any incident
simply happens without any interference. There would
also be no obligation to do any act in expectation of
the responsibility following the act.
Freedom and Moral Choice
Without freedom it is impossible to make a
moral choice. If we are to have free will we must have
the ability to make a decision that is unhindered. Kant
believed that we must have free will if we are held
morally responsible for our actions. If God did not give
us free will then our decisions cannot be considered
immoral or moral as we would have had to act in the
way we did. Thus we cannot be held responsible; a
good moral action cannot be praised as you had no
other option, whilst an immoral action cannot be
punished as once again there was no free choice. In
other words, making moral choice is a necessary
consequence for being free, a consequence of being a
human person
Because a human person has freedom, he/she
has a choice and so is responsible for the consequences
of his/her choice. The lower forms of animals have no
choice since they are bound by instinct and so cannot
be held responsible for their behavior.
The ethics of absolute freedom, it would seem,
are not absolutely free. To be free we must take on the
responsibility of choosing for all men, we must desire
and work for the freedom of all men, and we must
create ourselves within the context of the relationships
and obligations we have to other people.
Reasons and Impartiality: Minimum Requirement
for Morality
The role of reason in Ethics is very significant.
As Mañebog et al claim, any utterance to become a
genuine moral or value judgment, it must be supported
by pertinent reasons. For instance, if a person tells us
that a certain act is immoral, he has to prove it by
explaining the why’s and the how’s such an action
becomes immoral. In this case, the role of reason is
involved in determining whether an act is truly moral
or immoral. If reasons are not provided, then the claim
must be considered absurd. If in trying to justify his
claim, he explains that an act is wrong simply because
that is his belief or that’s how he feels it, then his
argument remains absurd. This raises the distinction
between ethical judgment and simple expressions of
personal beliefs and emotions. Only ethical judgment
requires sound reasoning, while personal beliefs and
emotions do not. Say for instance, if I claim that food
with chilli is very delicious, I am not necessitated to
explain my claim.
Emotivism however discards moral truths
because of its claim that morality is not testable by
empirical observation and experimentation, thus,
matters concerning morality are reduced to mere
objects of feelings. This likewise reduces man’s nature
to mere emotions, which in the sense rejecting the
rationality in man. Emotivists fall short in concluding
that man has only feelings, and has no reasons, for in
fact, reason’s vital role in Ethics cannot be denied. The
claim that moral truths are truths of reason takes
precedence over the emotivism’s claim.
The minimum requirements of morality are
reason and impartiality. “Moral judgments must be
backed up by good reason and impartiality. Morality
requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interests.” Moral judgments, or resolving a
dilemma of moral judgments must be backed up by
good reason.
 Reason and impartiality refer to a mental
activity following the basic principle of consistency,
the lack of contradiction between one idea and another.
It is a process of deriving necessary conclusion from
premises, avoiding all forms of deception or fallacy or
reasoning
A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids
ambiguities like equivocation, circular reasoning,
amphibology, etc. Coherent reasoning is needed to
establish truth and meaningfulness of moral judgments

“Morality requires impartial consideration of

each individual’s interest. In arriving at a sound moral
judgment you must listen to everyone trying to speak.
Biases and prejudices must be placed between
brackets, suspended. Everyone’s message, silent or
verbal, should be allowed to be unveiled. Everyone has
always something to tell. No has a monopoly of the
truth. A moral subject must be seen from various
perspectives and standpoints.