DILEMMA VS MORAL DILEMMA
traits that make it possible for them to be moral:
DILEMMA
● Refers to a situation in Which a tough choice has to
Be made between two or more Options, especially
more or less equally undesirable Ones.
MORAL DILEMMAS
● Ethical Dilemmas;
● Situations in which a Difficult choice has to be Made
between two courses of Actions, either of which Entails
a transgressing moral principle.
● Conflict
● the decision-maker should Consider two or more
moral values Or duties but can only honor one Of them.
● the individual will violate at Least one important
moral Concern, regardless of the Decision.
3 LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS
1. PERSONAL DILEMMA
● Those experienced and Resolved on a
personal Level.
2. ORGANIZATIONAL DILEMMA
● Refers to ethical cases Encountered and
resolved by Social organizations
● Business, Medical Field, And Public Sector.
3. STRUCTURAL DILEMMA
● Refer to cases involving Network of
institutions and Operative theoretical
Paradigms;
● Encompass multi-sectoral Institutions and
Organizations
PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN MODERN
SOCIETY
• Principles on which one’s judgments of right
andWrong are based.
Ethics
• Guiding principles of conduct of an individual or
Group. (Usually considered universal)
“Ethics and morality are not inbuilt, they are Taught”
Culture
• All the ways of life including arts, beliefs,And
institutions of a population that are Passed
down from generation to Generation.
“Culture has a major impact on morality”
‘Only human beings can be ethical’
Another basic tenet in ethics is the belief that only
human beings can be truly ethical Most philosophers
hold that unlike animals, human beings possess some
a. Only human beings are rational, autonomous,
and self-conscious. The qualities of rationality,
autonomy, and self-consciousness are believed
to confer a full and equal moral status to those
that possess them as these beings are the only
ones capable of achieving certain values and
goods. These values and goods are something
that outweigh the types of values and goods
that non-rational, non-autonomous, and non-
self-conscious beings are capable of realizing.
For instance, in order to attain the kind of
dignity and self-respect that human beings
have, a being must be able to conceive of itself
as one among many, and must be able to
consciously select his actions rather than be led
by blind instinct.
Many ethicists thus believe that only rational,
autonomous, and self conscious beings deserve
full and equal moral status. Because only
human beings are rational, autonomous, and
self-conscious, it then follows that only human
beings deserve full and equal moral status.
Moreover, the values of appreciating art,
literature, and the goods that come with deep
personal relationships all require a being to be
rational, autonomous, and self-conscious. These
values, and others like them, are the highest
values to us humans; they comprise those
which make our lives worth living.
b. Only human beings can act morally or
immorally. Strictly speaking, an animal which
devours another animal cannot be said to be
immoral. In the same manner, no matter how
‘good’ an animal’s action seems to be, it cannot
be technically said to be moral.
Only human beings can act morally or
immorally. This is important in ethics because
only beings that can act morally can be required
to sacrifice their interests for the sake of others.
Not able to truly act morally, animals could not
really sacrifice their own good for the sake of
others, but would even pursue their good at the
expense of others.
 c. Only human beings are part of the moral
community. The so-called moral community is
not defined in terms of the intrinsic properties
that beings have, but rather in terms of the
essential social relations that exist between or
among beings. Distinctively, only human beings
can possess or practice values such as love,
honor, social relationships, forgiveness,
compassion, and altruism.
Moreover, only human beings can
communicate with each other in truly
meaningful ways, can engage in economic,
political, and familial relationships with each
other, and can also form deep personal
relationships with each other. These kinds of
relationships require the members of such
relationships to extend real concern to other
members of these relationships in order for the
relationships to continue. These relationships
are what constitute our lives and the values
contained in them.
Another thing human beings have that no
animal has is the ability to participate in a
collective cognition. That is, we, as individuals,
are able to draw on the collective knowledge of
humanity in a way no animal can.
Freedom as a Foundation of Morality
As explained above, one of the reasons animals cannot
be truly ethical is that they are not really autonomous
or free. Likewise, a robot, no matter how beneficial its
functions may be, cannot be said to be moral, for it has
no freedom or choice but to work according to what is
commanded based on its built-in program,
Basically, morality is a question of choice. Morality,
practically, is choosing ethical codes, values, or
standards to guide us in our daily lives. Philosophically,
choosing is impossible without freedom.
Morality requires and allows choice, which means the
right to choose even differently from our fellows. In
their daily lives, people make the choice to give to
charities, donate time and money to schools, mentor
children, open businesses, or protest against animal
cruelty.
Everyone who wishes to function morally and rationally
in a society has to make choices virtually every minute
of the day. Practically, the sum of our choices can be
said to define our specific ‘morality! Applicably, using
the government or one’s culture to coerce people to
behave in a certain way is not morality but the
antithesis of morality. This principle in ethics applies
even when the motive is pure.
Minimum Requirement for Morality: Reason and
Impartiality
The late Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-
2003) holds that moral judgments must be backed by
sound reasoning and that morality requires the
impartial consideration of all parties involved (Rachels,
1999). It is thus submitted that reason and impartiality
compose the “minimum conception” of morality or, as
some put it, the minimum requirement for morality.
Reason as a requirement for morality entails that
human feelings may be important in ethical decisions,
but they ought to be guided by reason. Sound reasoning
helps us to evaluate whether our feelings and intuitions
about moral cases are correct and defensible.
Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that
each individual’s interests and point of view are equally
important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-
mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice holding
that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria,
rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring
the benefit to one person over another for improper
reasons. (Detailed discussions on reason and
impartiality can be found in a later section of this book.
For other introductory topics about Ethics, you may
read the Appendix A: “Ethics: A Primer” of this book.)
Culture in Moral Behavior
1. Culture: Some Definitions
It is commonly said that culture is all around us.
Practically, culture appears to be an actual part
of our social life as well as our personality. For
some, culture is a quality that some people
have more than others: how ‘cultured’
somebody is depends on some factors like
status, class, education, taste in music or film,
and speech habits. By attending symphonies,
plays, operas, and poetry readings, some show
that they ‘appreciate culture’ than others.
 Sometimes, people visit places like museums or
art galleries to increase their so-called ‘cultural
awareness. Probably, you have heard
somebody in the ‘cultural elite’ bemoan the
deplorable ‘popular culture’ of TV, graphically
violent computer games, mass-marketed
movies, pierced navels, tattoos, and rock or rap
music.
The term 'culture' is so complex that it is not
easy to define. In one sense, culture is used to
denote that which is related to the arts and
humanities. But in a broader sense, culture
denotes the practices, beliefs, and perceptions
of a given society. It is in this sense that culture
is often opposed with ‘savagery,’ that is, being
‘cultured’ is seen as a product of a certain
evolvement from a natural state.
The following are other definitions of the term
culture (“Culture Definition,”n.d.):
a. Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of
knowledge, experience, beliefs, values,
attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion,
notions of time, roles, spatial relations,
concepts of the universe, and material objects
and possessions acquired by a group of people
in the course of generations through individual
and group striving.
b. Culture consists of patterns, explicit and
implicit, of and for behavior acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the
distinctive achievement of human groups,
including their embodiments in artifacts; the
essential core of culture consists of traditional
ideas and especially their attached values;
culture systems may, on the one hand, be
considered as products of action, on the other
hand, as conditioning influences upon further
action.
c. Culture is the sum total of the learned behavior
of a group of people that are generally
considered to be the tradition of that people
and are transmitted from generation to
generation
d. Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated
behavior, that is the totality of a
Person’s learned, accumulated experience which is
socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior
through social learning. E Culture is symbolic
communication. Some of its symbols include a
group’s
Skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives.
The meanings of the symbols
Are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a
society through its institutions.
Defined broadly therefore, culture includes all the
things individuals learn while growing up among
particular group: attitudes, standards of morality,
rules of etiquette, perceptions of reality, language,
notions about the proper way to live, beliefs about
how females and males should interact, ideas about
how the world works and so forth. We call this
cultural knowledge.
2. Culture’s Role in Moral Behavior
Based on the definitions of culture above, it is
not hard to pinpoint the role of the culture in
one’s moral behavior. A culture is a way of life’
of a group of people, and this so-called ‘way of
life’ actually includes moral values and
behaviors, along with knowledge, beliefs,
symbols that they accept, “generally without
thinking about them, and that are passed along
by communication and imitation from one
generation to the next” (“Culture Definition,”
n.d.).
Culture is learned as children grow up in society
and discover how their parents and others
around them interpret the world. In our society,
we learn to distinguish objects such as cars,
windows, houses, children, and food; recognize
attributes like sharp, hot, beautiful, and humid;
classify and perform different kinds of acts; and
even “evaluate what is [morally] good and bad
and to judge when an unusual action is
appropriate or inappropriate” (Mañebog &
Peña, 2016).
Many aspects of morality are taught. People
learn moral and aspects of right or wrong from
transmitters of culture: respective parents,
teachers, novels, films, and television.
Observing or watching them, people develop a
set idea of what is right and wrong, and what is
acceptable and what is not.
 Even experientially, it is improbable, if not
impossible, to live in a society without being
affected by its culture. It follows too that it is
hard to grow up in a particular culture without
being impacted by how it views morality or
what is ethically right or wrong.
Anthropologically speaking, culture-including
moral values, beliefs, and behavior is learned
from other people while growing up in a
particular society or group; is widely shared by
the members of that society or group; and so
profoundly affects the thoughts, actions, and
feelings of people in that group that “individuals
are a product of their culture” and “learning a
culture is an essential part of human
development” (De Guzman & Peña, 2016),
Social learning is the process by which
individuals acquire knowledge from others in
the groups to which they belong, as a normal
part of childhood. The process by which infants
and children socially learn the culture, including
morality, of those around them is called
enculturation or socialization.
3. ‘Moral Standards as Social Convention’ and the
Social Conditioning Theory
Among the popular notions which attempt to
give account for basic concepts in Ethics, such
as the existence of moral rules, the sense of
moral obligation, and the moral accountability,
are the so-called ‘social convention’ and ‘social
conditioning theories. These views are upshot
of the fact that we can learn morality culturally
or through socialization.
3.1 Theories Explained. The things we regard as
moral laws (moral standards or rules), some
purport, are nothing but just social
conventions. By convention, they mean
those things agreed upon by people, like
through their authorities. Convention also
refers to the usual or customary ways
through which things are done within a
group.
3.2 Since it is observed that morality is
something that is handed down to us
primarily by education or socialization,
either through parents and elders or
through teachers, some believe that moral
standards are merely a human invention,
like those other conventions we learn from
school or home. Essentially, to theorize that
moral law is a social convention is to say
that it is something which human beings
had just made up for themselves and might
have been different had they liked.
Relatedly, some submit that morality is
nothing but an effect of social conditioning.
As regards moral consciousness or the
feeling that we are obliged to act morally,
some atheists, like Richard Robinson (1902-
1996), maintain that it is nothing but an
outcome of social conditioning. In An
Atheist’s Values he wrote, “The original
conscience of an individual in any given
society is a historical accident, the result of
the influences to which he has been
subject. It is a set of taboos and
compulsions, acquired from his associates
in the same unreflecting way as all his other
taboos and compulsions” (Robinson, 1964,
p. 110).
This theory further claims that the demands
of conscience are also due to society. As
society expresses disapproval of certain
actions, people, especially children, are said
to become aware of the weight of the
reproof or contempt. Little by little, people
allegedly begin to exercise their disapproval
of those acts. This feeling of dissatisfaction,
proponents say, develops into a habit that
functions as the conscience when one
considers carrying out those actions.
3.3 Theories Analyzed. However, just because
something is learned at homes or schools
does not necessarily mean that it is a social
convention. Mathematical operations,
geographical facts, and scientific laws are
also taught in those institutions, yet they
are never considered as mere human
fabrications. Meaning, whether or not
people know and like them, they are as they
are.
3.4 There is no denying that some of the things
we learn from our teachers, parents, and
older siblings are mere convention, which
might have been different. In the
Philippines, people are taught to keep to
the right of the road, though it might have
been the norm to keep to the left just as
well, such as the case in some other
countries. Men nowadays pair their formal
shoes with black socks, not with white ones,
simply because it has become the
convention in wearing formal attire.
However, many of the things taught in
schools and homes, like mathematics, are
real truths and not mere conventions. So
the question now Is, to which class does
moral law belong?
The philosopher C. S. Lewis offers two
reasons for saying that morality
Belongs to the same class as mathematics
(Lewis, 1943, p. 28-31):
a. Although there are differences between
the moral ideas one time or country
and those of another, the differences
are not really very great. Nations or
cultures only have slightly different
moralities but not quite different ones.
Essentially, we can recognize the same
moral law running
Through them all (more of this under
the section Universal Values’). It is thus
concluded that moral law is not among
the class of mere conventions for
conventions, like the rule of the road or
the kind of clothes people wear, are
observed to be differing almost
completely.
b. We affirm that the morality of one
people is better or worse than that of
another, which means that there is a
moral standard or rule by which we
measure both moralities and that
standard is real. For instance, New
Testament’s morality can be said to be
far better than Nazi morality. In fact,
one aspect of the National Socialist
(Nazi) reign was the systematic cold-
blooded murder of between 5.6 million
and 5.9 million European Jews
(“National Socialism,” 2008).
Moreover, changes in people’s morality
have been deemed as improvements;
because if not, then there could never
be any so-called moral progress.
Progress means positive development
or development toward achieving a
goal or reaching a higher standard
(“Progress, 2009). Moral progress,
therefore, means not just changing, but
changing for the better. Now, if no set
of moral ideas were truer or better than
any other, there would be no sense in
preferring civilized morality to savage
morality. In fact, we call the people who
tried to change the moral ideas of their
own age for the better as ‘reformers’ or
‘pioneers. We consider them as people
who understood morality better than
others did.
And when we affirm that one set of
moral ideas is better than another, are
we not, in fact, measuring them both by
a standard, saying that one of them
conforms to that standard more nearly
than the other? But the standard that
measures two things is something
different from either. Therefore, we are
in fact comparing them both with some
‘real morality, admitting that there is
really such a thing as right, independent
of what people think, and that some
people’s ideas are nearer to that real
right than others!.
Indeed, if our moral s can be truer, and
those of the Nazis less true, there must
be something some real morality for
them to be true about. Analogically, the
reason our idea of Boracay can be truer
or less true than someone else’s, is that
Boracay is a real place, existing
independently from what we all think. If
we just mean, “The place I am
imagining in my own head” when each
of us say “Boracay,” then how could
one of us have truer ideas than the
other? If our idea of "Boracay" is unreal
and merely conventional, then there
would be no question of truth or
falsehood about it at all. In the same
way, if moral law or rule of decent
behavior means simply, "whatever each
nation happens to approve," that is, a
mere social convention, then there
would be no sense in saying that one
nation had ever been more correct in its
approval than any other. There will be
no sense in saying that the world could
ever grow better or worse. Thus, moral
law is not synonymous to mere social
convention - it's not something which
each culture or society just happens to
approve. Concerning 'social
conditioning theory, it can be observed
that when one says that a particular
action 'ought' or 'ought not to be done,
he/she is not simply echoing social
approval or disapproval. In fact, there
are plenty of situations where a person,
although conditioned and influenced by
his culture to adopt a particular course,
feels the moral obligation to take an
entirely different action. And in a
culture where moral views have
become corrupted, say the Nazi society,
those who opted to go against the
societal norms are even considered as
social reformer and moral model. In a
micro level, one's peer may condition a
person to engage in, say pre-marital
sex, as everyone else in the group may
be doing it anyway. But deep within a
person, there is usually the feeling that
the action is morally wrong, and he/she
is thus morally obliged to disobey
his/her peer's insinuation. The so-called
sense of moral obligation therefore,
cannot be squarely explained by social
conditioning. We do not submit,
nonetheless, that social conditioning
does not in any way affect our ethical
knowledge. As a matter of fact, we
indeed learn plenty of moral things
from our society through our parents,
teachers, religious leaders, and the like.
But it is basically our 'intellect' which is
nurtured by the teachings of moral
authorities. The intellect remembers
what actions are moral and what are
not, at least as prescribed by the
society. Therefore, it is this intellect
which can be molded or socially
conditioned, not the sense of moral
obligation nor the so-called conscience
per se.
The role played by our intellect in our
moral decisions explains how social
conditioning somehow affects one’s
concept of morality. Ultimately
nonetheless, ethical decisions are
supposed to be made in relation to
something not itself due to social
conditioning but due to some sort of
moral law that presses down on every
person.
4. Cultural Relativism in Ethics
Cultural relativism is perhaps the most famous form of
moral relativism, a theory in ethics which holds that
ethical judgments have their origins either in individual
or cultural standards. Moral relativism fundamentally
believes that no act is good or bad objectively, and
there is no single objective universal standard through
which we can evaluate the truth of moral judgments.
Moral relativism submits that different moral principles
apply to different persons or group of individuals.
Claiming that various cultures have distinct standards of
right and wrong, it maintains too, that moral standards
change over time even in the same culture. Moral
relativists view all moral norms as equally true, and
morals, as mere preferences.
When the recognized standard is a particular agent, the
relativist theory is very much compatible with moral
subjectivism. If the considered basis is a given society,
the relativist ideology is typically referred to as cultural
relativism.
Cultural relativism, the most dominant form of moral
relativism, defines ‘moral’ as what is ‘socially approved’
by the majority in a particular culture. It maintains that
an act is ethical in a culture that approves of it, but
immoral in one that disapproves of it. Most cultural
relativists place the notion of right in the folkways and
consider the tradition as morality’s warrant.
Cultural relativists base their moral theory on the
observation that societies fundamentally disagree about
ethical issues. What is deemed moral within one group
may be totally despicable to the members of another
group, and vice versa. It is thus concluded that morality
differs in every society as concepts of right and wrong
vary from culture to culture.
5. Cultural Relativism: An Analysis
From moral relativism and cultural relativism, we could
learn some beneficial lessons As a theory in ethics
nonetheless, they have some claims that are
questionable if not totally mistaken.
5.1 Valuable lessons from ethical relativism. In
proposing that there is no Independent
standard in Ethics, moral relativism does
encourage tolerance Without a doubt,
tolerance is necessary for people of
different cultural origins to co-exist and live
peacefully in a society.
5.2 In a way, the theory also teaches us to be
open-minded, thereby being more open to
discovering truth. By stressing that our
moral views can reflect the partiality of our
tradition, the theory makes us understand
that our feelings and eliefs do not
necessarily reflect the truth-they may be
mere products of cultural conditioning.
Cultural relativism positively warns against
being judgmental as it reminds us that
some of our beliefs and practices are mere
conventional, and thus not absolutely and
exclusively correct. Nonetheless, the theory
errs in hastily assuming that all our
practices are mere cultural products
5.3 The theory’s ethical faults. In spite of its
apparently convincing features, cultural
relativism contains various ethical faults For
instance, imagine what the theory would
say if you were a member of Hitler’s Nazi
party who lived in a society that approved
of anti-Semitism Since according to the
theory, ‘moral’ simply means ‘socially
approved, then you would have to believe
that exterminating millions of Jews is right.
We could not say that anti-Semitism is
socially approved but wrong, since this
would be self-contradicting within the
theory.
Cultural relativism discourages analytical
thinking and independent decision-making
in Ethics as it requires unsuspecting
compliance and subscription to social
norms. Endorsing traditionalism, one is not
supposed to think for himself. The theory
teaches that to be ethical, folkways and
cultural norms should be followed
uncritically.
Logically, cultural relativism is inconsistent
in promoting tolerance while teaching that
no culture is morally superior or more
progressive than others. Notice that the
theory is self-contradictory because if we
really do not believe that some cultures
were better than others, then there would
be nothing for us to tolerate. Furthermore,
being tolerant does not demand that we
consider all practices, including racism and
oppression, as morally acceptable.
comprehensive evaluation of this ethical
system.
The Cultural Differences Argument Rachels
logically analyzed the cultural relativism’s
line of thinking (1999, pp. 23-25). He
explains that the cultural relativists’
approach is to argue from facts about the
differences between cultural outlooks to a
conclusion about the status of morality.
Thus we are invited to accept reasoning like
these.
- The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat
the dead, whereas the Callatians (an
Indian tribe) believed it was right to eat
the dead. Therefore, eating the dead is
neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion,
which varies from culture to culture.
- Eskimos see nothing wrong with
infanticide, whereas we believe
 infanticide is immoral. Therefore,
infanticide is neither objectively right
nor objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion, which varies from
culture to culture.
Clearly, these arguments are variations of
one fundamental idea. Both are specific
cases of a more general argument, which
states: Different cultures have different
moral codes. Therefore, there is no
Objective “truth” in morality. Right and
wrong are only matters of opinion, and
Opinions vary from culture to culture.
Rachels calls this the cultural differences
argument. Seemingly persuasive it is
nonetheless unsound because its
conclusion does not follow from its
premise. That is, even if the premise is true,
the conclusion might still be false. Notice
that the premise concerns what people
believe but the conclusion assumes what
really is the case.
Concerning the case of the Greeks and
Callatians, one group believed it was wrong
to eat the dead whereas the other
considered it right. But does it follow, from
the mere fact that they disagreed, that
there is no objective truth in the matter? It
does not-for it could be that the practice
was in fact wrong one of the two groups
was simply mistaken.
5.4 The bad consequences of cultural
relativism. If we took Cultural Relativism
seriously, we would be necessitated to deal
with the following corollaries enumerated
by Rachels (1999, p. 25-27);
a. We could no longer say that the
customs of other societies ore morally
inferior To our own.
Suppose a society waged war on its
neighbors for the purpose of taking slaves,
as in the movie Apocalypto by Mel Gibson.
Or suppose a society was violently anti-
Semitic or anti-Muslim and its leaders set
out to destroy the Jews or the Muslims
Cultural Relativism bans us from saying that
any of these practices was wrong. Absurd
enough therefore, slavery, anti-Semitism,
and the like are immune from criticism
under the theory.
b. We could decide whether actions are
right or wrong just by consulting the
Standards of our society.
Cultural Relativism suggests a simplistic test
for determining what is right and what is
wrong-one just needs to ask whether the
action is in accordance with the code of his
society.
c. The idea of moral progress is called into
doubt.
Rachels mentions of the place of women in
society throughout most of history which
was “narrowly circumscribed”-they could
not own property, they could not vote or
hold political office; and generally they
were under the almost absolute control of
their husbands. Recently much of this has
changed, and most people think of it as
progress.
But in Cultural Relativism, we cannot
legitimately think of this as progress-there
is no standard by which we judge the new
ways as better or “progressive”. If the old
ways were in accordance with the social
standards of their time, then the theory
would say it is a mistake to judge them by
the standards of a different time. The same
principle applies to “social reform.” Jose P.
Rizal and Martin Luther King, Jr. who have
sought to change their societies may not be
necessarily regarded as ‘reformers’ in
Cultural Relativism.
Asian Ethics “Eastern Ethics”
• Asian ethics is said to be much more about
Doing what is right in terms of what is Expected
of someone by his family, society, And culture.
“Eastern Ethics focuses about the protocol And showing
respect”
Asian Ethics “Eastern Ethics”
Eastern Ethics seems to hold that one must do What is STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
right and expected of him and the Universe (or a
metaphysical force) will take Care of the rest. ● Builds friendship ● Environmental
“Eastern Ethics basis is Religious Teachings” ● Develop camaraderie Influence
Eastern Religions or Philosophies. ● Opens opportunities ● Prone to abuse
● Invasion of privacy
Confucianism
(2) 'Hiya' is described as a feeling of lowliness,
For instance, focuses on the cultivation of Virtue and
shame or embarrassment, and inhibition or
maintenance of morality, the most Basic of which are
shyness which is experienced as somewhat
rén, yi, li
distressing. Integrally, hiya is related to the
Western Ethics
concept of 'face and a concern with how one
Western Ethics is claimed to have more of a Stress on
appears in the eyes of others.
self and what is rationally or Logically true. Western
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Ethics is seen to placeMore emphasis on law and justice
● Builds greater ● Loses opportunities
“Western Ethics focuses on Finding Truth”
respect and decency. ● Might cause anxiety
“Western Ethics basis on Rational Thought”
● May lead to having
Western Ethics Eastern Ethics inferiority complex
Focus Finding Truth Protocol and and losing self-
Respect confidence
Basis Rational Thought Religious
Teachings
(3) 'amor propio' is derived from the concept of
Emphasis Logic, Cause and Respect
'face. Although commonly translated as 'self-
Effect Towards Family
respect' or 'self-esteem," 'amor propio has been
Roots in Athens, Rome Hinduism,
"characterized as the high degree of sensitivity
and Buddhism,
JudeoChristianity Confucianism that makes a person intolerant to criticism and
and Taoism causes him to have an easily wounded pride"
Approach Rational Holistic and ("Amor Propio," n.d.). Concerning this Filipino
Cultural value, some observe that "Filipinos learn to
Conflict And Good must Good and Bad, withstand a "loss of face' in some situations,
Harmony triumph over Evil Light and Dark particularly when they perceive themselves to
all exist in be at fault, but it is devastating to be publicly
equilibrium. criticized, insulted, belittled, or humiliated, or
to lose one's self-respect" ("Amor Propio," n.d.).
Filipino Moral Character: Strengths and Weaknesses STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Filipino cultural morality, especially that which concerns
● Individual Protection ● Loses opportunities
social ethics, centers on ideally having a ‘smooth
● Perceived by other
interpersonal relationship’ (SIR) with others. The people having a
definition of ‘smooth interpersonal relationship in negative attitude.
Philippine culture is principally supported by and
anchored on at least six basic Filipino values: the (4) ‘utang na loob’ is likewise a fundamental aspect
concepts of (1) ‘pakikisama, (2) ‘hiya,’ (3) ‘amor propio, of upholding group harmony and relationships
(4) ‘utang na loob,’ (5) Filipino hospitality, and (6) that demand the balancing of obligations and
respect for elders. debts. This involves the concept ‘reciprocity’ or
(1) ‘Pakikisama’ is having and maintaining ‘good returning the received favor. The inability to
public relations. This is usually being practiced repay the “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude)
to avoid clash with other people or a certain usually makes a person “walang utang na loob”
group. It characterizes both a value and a goal or “walang-hiya.” To avoid being dubbed as
that involves keeping good feelings in all “walang utang na loob,” some Filipinos
personal interactions. And getting along with sometimes do things that may be bad (like
others, oftentimes, at all costs.
 voting for unworthy candidate) just to return a
received favor.
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
● Carrying strong ● Could test
sense of support someone’s morality
especially on a
difficult situation
(5) Filipino hospitality’ refers to the innate ability
and trait of Filipinos to be courteous and
entertaining to their guests. Indeed, generally
speaking, Filipinos are hospitable as they are
internationally known to be warm, welcoming,
and accommodating. This trait, however, makes
Filipinos prone to being abused or maltreated
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
● Having strong sense ● Prone to abuse and
of concern maltreatment
(6) ‘respect to elders, we, Filipinos, are not only
respectful to elders, but also have unique ways
of expressing this respect to elders. These
include the use of ‘po’ and ‘opo’ when talking to
elders and ‘pagmamano’ or the putting of the
elder’s hand to one’s forehead. When
excessive, nonetheless, respect to elders make
one dependent or irrationally obedient to
parents or elders. (For further discussion on
Filipino moral character, you may consult the
Appendix J: “Sikolohiyang Pilipino” of this
book.)
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
● Exhibits how the ● Make one
Philippines differ from dependent or
other countries irrationally obedient
to parents or elders.
UNIVERSAL VALUES .
Those values generally shared by culture.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM .
Is the idea that a person’s beliefs and practices should
Be understood based on that person’s own culture.
Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they
are not Given extensive care for a period of years.
Therefore, if a group Did not care for its young, the
young would not survive, and the Older members of the
group would not be replaced. After a while, The group
would die out. Therefore, any cultural group that
Continues to exist must care for its young. Infants that
are not Cared for must be the exception rather than the
rule.
(1) TRUTH TELLING (2) RESPECTING LIFE
The Moral Agent
Developing Virtue as Habit
Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues
such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and
loyalty. To say that a certain person has a good moral
character means that he/she is a good person and a
good citizen with a sound moral compass,
1. Moral Character and Virtues
The term “character is derived from the Greek word
‘charakter, which was initially used as a mark impressed
upon a coin. The word “character” later came to mean a
distinct mark by which one thing was distinguished from
others, and then chiefly to mean the assemblage of
qualities that distinguish one person from another. This
stress on distinctiveness or individuality tends to merge
“character” with “personality” in modern usage. For
instance, when thinking of a person’s idiosyncratic
mannerisms, social gestures, or habits of dress, we
might say that he has personality or that he’s quite a
character.
The use in ethics of the word "character, however, has a
different linguistic history. At the beginning of Book Il of
the Nicomachean Ethics, the Greek philosopher
Aristotle tells us that there are two distinct of human
excellences, (1) excellences of thought and (2)
excellences of character. His phrase for excellences of
(mortal) character, ‘éthikai aretai,’ is often translated as
“moral virtue(s)” and “moral excellence(s).” The Greek
‘éthikos’ (ethical) is the adjective cognate with ‘êthos’
(character). So when we speak of a ‘virtue’ or an
excellence of moral character, the highlighting is not on
mere distinctiveness or individuality, but on the blend
of qualities that make a person the sort of ethically
admirable individual he/she is.
“Moral character,” therefore, in philosophical sense,
refers to having or lacking moral virtue. If one lacks
virtue, he/she may have any of the moral vices, or hel
she may be marked by a condition somewhere in
between virtue and vice, such as continence or
incontinence.
 2. The Circular Relation of Acts and Character
In the process of moral development, there is
the circular relation between acts that build
character and moral character itself. Not all acts
help to build moral character, but those acts
which emanate from moral characters certainly
matter in moral development. Hence, there
appears the apparent circular relationship
between individual acts and moral character. A
person’s actions determine his/her moral
character, but moral character itself generates
acts that help in developing either virtue or
vice.
This goes to show that moral development should also
be understood in the sense of human flourishing. This
flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral
and intellectual excellences, or ‘virtues. In the context
of developing morally which also brings about self-
realization and happiness, acting in line with virtues is
acting in accordance with reason. Indeed, philosophers
like Aristotle hold that the function of human being
consists in activities which manifest the best states of
his rational aspect, that is, the virtues.
3. Moral Characters as Dispositions
The moral character traits that constitute a person’s
moral character are characteristically understood as
behavioral and affective dispositions. Generally
speaking, ‘dispositions’ are particular kinds of
properties or characteristics that objects can possess. In
the physical world, examples of dispositions include the
elasticity of a rubber band, the solubility of a sugar-cube
in water, the fragility of porcelain, and the magnetism
of a lodestone. Among human beings, moral character
traits-either virtues or vices-are also considered as
dispositions. Moral character traits are those
dispositions of character for which it is suitable to hold
agents morally responsible. A moral character trait for
which a person is deserving of a positive reactive
attitude, such as praise or gratitude, is a virtue. On the
other hand, a vice is a moral character trait for which
the agent is deserving of a negative reactive attitude,
such as resentment or blame.in other words, a good
moral character is practically a disposition to do
virtuous acts. Oppositely, a bad moral character is, in
effect, a disposition to do vicious deeds
4. Six Stages of Moral Development
The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg
(1927-1987) is best known for his theory of
stages of moral development. In principle, he
agreed with the Swiss clinical psychologist Jean
Piaget's (1896-1980) theory of moral
development but wanted to develop his ideas
further. Kohlberg employed Piaget's
storytelling technique to tell stories involving
moral dilemmas: In each case, Kohlberg offered
an option to be considered, for example,
between the rights of some authority and the
needs of some deserving person who is being
unfairly treated. One of his best known stories
concerns a man called Heinz:
Kohlberg pinpointed three distinct levels of moral
reasoning each with two sub stages composing his so-
called six stages of moral development. He believed
that people can only pass through these levels in the
order listed. Each new stage replaces the kind of
reasoning typical of the previous stage. Some do not
achieve all the stages.
Level 1- Pre-conventional morality
Stage 1, Obedience and Punishment Orientation
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level 2 – Conventional morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level 3-Post-conventional morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
Stage 6. Universal Principles
Kohlberg’s proposed levels and stages are interpreted
and summarized in this manner by Education.com
(“Kohlberg’s Three Levels and Six Stages of Moral
Reasoning,” n.d.)

5. Getting to the Highest Level, Conscience-Based
Moral Decisions
Another way to view Kohlberg’s stages, especially when
combined with theory, is as follows (“Kohlberg’s Stages
of Moral Development, n.d.):
Stage 1: Respect for power and punishment
A young child (age 1-5) chooses what to do-what is
right-according to what he/she wants to do and can do
without getting into trouble. In this level, to be right,
one ought to be obedient to the people in power and,
thus, avoid punishment. The motto in this stage seems
to be: “Might makes right.”
Stage 2: Looking out for #1
Children (age 5-10) are disposed to be egotistic or self-
serving. They lack respect for others’ rights but may give
to others on the assumption that they will get as much
or even more in return. Instead of loyalty, gratitude, or
justice, the case is more a matter of “you scratch my
back and I’ll scratch yours.” The motto here seems to be
“What’s in it for me?”
Stage 3: Being a “Good Boy” or “Nice Girl.”
In this stage, people (age 8-16) have shifted from
pleasing themselves to pleasing important others,
usually parents, teachers, or friends. They seek approval
and thus conform to someone else’s expectations.
When charged of doing something wrong. Their
behavior is likely to be justified by stating “everyone
else is doing it” or “I didn’t intend to hurt anyone.” The
motto here: “I want to be nice.”
Stage 4: Law and order thinking
Here, the majority of people (16 years old and older)
have internalized society’s rules about how to behave.
They feel indebted to conform, no longer to just family
and friends, but also to society’s laws and customs.
They realize that it is important to do one’s duty to
maintain social order. Social leaders are assumed to be
right and social rules are adopted without considering
the core moral principles involved. Thus, social control
in this stage is exercised through guilt associated with
breaking a rule, though the guilt in this case is an
automatic emotional response, not a rational reaction
of conscience based on moral principles. In this stage,
individuals believe that anyone breaking the rules
deserves to be punished and “pay his/her debt to
society. The motto here is: “I’ll do my duty.”
Some say that Kohlberg’s sample is biased because
Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, and
thus the stages reflect an androcentric or male
definition of morality. It is argued that men’s morality is
basically based on abstract principles of law and justice,
whereas women’s is based on principles of compassion
and care.
Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus
on the role of feelings on morality. They are (1) Ethical
Subjectivism and (2) Emativism. But before discussing
and analyzing these two theories, let us deal first with
the view that feelings are instinctive and trained
response to moral dilemmas.
1. Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral
Dilemmas
Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of
emotion. They hold that moral judgments at their best
should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also
necessary in ethical judgment as they are even deemed
by some as instinctive and trained response to moral
dilemmas.
Some hold that reason and emotion are not really
opposites. Both abstract inference and emotional
intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in
ethical thinking For one thing, feelings or emotions are
said to be judgments about the accomplishment of
one’s goals, Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be
rational in being based at least sometimes on good
judgments about how well a circumstance or agent
accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also
visceral or instinctual by providing motivations to act
morally.

Many times, ethical judgments are highly emotional as
people emotionally express their strong approval or
disapproval of different acts. Moral sentiments highlight
the need for morality to be based also on sympathy for
other people, Many ethicists conclude that being good
involves both thinking and feeling
2. Feelings as Obstacles to Making the Right
Decisions
Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles
or impediments to becoming ethical. This is the case
especially when feelings’ roles in ethics are
misinterpreted or exaggerated. So as a way of proving
this, let us discuss the two famous (but erroneous)
feeling-based theories in Ethics.
2.1 Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utterly
runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity in
morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethical theory, Ethical
Subjectivism is not about what things are good and
what things are bad. It also does not tell how we should
live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it
is a theory about the nature of moral judgments.
2.2 Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism. Ethical Subjectivism
suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by
simply following our feelings. On a positive note, it
allows us to think for ourselves because it implies that
we need not agree with culture or society. Ethically, it
makes sense for a theory not to ultimately base
morality on what society feels or dictates.
2.3 Emotivism. One way to look at Emotivism is to view
it as an improved version of Subjectivism. Considered by
its proponents as far more subtle and sophisticated
than Subjectivism, Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to
many objections. This theory that was developed chiefly
by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson
(1909-1979) has been one of the most influential
theories of Ethics in the 20th century.
The theory basically states that moral judgments
express positive or negative feelings. “X is right” merely
means “Hooray for X!” and “X is immoral” just means
“Boo on X!” Since ethical judgments are essentially
commands and exclamations, they are not true or false;
so there cannot be moral truths and moral knowledge.
Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non-
cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims that
ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions.
Moral judgments, according to Emotivism, are not
statements of fact but are mere expressions of the
emotions of the speaker, especially since they are
usually feelings-based.
2.4 Emotivism. It is barely sensible to base a moral
theory on logical positivism as this view has been
abandoned and rejected by philosophers. For one thing,
logical positivism is self-refuting as the view is not itself
verifiable by sense experience and thus would not be a
genuine truth claim on its own grounds. It is thus
unsurprising that Emotivism, too, is prone to serious
criticism.
Emotivism provides morality with insufficient
explanations. In denying moral truths and moral
knowledge, it seems to dilute what morality is instead
of elucidating it. It is also unclear how the ethical ‘good’
can be reasonably reducible to mere exclamation.
3. Feelings Can Help in Making the Right
Decisions
Our discussions on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism
should not be construed, however, as completely
removing people’s feeling, taste, emotion, liking, and
the like in the sphere of morality. Admittedly, there are
situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant
to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In a course
to take, a job to assume, and especially a person to
marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be really
right without at least considering our feeling, taste, and
preference.
Moreover, ethics-without-feeling also appears to go
against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love, for
love is basically a strong liking, desire, or emotion.
Applied religiously, exclusing feelings in moral living
seems to go against the biblical decree to worship and
serve God with a joyful heart or feeling.
Feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should
be anchored on careful consideration of a full range of
right goals, including altruistic ones. This consideration
ought to mesh with an emotional instinctive reaction
that provides a motivation to act ethically and correct
injustices.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for
Morality
Reason and Impartiality Defined
REASON
Is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or
conviction. As a quality, it refers to the capacity for
logical, rational, and analytic thought.
IMPARTIALITY
Is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought to
be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis
of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one
person over another for improper reasons.
The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model
1. Gather the Facts.
- Is the indispensable first step prior to
any ethical analysis and reflection on
the case.
2. Determine the Ethical Issues.
- The moral issues should be correctly
stated in terms of competing interests.
3. Identify the Principles that Have a Bearing on
the Case
What principles have a bearing on the case?
- any moral dilemma, there are sure
moral values or principles that are vital
to the rival positions being taken. It is
very significant to recognize these
principles, and in some cases, to decide
whether some principles are to be
weighted more heavily than others.
There may be constitutional principles
or principles drawn from natural law
that supplement the biblical principles
that come into play here.
4. List the Alternatives.
- “Though there will be some alternatives
which you will rule out without much
thought, in general, the more
alternatives that are listed, the better
the chance that your list will include
some high quality ones. In addition, you
may come up with some very creative
alternatives that you had not
considered before” (Rae, n.d.).
5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles.
- The step involves eliminating
alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the
case.
6. Weigh the Consequences.
- If the principles do not produce a clear
decision, “then a consideration of the
consequences of the remaining
available alternatives is in order. Both
positive and negative consequences are
to be should be informally weighted,
since some positive consequences
beneficial than others and some
negative consequences are more
detrimental than others” (Rae, n.d.).
7. Make a Decision.
- Since deliberation ought not to go on
forever, a decision must be made at
some point. It must be realized that one
common element to moral dilemmas is
that there are no easy and painless
solutions to them.
BASIC THEORIES As FRAMEWORKS In ETHICS
FRAMEWORK
• “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices
that Constitutes a way of viewing reality” (Framework,”
n.d.)
• Worldview or a held theory
BASIC THEORIES
I. Meta-ethics
▪ The branch of ethics that studies the nature of
morality.
▪ Talks about the meaning, reference, and truth values
of moral Judgments.
▪ Explains what goodness and wickedness mean and
how we know About them.
▪ The attempt to understand the underlying
assumptions behind Moral theories
▪ Deals with questions like the following:
✓ What do the words good’, ‘bad”, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
mean?
✓ Are moral judgments a matter of subjective personal
feeling?
✓ How we can know if something is right or wrong?
Meta-ethics focuses on What morality itself is
 1. Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism
Cognitivism states that moral judgments convey
propositions, that is, they are ‘truth Bearers’ or they are
either true or false.
Forms of Cognitivism:
❑ Moral realism – claims that the existence of moral
facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral Judgments are
independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions.
- It maintains that morality is about
objective facts, that is, not facts about
Any person or group’s subjective
judgment.
❑ Ethical subjectivism – holds that the truth (or falsity)
of ethical propositions are Dependent on the attitudes
or standards of a person or group of persons.
Subjectivism Is obviously contrary to moral realism.
Non-cognitivism denies that moral judgments are
either true or False. It aims that ethical sentences do
not convey authentic Propositions, hence are neither
true nor false.
❑ Emotivism – It submits that moral judgments are
mere Expressions of our emotions and feelings. Like
exclamatory Sentences, ethical sentences can
2. Universalism Vs. Relativism
Moral Universalism
• Theorizes that moral facts and principles apply
to everybody In all places.
• Also called “Moral objectivism” It claims that a
universal Ethics exists and that this applies to all
similarity situated Persons, regardless of
nationality, citizenship, culture, race, Gender,
sexual preference and religion.
Moral Relativism
• On the other hand, submits that different moral
facts and Principles apply to different persons
or group of individuals. Believing that various
cultures have distinct standards of Right and
wrong
3. Empiricism vs. Rationalism vs. Intuitionism
Moral Empiricism
• Is a meta-ethical stance which states that moral
facts are
• Known through observation and experience.
The theory is an extension of “Empiricism” in
epistemology Which states that all knowledge
of matters of fact is derived From experience
and that our mind is not equipped with pre-
experience concepts. Belief that sense-
experience is the most Reliable source of
knowledge, meaning, we gather Information by
seeing, touching, tasting, smelling and Hearing
Moral Rationalism
Contends that moral facts and Principles are knowable a
priori that Is, by reason alone and without Reference to
experience.
Moral Intuitionism
Submits that moral truths are knowable by Institution,
that is by immediate instinctive Knowledge without
reference to any evidence. The theory claims that we
have intuitive Awareness of value or morality and that it
defines The basis our ethical knowledge
II. Normative Ethics
• Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that
studies how man Ought to act, morally
speaking. As the name suggests, it examines
Ethical norms, that is, those guidelines about
what is right, Worthwhile, virtuous, or just.
• This branch evaluates standards for the
rightness and wrongness Of actions and
determines a moral course of action.
Prescriptive in Nature, it addresses specific
moral questions about what we should Do or
believe. We do normative ethics if we justify
norms like “Discrimination is wrong” or “We
must always act in accordance With our duty”.
Just for easy distinction, whereas meta-ethics
Tackles questions such as “What is goodness?”
normative ethics Deals with issues like “What
ought one to do?”
Normative ethical theories are generally categorized
into three kinds: deontological, teleological, and virtue
ethics.
1. Deontology is an ethical system that bases
morality on independent moral rules or duties.
The term came from the Greek word deon,
which means ‘duty, implying the foundational
nature of man’s duties or obligations. This
system equates behaving morally with
adherence to duties or moral rules, and acting
immorally with failure to obey them. Also called
nonconsequentialism, the system’s principles
 are submitted as obligatory, regardless of the
consequences that actions might produce.
2. Teleology Refers to moral system that
determines the moral value g actions By their
outcomes or results, From the Greek word
‘telos; which Means ‘end’, teleology takes into
account the end result of the Action as the
exclusive consideration of its morality
(Aristotle’s ‘telos’ however has a related but
somewhat different meaning). Teleology deems
an action as morally right if its favorable
Consequences are greater than its adverse
outcomes. Its most Famous form is
consequentialism which proposes that morality
is Determined solely by a cost-benefit
evaluation of the action’s Consequences.
3. Virtue Ethics As a moral system, places
emphasis on developing good habits of
character, like kindness and generosity, and
avoiding bad character traits, or vices, such as
greed or hatred. Virtue-based theories give
importance to moral education which molds
individuals to habitually act in a virtuous
manner. Focusing on the character of the agent,
virtue ethics describes right actions as those
chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous
person.
III. Applied Ethics
• A branch of moral philosophy that
philosophically examines specific, controversial
moral issues. It attempts to determine the
ethically correct course of action in specific
realms of human action.
1. Bio Ethics This concerns ethical issues
pertaining to life sciences, biomedical
researches, medicines, health care, and medical
profession.
2. Environmental Ethics It deals with moral issues
concerning nature, ecosystem, and its
nonhuman contents.
3. Business Ethics It examines moral principles
concerning business environment which
involves issues about corporate practices,
policies, business behaviors, and the conducts
and relationships of individuals in the
organizations
4. Sexual Ethics It studies moral issues about
sexuality and human sexual behavior.
5. Social Ethics It deals with what is right for ta
society to do and how it should act as a whole.
Its focus is on what may be deemed as proper
behavior for people as a whole
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies morality
or the rightness or wrongness of human conduct.
Morality speaks of a code or system of behavior in
regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. In this
book, the two terms (ethics and morality), especially
their adjective form (ethical and moral), are oftentimes
used interchangeably.
As a branch of philosophy, ethics stands to queries
about what there is reason to do. Dealing with human
actions and reasons for action, ethics is also concerned
with character. In fact, the word 'ethics' is derived from
the Greek ethos, which means 'character', or, in plural,
'manners.
Some questions that are ethical in nature are: What is
the good? Who is a moral person? What are the virtues
of a human being? What makes an act right? What
duties do we have to each other?
Also ,called moral philosophy, ethics evaluates moral
concepts, values,principles, and standards. Because it is
concerned with norms of human conduct, ethics is
considered a normative study of human actions.
Clearly, ethics and morality necessarily carry the
concept of moral standards or rules with regard to
behavior. So as a way of introducing moral rules, let us
discuss why rules are important to social beings.
1. The Importance of Rules to Social Beings
Rules refer to explicit or understood regulations or
principles governing conduct within a specific activity or
sphere ("Rule," n.d.). Rules tell us what is or is not
allowed in a particular context or situation. In many
ways, rules serve as a foundation for any healthy
society. Without rules, society would likely fall into
anarchy.
Rules benefit social beings in various manners:
a. Rules protect social beings by
regulating behavior. Rules
build boundaries that place
limits on behavior, Rules are
usually coupled with means
 to impose consequences on
those who violate them. One
of the reasons people follow
accepted rules is to avoid
negative consequences.
b. Rules help to guarantee
each person certain rights
and freedom. Rules form
frameworks for society.
Nations are generally nations
of laws and the governing
principles are outlined in
what is called constitution.
Because the majority has
agreed to follow and consent
to be governed by such a
constitution, the freedoms
outlined exist. One of the
advantages of such a system
is that each person is
guaranteed certain rights as
the government is limited in
its power to ensure that it
does not become powerful
enough to suppress liberty.
Rules on divisions of power
and checks and balances
further protect individual
liberty.
c. Rules produce a sense of
justice among social beings.
Rules are needed in order to
keep the strong from
dominating the weak, that is,
to prevent exploitation and
domination. Without rules,
schemes in which those with
the power control the system,
would take over. In effect,
rules generate a stable
system that provides justice,
in which even the richest and
most powerful have
limitations on what they can
do. If they transgress rules
such as laws and ordinances
and take advantage of
people, there are
consequences both socially
and criminally.
d. Rules are essential for a
healthy economic system.
Without rules regulating
business, power would
centralize around monopolies
and threaten the strength
and competitiveness of the
system. Rules are needed to
ensure product safety,
employee safety, and product
quality. Copyright and
patents help protect people's
intellectual property. Rules
and regulations also keep the
banking system stable so as
to avoid depression and the
like.
In short, society could not soundly function without
rules and regulations. Rules are necessary to protect the
greater good. Even the freest societies ought to have
rules in order to avoid exploitations and tyranny while
upholding the common welfare.
2. Moral vs. Non-moral Standards
Not all rules are moral rules. That is, not all
standards are moral standards.
Morality may refer to the standards that a
person or a group has about what is right and
wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral
standards are those concerned with or relating
to human behavior, especially the distinction
between good and bad (or right and wrong)
behavior.
Moral standards involve the rules people have
about the kinds of actions they believe are
morally right and wrong, as well as the values
they place on the kinds of objects they believe
are morally good and morally bad. Some
ethicists equate moral standards with moral
values and moral principles.
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to
moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards
are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack
ethical sense. Basic examples of non-moral standards
include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in
games, and various house rules. Technically, religious
rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and
ordinances) are non moral principles, though they can
be ethically relevant depending on some factors and
contexts.
The following characteristics of moral standards further
differentiate them from non-moral standards:
a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or
significant benefits. Moral standards deal with
matters which can seriously impact, that is,
injure or benefit human beings. It is not the
case with many non-moral standards. For
instance, following or violating some basketball
rules may matter in basketball games but does
not necessarily affect one's life or wellbeing.
b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to
other values. Moral standards have overriding
character or hegemonic authority. If a moral
standard states that a person has the moral
obligation to do something, then he/she is
supposed to do that even if it conflicts with
other non-moral standards, and even with self
interest.
Moral standards are not the only rules or
principles in society, but they take precedence
over other considerations, including aesthetic,
prudential, and even legal ones. A person may
be aesthetically justified in leaving behind his
family in order to devote his life to painting, but
morally, all things considered, he/she probably
was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to
save one's dignity, but it probably is morally
wrong to do so. When a particular law becomes
seriously immoral, it may be people's moral
duty to exercise civil disobedience. There is a
general moral duty to obey the law, but there
may come a time when the injustice of an evil
law is unbearable and thus calls for illegal but
moral noncooperation (such as the antebellum
laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their
owners).
c. standards are not established by authority
figures. Moral standards are not invented,
formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or
persons such as nations' legislative bodies.
Ideally instead, these values ought to be
considered in the process of making laws. In
principle therefore, moral standards cannot be
changed nor nullified by the decisions of
particular authoritative body. One thing about
these standards, nonetheless, is that its validity
lies on the soundness or adequacy of the
reasons that are considered to support and
justify them.
d. Moral standards have the trait of
universalizability. Simply put, it means that
everyone should live up to moral standards. To
be more accurate, however, it entails that
moral principles must apply to all who are in the
relevantly similar situation. If one judges that
act A is morally right for a certain person P, then
it is morally right for anybody relevantly similar
to P.
This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold
Rule, "Do unto others what you would them do
unto you (if you were in their shoes)" and in the
formal. Principle of Justice, "It cannot be right
for A to treat B in a manner in which it would be
wrong for B to treat A, merely on the ground
that they are two different individuals, and
without there being any difference between the
natures or circumstances of the two which can
be stated as a reasonable ground for difference
of treatment." Universalizability is an extension
of the principle of consistency, that is, one
ought to be consistent about one's value
judgments.
e. Moral standards are based on impartial
considerations. Moral standard does not
evaluate standards on the basis of the interests
of a certain person or group, but one that goes
beyond personal interests to a universal
standpoint in which each person's interests are
impartially counted as equal.
Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of
bias or prejudice. Impartiality in morality
requires that we give equal and/or adequate
consideration to the interests of all concerned
parties..
f. Moral standards are associated with special
emotions and vocabulary. Prescriptivity
indicates the practical or action-guiding nature
of moral standards. These moral standards are
generally put forth as injunction or imperatives
(such as, 'Do not kill,' 'Do no unnecessary harm,'
 and 'Love your neighbor'). These principles are
proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to
action. Retroactively, this feature is used to
evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame,
and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of
guilt.
3. Dilemma and Moral Dilemma
The term 'dilemma' refers to a situation in which a
tough choice has to be made between two or more
options, especially more or less equally undesirable
ones. Not all dilemmas are moral dilemmas.
Also called 'ethical dilemmas,' moral dilemmas are
situations in which a difficult choice has to be made
between two courses of action, either of which entails
transgressing a moral principle. At the very least, a
moral dilemma involves conflicts between moral
requirements.
1. Lesson II: Virtue Ethics
Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-348 BC), and Aristotle
(384-322 BC) are Greek philosophers in the ancient
period who deeply affected Western philosophy
Though having political ambitions as a young man, Plato
eventually became a student and disciple of Socrates,
the most admired and patronized Greek philosopher at
the time. Aristotle (384-322 bc) is a philosopher and
natural scientist who eventually shared the distinction
of being the most famous of ancient philosophers with
Socrates and Plato, his (Aristotle's) teacher.
The contemporary theory in Ethics called Virtue Ethics is
said to have started with these three great
philosophers. In the medieval era, the Italian
philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274) revived, enhanced, and 'Christianized" the Greek
Virtue Ethics. In this lesson, we will discuss these Greek
philosophers and Aquinas ethical theories and attempt
to philosophically analyze them
1. Virtue Ethics Defined
Virtue Ethics is a moral philosophy that teaches that an
action is right if it is an action that a virtuous person
would perform in the same situations. According to the
theory, a virtuous person is someone who acts
virtuously and people act virtuously if they possess and
live the virtues. A virtue is a moral characteristic that an
individual needs to live well
Virtue Ethics outs emphasis on developing good habits
of character and avoiding bad character traits or vices.
It focuses on the character of the agent and describes
right actions as those chosen and performed by a
suitably virtuous person
Virtue ethicists, such as Aristotle, hold that people live
their lives trying to develop their faculties to the fullest
extent. We have many faculties to develop such as
intellectual, physical, social, moral, and so on.
Developing one's moral capacity to the fullest is
pursuing ethical excellence, which is displayed by the
virtues (hence "Virtue ethics")
Basically, the virtues are the freely chosen character
traits that people praise in others. People praise them
because: (1) they are difficult to develop; (2) they are
corrective of natural deficiencies (for instance,
industriousness is corrective of one's tendency to be
lazy); and (3) they are beneficial both to self and
society.
Virtue Ethics defines a moral person as someone who
develops the virtues ar unfailingly displays them over
time. The ancient Greeks list four "cardinal virtu
namely, wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. The
Christian teaching, on the other hand, recommends
faith, hope, charity, and love. Others suggest virtues
which are associated with 'humanity' namely, grace,
mercy, forgiveness, honor, restrain reasonableness, and
solidarity.
2. Socrates and Plato's Moral Philosophy
Since Plato wrote down and essentially adhered
Socrates' philosophy, it is practical for us to treat their
ethical theories jointly here. In the dialogue Gorgias
written by Plato, Socrates indicates that pleasure and
pain fail to provide an objective standard for
determining moral from immoral since they do not exist
apart from one another, while good and evil do.
In Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro whether
something is good because the gods love it, or whether
the gods love it because it is good. Socrates' point is
that what is good has a certain independence from the
whims of the gods determination of the rightness of our
actions and mores. Socrates therefore believed in the
existence of objective ethical standards though he
admitted that it is not that easy to specify them.
Central to Plato's philosophy is his theory of Forms-the
objectively existing immaterial entities that are the
proper object of knowledge. Everything in the material
world is what it is by virtue of its resemblance to, or
participation in, this universal Form or Idea. These
unchanging independent forms are like ideal and stable
models of the ordinary observable objects.
Circularity and squareness are good examples of what
Plato meant by Forms. A thing in the physical world may
be called a circle or a square insofar as it resembles or
participates the Form "circularity" or "squareness"
(Baird, 2009)
Now, since everything in the perceptible realm
participates in independent and perfect forms, there is
also a form even for moral predicates, such as justice
and happiness. The highest of all forms is the form of
the Good For Plato, those who comprehend the Good
will always do good actions. Bad actions are performed
out of not knowing the Good. To know the Good,
nonetheless, requires an austere and intellectually
meticulous way of life
Virtue therefore is regarded as knowledge and can be
taught. Knowledge of the Good is considered as the
source of guidance in moral decision making that to
know the good, it is argued, is to do the good.
3. Aristotle's Ethics
At least two of Aristotle's works specifically concern
morality, the Eudemon Ethics and the Nicomechean
Ethics. But since only a few have studied the former, the
Nicomacheon Ethics has been regarded as the Ethics of
Aristotle since the beginning
of the Christian era. Three general descriptions, which
are interrelated, can be used to depict Aristotle's ethics,
First, his ethical system may be termed "self-
realizationism in his philosophy, when someone acts in
line with his nature or end (telos) and thus
realizes his full potential, he does moral and will be
happy. Like Plato's and most of the other ancient
philosophers ethical theories, Aristotle's view is also of
a type known as eudaimonistic As such, it focuses on
happiness (eudaimonia), or the good for man, and how
to obtain it
Finally, his moral philosophy is aretoic, or virtue-based.
Whereas act-oriented ethics is focused mainly on what
we should do, a virtue ethics is interested basically in
what we should be, that is, the character or the sort of
person we should struggle to become.
3.1 Aristotle's 'Telos' A'telos' (from the Greek 'TEXoc) is
an end or purpose Aristotle believes that the essence or
essential nature of beings, including humans, laynot at
their cause (or beginning) but at their end (telos)
Aristotle does not agree with Plato's belief in a separate
realm of Forms Aristotle, instead, argues that rational
beings can discover the 'essences' of things and that a
being's essence is its potential fulfillment or 'telos' (as
the essence of an acorn is to become an oak tree). The
essence or 'telos' of 'human being' is rationality and,
thus, a life of contemplation (a ka: Philosophy) is the
best kind of life for true human flourishing.
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized
in this manner
"All humans seek happiness ("well being"), but in
different ways. True happiness is tied to the purpose or
end (telos) of human life. The essence for telos)] of
human beings (that which separates and distinguishes
them as a species) is Reason Reason employed in
achieving happiness (human telos) leads to moral
virtues (eg, courage, temperance, justice and prudence)
and intellectual virtues (eg, science, art, practical
wisdom, theoretical wisdom)" ("Aristotle, nd)
In terms of his ethics, Aristotle thus believes in the
excellence of philosophical contemplation and virtuous
actions stemming from virtuous persons. By virtuous
actions, he means those which the person with wisdom
would choose because what is good is obvious to such a
person. 3.2 Happiness and Virtues. Aristotle believes
that the ultimate human goal is self realization. This
entails achieving one's natural purpose by functioning
or living consistently with human nature. Accomplishing
it, in turn, produces happiness whereas inability to
realize it leads to sadness, frustration, and ultimately to
poor life. It therefore behooves us to act in accordance
with our nature so as to be content and complete in
detail, what does Aristotle mean by human nature?
Aristotle identifies three natures of man: the vegetable
or physical, animal or emotional, and rational or mental.
As previously explained, the thing that distinguishes
humans from all other creatures is the rational nature
or the ability to reason. Rational development is thus
deemed the most important, as it is uniquely human.
Accordingly, living in accordance with reason is viewed
as vital in self-realization or developing one's potential.
This self-realization-the awareness of our nature and
the development of
our potentials-is the key to human happiness. But what
is this happiness in
line with Aristotle's ethical view?
Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good.
This is to say that the purpose of studying ethics is to
make ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes that we
already want to become good. This human good is
eudaimonia or happiness.Aristotle observed that wise
persons seek an end that is self-sufficient, final and
attainable over one's life. This end is happiness which all
human beings want Aristotle also considers happiness
as the summum bonum-the greatest good of all human
life. He adds that it is the only intrinsic good, that is, the
good that is pursued for its own sake. While all other
things, such as pleasure, wealth, and honor are merely
means to an end, happiness is man's ultimate goal as it
is an end in itself
Compared to Plato's philosophy, it is happiness
(eudaimonio), not the Form of the Good, which is the
supreme good with which Aristotle's ethics is
concerned. (Some even claim that Aristotle's ethics is
Plato's moral philosophy minus the Theory of Forms)
Aristotle indeed holds that the supreme good in ethics
cannot be identified with the idea of the Good because
ethics is a practical science, whereas the immutable
Idea of the Good could only be of theoretical interest.
But agreeing with Plato, Aristotle believes that there is
an essential connection between living happily and
living virtuously.
In fact, Aristotle fundamentally connects happiness to
virtues, as he explains happiness in terms of activities
manifesting the virtues. Human good, he says, is the
activity of the soul in accordance with excellence or
virtue. Aristotle's happiness, therefore, is not much of a
subjective feeling of well-being. but human well-being
itself, being the human good. Moreover, his account of
eudaimonia is different from hedonist and utilitarian
account of happiness as pleasure
3.3 Virtue as Habit. Aristotle's idea of happiness should
also be understood in the sense of human flourishing.
This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of
moral and intellectual excellences, or 'virtues
Related to self-realization, acting in line with virtues is
acting in accordance with reason. The function of
human being, accordingly, consists in activities which
manifest the best states of his rational aspect, that is
the virtues
Aristotle employs the word 'hexis to refer to moral
virtue. One denotation of the term 'hexis' is an active
state, a condition in which something must actively hold
itself. Virtue, thus, manifests itself in action. More
explicitly, an action counts as virtuous, according to
Aristotle, when a person holds oneself in a stable
equilibrium of the soul, in order to select the action
knowingly and for its own sake. This stable equilibrium
of the soul is what constitutes character.
Moral virtue, for Aristotle, is the only practical road to
effective action the virtuous person who has good
character, sees truly, judges rightly, and morally:
34 Virtues and the Golden Mean Virtue refers to an
excellence of moral intellectual character. As mentioned
earlier, Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of virtue virtues
of intellect and morol virtues. The first corresponds to
the fully rational part of the soul, the intellect, the
second pertains to the part of the rational soul which
can obey reason. Moral virtue is an expression of
characte formed by habits reflecting repeated choices,
hence is also called virtue of character
For Aristotle, moral virtues follow from our nature as
rational beings-they
are the traits or characteristics that enable us to act
according to reason. But what is acting according to
reason? Acting in a reasonable manner is done when
we choose to and indeed act in a way that neither goes
to excess nor defect. Excess and defect normally
indicate vice. Virtue lies neither in the vice of deficiency
nor in the vice of excess but in the middle ground. Thus,
moral virtue is the golden mean between the two less
desirable extremes
Happiness and its opposite play a role in the
determination of the golden mean, since we tend to do
actions that bring delight and avoid actions that bring
agony. The virtuous person is brought up to find
enjoyment in virtuous actions and sorrow in vices
Aristotle mentions four basic moral virtues: courage,
temperance, justice and prudence. Courage is the
golden mean between cowardice (deficiency) and
tactless rashness (excess) The coward has too little
bravery, the reckless individual has too much, and the
courageous shows just the proper amount of bravery
Temperance is the mean between gluttony (excess) and
extreme frugality (deficiency) Both overindulgence and
denying oneself of bodily pleasures make one less
happy, whereas practicing temperance makes one
virtuous and fulfilled. This directly exemplifies the
connection between being happy and being virtuous
Justice is the virtue of giving others right what they
deserve, neither more nor less. Now, what helps us to
know what is just or reasonable in various
circumstances, enabling us to keep away from excess
and defect is the moral virtue called prudence or
wisdom
The question why we should be moral was also
answered by Aristotle by his doctrine of virtues By
simply including justice or morality among his list of
virtues, he implies that man has to be moral Additional
moral virtues include generosity, civility,
trustworthiness, reliability, sociability, dependability,
honesty. Sincerity, gentleness, tolerance, benevolence,
cooperativeness, empathy, tact kindness, and good
temper.
Aristotle nonetheless admits that some actions, such as
adultery, theft, and murder, do not admit of a mean
and are always wrong. We could never excuse anyone
for committing just the right amount of murders, nor
defend someone for committing adultery with the right
person at the right time in the right way. In the same
vein, no culture considers envy, spite, dishonesty,
insensitivity, cruelty, arrogance, injustice, cowardice,
self-centeredness, and the like to be virtues.
3.5 ‘Phronesis’ and Practice in using the golden mean to
become virtuous, we must recognize not only that the
mean is neither too much nor too little but also it is
relative to us as moral agents. What constitutes the
right amount of something may differ from person to
another. Aristotle knows that the right amount of food
for a 6-footer basketball player is different from the
right amount of food for a 3-footer, thin 12-year old boy
In learning to avoid excess and defect, we thus have to
find out for ourselves what the right amount is in our
respective unique case and situation. But what
determines what is appropriate for us in a particular
circumstance?
Aristotle teaches about an intellectual virtue that plays
a significant role in Ethics. The phronesis, the
intellectual virtue of practical wisdom, is that kind of
moral knowledge which guides us to what is
appropriate in conjunction with moral virtue.
This phronesis or practical wisdom is a grasp of the
appropriate way to respond-to feel and act-in a
particular situation. Once we have learned the proper
amount of some kind of action through moral virtue
and practical wisdom, then, we have the right
prescription' (orthos logos). To be virtuous therefore is
to act in accordance with the right prescription..
But acting appropriate to the right prescription should
be understood in terms of practice, training, or
cultivation. To be virtuous one must perform the
actions that habitually bring virtue. A person must
practice and develop the virtue of generosity, for
instance, so that acting generously becomes habitual.
Moral education thus comprises imitation (say, parents
and teachers) internalization, and practice until it
becomes normal.
Aristotle's complete picture of a morally virtuous man
therefore is someone who constantly and habitually
acts according to moral virtue and practical wisdom,
ideally exhibiting a lifetime of rational living and
avoidance of vice, thereby forming an ethical character,
achieving self-realization, and thus realizing happiness
and human good. His comprehensive notion of moral
virtue is that it is a state of character manifested in
choice and action, resting in the golden mean, resolved
by the prescription that a wise person would determine.
4. An Evaluation of the Greek Philosophers' Ethical
Theories
To begin with, we can say that Socrates and Plato,
based on their ethical theory, advocate a positive view
of man. Their philosophy implies that human beings
who behave immorally do so out of ignorance of the
Good. All vice therefore is the result of lack of
knowledge, and that no person is willingly bad.
Concerning this, we can however comment that
punishing bad deeds has no place in their theory, since
bad actions are not blameworthy in the strict sense. In
fairness though, perseverance is encouraged in their
view as it is held that knowing the Good-the key not to
engage in bad actions-demands an abstinent and
intellectually painstaking way of life.
Obviously, being moral, virtuous, and just is equated
with being knowledgeable
of the Good, as it is claimed that those who know the
right will act rightly. In addition,
morality is essentially linked to happiness. A just person
is said to have a proper
balance among the rational, spirited, and appetitive
aspects of his soul. With such a well-ordered soul, the
just person is said to be the truly happy one-far happier
than the wicked, whatever material advantages the
unjust person enjoys, and no matter what difficulties or
poor status the moral person suffers. This therefore
Aristotle could also better explain accountability and
answers the question, “Why I should be moral?” The
responsibility. He does not share Socrates’ view of bad
beauty of this ethical theory is that it inspires people to
deeds as mere ignorance of the Good. Instead, he
be moral as it teaches that morality is a recipe to real
believes that when we do something we know to be
happiness.
wrong, this involves a temporary suppression of that
knowledge. We are thus held responsible for our
actions. Furthermore, mistakes are anticipated in
Against Plato’s Form, the usual comment is that there
Aristotle’s view and acknowledged
could be no such thing, and that even if there were, it
would be of no help in an ethical inquiry into the good
for human beings. Nonetheless, this very nonfigurative
On the negative side, Aristotle's doctrine of practical
theory serves as one of the pioneers in advocating the
wisdom in determining what is good for someone in a
widely accepted moral realism or objectivism in meta-
particular instance opens the door to bias, prejudi and
ethics. Among others, it teaches that there are moral
subjectivism. Giving so much room to individual
truths whose truth is independent of people’s thoughts
judgment, the doctrine could be used to justify one's
and perceptions or society’s beliefs and customs
every decision, regardless of its effects to other people
and society

Comparatively, Aristotle’s concept of virtue is more

active than that of Plato’s Whereas Plato equates virtue
We can also question the applicability of the doctrine of
with mere knowledge of the Form of the Good, Aristotie
moderation. In some occasions, the right thing is to do
considers virtue not as innate or something taught by a
the extreme thing During wars, tragedies, crises, and
teacher to a student, but that which is acquired by
other emergencies, moderate actions are not always
practice and lost by disuse. Virtue therefore does not
the best ones. Likewise, some virtues obviously should
come naturally and becoming virtuous is an
not be expressed in moderation. We wonder if
achievement, not a natural endowment.
someone would consent that his/her spouse would love
him/her only moderately. Also, should we be grateful,
truthful, or generous only moderately?
Aristotle’s ethics therefore can be deemed better for it
distinguishes ‘doing right’ from ‘knowing what is right-
moral actions are consequences of having our moral
Besides, there is no universal agreement on what is
character properly developed, not of mere grasping the
moderate. Aristotle, for example, considered humility a
Good. Moreover, it encourages constantly performing
vice, while Christians deem it as a virtue. Likewise,
moral actions as it considers morality as a life time
virtues can be construed very differently. Fairness, for
project.
instance, can hardly be practically defined without
disagreements.

By teaching to avoid both the excessive and the

deficient, Aristotle’s moral view is more ethically
Finally, Aristotle's prescription on being moral, as it is
practical, particular, and applicable. In a particular social
ideal and theoretical, can be regarded as complex and
setting, it identifies the mean which should be adopted,
tough. Being virtuous for him denotes doing what is
and the extremes which should be avoided. In self-
right, to the right person, at the right moment, in the
expression, for instance, it teaches that one should be
appropriate amount, in the correct manner, for the
truthful (mean) and avoid being boastful (excess) and
right reason..
meek (defect). In social relations, it promotes being
friendly, but not flattering and rude. In spending money,
one must be thrifty but not prodigal and tight.
5. Thomas Aquinas' Ethics

Also called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of
Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is an Italian
philosopher and theologian who ranks among the most
important thinkers of the medieval time period.
In Ethics, Aquinas depends so heavily on Aristotle. Like
the Greek philosopher, Aquinas believes that all actions
are directed towards ends and that happiness is the
final end. Aquinas thinks that happiness consists in
activities in accordance with virtue. But like Augustine,
Aquinas declares that ultimate happiness is not
attainable in this life, for happiness in the present life
remains imperfect. True happiness, then, is to be found
only in the souls of the blessed in heaven or in
beatitude with God.
5.1. The Natural Law, Central also in Aquinas ethics is
his typology of laws By the term “law, he means an
ordinance of reason for the common good.
Promulgated by someone who has care of the
community Aquinas laws should also be understood in
terms of “rules and measures” for people’s conduct and
as “rational patterns or forms” Obedience to the law is
thus viewed also as participating in or being in
conformity with the pattern or form
For Aquinas, there are four primary types of law-the
eternal, natural, human, and divine.
The (1) eternal law refers to the rational plan of God by
which all creation is ordered. As God is the supreme
ruler of everything, the rational pattern of form of the
universe that exists in His mind is the law that directs
everything in the universe to its appointed end. To this
eternal law, everything in the universe is subject.
The (2) natural law is that aspect of the eternal law
which is accessible to human reason. Because mankind
is part of the eternal order, there is a portion of the
eternal law that relates specifically to human conduct.
This is the moral law, the law or order to which people
are subject by their nature ordering them to do good
and avoid evil.
The (3) human law refers to the positive laws. For
natural law to be adhered to, more exact and forceful
provisions of human law are helpful. Because the
natural law is too broad to provide particular guidance,
the human law’s precise, positive rules of behavior are
supposed to spell out what the natural law prescribes.
Moral virtues are also reinforced by and cultivated
through these human laws. This human law includes the
civil and criminal laws, though only those formulated in
the light of practical reason and moral laws. Human
laws that are against natural law are not real laws, and
people are not obliged to obey those unjust laws.
The (4) divine law serves to complement the other
types of law. It is a law of revelation, disclosed through
sacred text or Scriptures and the Church which is also
directed toward man’s eternal end. Though concerned
also with external aspects of conduct, the divine law is
more
The (2) accidents simply refer to the circumstances
sambunding the action in ethically evaluating an action,
the context in wich the action takes place is also
considered because an act might be flowed through its
circumstances. For instance, while Christians are bound
to profess one’s belief in God, there are certain
situations in which it is inappropriate or even offensive
and distasteful to do so
The (3) end stands for the agent’s intention. An act
might be unust through its intention. To intend to direct
onesett against a good is clearly immoral. Aquinas gives
murder, lying, and blasphemy as instantiations of this ill
will. Correspondingly, a bad intention can spoit a good
act, like giving of alme out of vainglory Nonetheless, an
intention, no matter how good it may be cannot
redeem a bad act For Aquinas, theft is intrinsically bad.
Hence, stealing to give to the poor, as in the case of
Robin Hood, is an unjust act in the view, converting to a
particular religion, say Christianity, merely for material
gains is an unjust act
Aquinas ethical theory states that for an action to be
moral, the kind it belongs to must not be bad, the
circumstances must be appropriate, and the intention
must be virtuous
53 Happiness, Moral Virtues, and Theological Virtues
Aquinas believes that all actions are directed towards
ends and that happiness is the final end. Also thinks that
happiness is not equated with pleasure, material
possessions, honor, or any sensual good, but consists in
activities in accordance with virtue. A person needs a
moral character cultivated through the habits of choice
to realize real happiness
Aquinas defines virtue as a good habit bearing on
activity or a good faculty-habit. Habits are firm
dispositions or hard to eradicate” qualities that dispose
us to act in a particular manner. Notice that not all
habits are virtue, but only those that incline us towards
our good or end
Aquinas differentiates between acquired and infused
habits. The autonomous will of a person plays a major
role in acquired habits as they involve consistent
deliberate effort to do an act time and again and
despite obstructions. The infused virtues, on the other
hand, are independent of this process as they are
directly instilled by God in our faculties. These virtues
are thus divine gifts which elevate the activities of those
who received them.
Aquines mentions at least two kinds of infused virtues-
the () mora and the (2) theological Moral virtues have as
their object not God Himpt but activities that are less
virtuous and inferior to the final end. To this king belong
the four basic virtues-(a) prudence, (b) fortitude, (c)
tempera (d) justice
The theological virtues, on the other hand, are
concerned directly with God. They provide us with true
knowledge and desire of God and of His we The virtues
of (0) faith, (2) hope, and (3) love serve to attune us to
our final end which is God Himself. Faith makes us
recognize and believe in the true God hope makes us
wish to be with Him, and love makes us desire and
adore Him Unlike Aristotle’s virtues, Christian virtues
are not applications of the golden mean between
extremes. We ought to exercise these virtues according
to what God demands of us and according to our
capacity as individuals.
Aquinas also treats the theological virtues in terms of
the vices and sins which respectively conflict with them.
The virtue of faith has as its counterpart sins of despair
the sins of unbelief, heresy, and apostasy, the virtue of
hope, the sin and presumption, and the virtue of charity
or love, the sins of hatred, envy discord, and sedition
6. An Analysis of Thomistic Ethics
One of Aquinas accomplishments in Ethics is being able
to mention, as much as possible, all of the things that
matter in ethical evaluation of actions. He holds that
the goodness or badness of an action lies in the interior
act of will, in the external bodily act, in the very nature
of the act, and even in its consequences. Moreover, he
avers that what matters in morality is not only what one
actually does but also his intention in doing the act
Being relatively complex but generally sensible,
Thomistic ethics does not fall into just one neat
contemporary category of moral theory. By not giving
emphasis on the result of actions in his so-called
features of actions, we can say that he is more of a
deontologist Kantian than a utilitarian Though his basic
tenet that actions must be directed to what is good
somehow relates his theory to utilitarianisms and
consequentialism in general. By advocating the roles
played by virtues in mortality.
2. Lesson III: Kant and Rights Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a German thinker
regarded by many as the most significant philosopher in
the modern era. His major contributions to Ethics can
be found in his two works: The Foundations of the
Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Proctical
Reason.
1. Kantian Ethics
Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are
based on feelings. For him, feelings even serve as
obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His
ethical theory instead bases moral judgments on reason
alone. Reason, for him, is what deems an action ethical
or otherwise.
1.1 Good Will. Kant believes that when we wish to
determine the moral status of an action, we consult
reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not.
If it accords with reason, we must do it, if not, we must
avoid it. Kant believes that one of the functions and
capacities of our reason is to
1.2 Produce a will which is good not as a means to
some further end, but good iItself. For him, it is the
good will which is the highest good and the
conditionbOf all other goods.
Kant teaches that only good will is intrinsically good.
That is, it is the only thing which is good without
qualification.
Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness
is the summum bonum or the highest good. Happiness,
for him, can be corrupting and may be worthless or
even positively evil when not combined with a good
will. In the same way, intellectual eminence, talents,
character, self-control, and fortune cannot be
intrinsically good for they can be used to bad ends.
A good will is one that habitually wills rightly. And it is
not what good will achieves that constitutes its
goodness. Even if good will, because of some
hindrances, accomplishes nothing, it remains to be
something with full value in itself. Good will is good in
itself.
But who is a good person or a person of good will? For
Kant, it is the person who acts from a sense of duty.
Kant thinks that acting from a sense of duty means
exhibiting good will even in the face of difficulty.
For an act to be moral, it is a requisite that it be an act
of a free agent. That is it must be a voluntary action, not
a forced or compelled one. In addition however, it must
be an act done not from inclination' but from a sense of
duty dictated by reason.
Inclination refers to the feeling that pushes us to select
a particular option or make a particular decision. It is
our liking or tendency to do, favor, or want something A
duty or obligation, on the other hand, is that which we
ought to do despite our inclination or 'taste' to do
otherwise.
Normally, people perform the acts which please them
or which they desire to do in particular circumstances.
For Kant, these actions determined by wishes, passions,
appetites, desires, and the like have no moral worth. He
believes that we act morally only when we restrain our
feelings and inclinations and do that which we are
obliged to do. Morality, as Kant sees it, is essentially
connected with duties and obligations.
There is however a need to make a distinction between
acts done "from the motive of duty" and those that are
"in accordance with duty". The former are moral acts
unlike the latter. Respecting one's parents for
expediency or solely in obedience to custom, paying
one's debt for fear of being sued, helping others
because it's pleasing to do so, taking care of one's
children because one is so fond of doing so, displaying
honesty to receive an award, and keeping a promise by
accident are all examples of acts that are in accord with
duty, but not from duty.
Moreover, acting morally entails acting from the motive
of duty regardless of the consequences that doing so or
not doing so will bring. To perform an act for fear
Fundesirable consequences of not doing it-that is, to act
from a sense of prudence-is only to do a 'prudential act,
but not necessarily a moral one.
Therefore, it is only when we recognize that we ought
to do an act because it is our duty, understand the
nature of this obligation, and act upon it that we are
said to perform an authentically moral act.
1.2 Categorical Imperative. What we have discussed so
far is Kant's emphasis on the ethical relevance of good
will and acting from a sense of duty. But we may ask
Kant, "Can a person know what his duty is in a given
situation?" "Is there a test to find out what one's duty is
in a particular set of circumstances?" Kant believes that
there is. First, it is one's duty, as rational being, to act
on principle or maxim, as contrasted to simply acting on
impulse.
To distinguish 'actions on maxim' from actions on
impulse, let's provide some illustrations Suppose a man
wants to financially help a certain lady who is in need,
merely because he likes her personally, and he might
not want t give the same assistance to another woman
in an exactly similar situation because he does not
happen to like her. This is acting on impulse and not
done for a reason or on any principle or maxim.
Now, contrast this with another man who gives relief to
total strangers who are victims of a calamity. Because
he accepts it as his duty to provide support to those in
need, he treats in precisely the same manner any other
person whose situation has the same characteristics.
This is acting on maxim. The agent has a reason for his
action, and out of this reason, a maxim like this was
formulated This situation has such-and-such features,
and any situation possessing these features must be
dealt with in such-and-such manner.
Maxim, as we have seen, is a general rule or principle
which serves as a guide to action. "Be honest always",
"Don't always shoot the ball when you get it": "Don't
wear the wedding gown before the wedding", and
"When in doubt, render a salute" are examples of
maxim. Evidently, not all maxims are moral ones. In
Ethics, Kant is concerned with maxims that are moral,
that is, those dictated by reason and thus have
imperative force.
Now, Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into
two classes, the (1) hypothetical and (2) categorical
imperatives. Let's tackle first here the hypothetical
imperatives.
'Imperative' should be understood as a command of
reason. The term 'hypothetical, on the other hand,
entails being true only under somme conditions, and
therefore not universally true or valid. Accordingly, a
hypothetical imperative is how reason orders one to
achieve one's specific ends. It directs one to behave in
certain manners on the condition that one seeks
specified goals, such as if you wish to pass, then study
hard. So it's like a decree stating that if you wish to
accomplish such-and-such an end, you must act in such-
and-such a way.
There are a lot of hypothetical imperatives for there are
several various ends which people may set themselves.
Some hypothetical imperatives are concerned with
mere prudential actions. Simply a rule for obtaining
some desired ends, a hypothetical imperative is
accepted not on its own merits. In our example, the
maxim to study hard is accepted as a rule for passing,
and not on its own merits.
Hypothetical imperative is thus both contingent and
derivative it is contingent or conditional, because
circumstances are imaginable where studying hard
would still not result in passing, and in such situations
the maxim may no longer be accepted. It is derivative
because acceptance of it depends on one’s wish to pass,
If one does not want to pass, the principle may be
ignored
Now, if the hypothetical imperative states, “If you want
end, act in such-and-such a way, the categorical
imperative, on the other hand, pronounces, “No matter
what end you desire to attain, act in such-and such a
way.” Clearly, it commands a person to act in particular
ways regardless of what goals one looks for or what
one’s ends may be. O attain a certain
As suggested by the term ‘categorical, this imperative is
exceptionless, that is, binding on all rational agents, in
all circumstances, at all times. Categorical imperative
demands action without qualification, without any ifs,
and without regard to the consequence such an act may
produce. Unlike hypothetical imperative, categorical
imperative is accepted on its own merits.
For Kant, the categorical imperative ordains a rule that,
if followed, will That the person behaving in accordance
with it is acting morally. The categorical imperative thus
serves as the barometer of reason
determiningbWhether or not an action qualifies as
ethical. Therefore, it is Kant’s moral Philosophy that an
act is morally good if it is done for the sake of a morally
Good maxim; and a maxim is morally good if it
conforms to the categorical Imperative.
Kant provides various formulations of the categorical
imperative. The most famous is the ‘universalizability
formulation which states, “Act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” In other words, a
person ought always to behave as if his course of
conduct were to become a universal code of behavior.
Hence, in considering to act in a particular manner, a
person must ask himself, “How would this action appear
if it were to become a universal rule?” “Can reason will
it to become a general rule for all rational agents to
follow?”
As illustration, Kant takes the case of a lying promise. A
person, having run out of money, may be tempted to
borrow from someone though knowing for sure that he
will be incapable to pay it back. He is thus acting on the
maxim, “When in need of money, borrow from
someone by making a lying promise.”
Evidently, this does not pass the categorical imperative
Reason cannot will than everyone should act on this
maxim, otherwise, all human relations based upon trust
and honoring one's promises would drastically collapse.
Another famous formulation of the categorical
imperative is the end-in itself which states, "So act as to
use humanity, both in your own person and in the
person of every other, always at the same time as an
end, never simply as a means." This rendition teaches,
among other things, to respect persons as ends in
themselves and not only as means or instruments to
further sets. interest. This involves acknowledging the
person as a rational being with goals and treating him
with dignity.
Kant uses this formulation in ruling out suicide. He
contends that to take one's own life is to use one's own
person as a tool in bringing to an end one's suffering
and grief. Furthermore, the lying promise does not pass
this formulation as well Without a plan to repay the
borrowed money, the promisor does not treat the
promisee with honor, but rather as a mere instrument
to attain the promisor's aim to gain the wanted amount.
2. An Analysis of Kantian Ethics
Many who have read and understood Kant's ethical
system find it sensible and
plausible. In fact, when we try to prove that one's
particular action is unethical and
ask him, "What if everybody behaved as you do?", we
are actually advocating Kant's
'universalizability' formulation of the categorical
imperative
However, we may argue that the reason Kant's ethics is
appealing is that it's just another way of stating the
highly accepted golden rule, "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you" and its proscriptive
counterpart. Notice that the most famous formulations
of Kant's categorical imperative, especially the end-in-
itself version, instruct us to respect others because that
is how we treat ourselves.

From his doctrine of categorical imperative, Kant
develops uncompromising proscriptions against some
actions. He submits that some actions, like lying, are
wrong regardless of the circumstances and the
outcomes they generate. This notion is prone to many
criticisms. Critics argue that if lying is the only way to
safeguard from sure danger another person, then lying
is what one must do. For instance, if a murderer, armed
with a shotgun, comes looking for a family member or
friend to kill her, should we reveal her whereabouts
merely because we ought to tell the truth?
In proposing that we must alwoys do our duties no
matter what circumstances are Kant’s view is deemed
by some as a rule-bound moral philosophy that puts a
premium on rules rather than on humans. We may
suggest that human obligations, ay keeping promises,
telling the truth, and repaying debts, should be really
kept, put provided that no other overriding factors
exist. Ethical rules, some propose, are better construed
as generalizations rather than as categorical commands
without any exception.
Another shortcoming of Kant’s ethics is its lack of
solution to instances when there is conflict of duties,
Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then
another person asks him about it. He cannot tell the
truth without breaking his promise. But Kantian ethics
inflexibly demands that he ought to do both always and
in all circumstances, which, in this case, is logically
impossible..
As regards motive and consequences, Kant definitely
favors the former as having moral worth. Regardless of
the consequences, an act is moral if the motive was to
act from the good will and out of respect for duty. With
good intentions, a medical doctor who operated on a
sick person and accidentally killed him in the process is
not considered immoral. We may call him incompetent,
careless, lousy, and the like but not unethical.
Notice though that in completely disregarding the
consequences in moral evaluation of actions, Kant
appears inconsistent. Remember that his complete ban
on lying is based on the possible effect should lying
become a universal law, that is, there would be no
promises at all. Clearly, Kant here is referring to the
consequences of lying
Concerning enjoyment in doing virtuous acts, Kant’s
theory differs from that of Aristotle. For Aristotle, the
genuinely virtuous person totally enjoys carrying out
moral acts. But for Kant, a moral act involves being
contrary to somebody’s feelings, natural inclinations,
and wishes. In fact, the distress of well-doing is even
considered by Kant as a sign of virtue.
Indeed, Kant completely removes one’s taste, emotion,
liking and the like In the sphere of morality. Concerning
this, we may argue nonetheless that there Are
situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant
to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In
selecting a course to take, a job to assume, and
especially a person to marry, we wonder how one's
decision can be right without considering our taste and
preference. Moreover, Kant's theory would go against
Christian philosophy's emphasis on love, for love is
basically a strong liking or desire. Applied religiously,
Kant's stance seems to go against the biblical decree to
worship and serve God with a joyful heart. In general
however, Kant contributes much to the study of
morality It affirms our consciousness of the moral law
inherent to our practical reason. Kant defines human
dignity as resting on the attainment of moral character,
and thus not on things like progress in scientific
advances. His categorical imperative supports the
democratic notion that all people are created equal,
from which we can derive that discrimination is not
good especially before the law. Moreover, his
categorical imperative forbids us to behave in an
inconsistent and hypocritical manner.
3. Rights Theory
In law, Immanuel Kant proposed the principle of rights.
He saw a distinctive correlation, yet difference,
between the intent of the law and the enforcement of
law. For Kant, governments were entrusted with the
capacity to create laws by the citizens they governed in
exchange for protection. Thus, governments have no
right to disrupt that trust by making laws with cruel
intent against the freedom that citizens had been
promised.
The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order
for a society to be efficacious, “government must
approach the making and enforcement of laws with the
right intentions in respect to the end goals of the
society that it governs. Members of society agree to
give up some freedoms for the protection enjoyed by
organized society, but governments cannot infringe
upon the rights that citizens have been promised.”
(“Rights Theory,” n.d.).
When applied to war, rights theory states that in order
for a war to be deemed morally justifiable, the intention
of entering into war ought to be right in relation to
human rights. Kant’s principle of rights theory thus
teaches that it is not merely the outcome of actions that
is significant but also the reasoning behind them,
because if the intent is evil, then the outcome, in all
likelihood, is bad as well.
Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which
Kant’s principle of rights theory is included. The concept
of rights based ethics is that “there are some rights,
both positive and negative, that all humans have based
only on the fact that they are human. These rights can
be natural or conventional. That is, natural rights are
those that are moral while conventional are those
created by humans and reflect society’s values” (“Rights
Based Ethics, n.d.).
Examples of Rights Based Ethics System include the
following (“Rights Based Ethics,” n.d.):
a. The right to life
b. The right to liberty
c. The right to pursue happiness
d. The right to a jury trial
e. The right to a lawyer
f. The right to freely practice a religion of choice
g. The right to express ideas or opinions with
freedom as an individual
h. The right of individuals or organizations to
express opinions or share information freely in written
medium
i. The right to come together and meet in order to
achieve goals
j. right to be informed of what law has been
broken if arrested
k. The right to call witnesses to speak on one’s behalf if
accused of a crime
l. The right of a person to be treated with respect
and dignity even after beign found guilty of a crime
m. The right to freely live and travel within the country
n. The right to work
o. The right to marry
p. The right to bear children
q. The right to free education
r. The right to join any peaceful parties or groups of
choice
s. The right to be free from slavery
t. The right to not be tortured
u The right to be treated as equal to others
v. The right to be considered to be innocent until
proven guilty
w. The right to personal privacy
x. The right to own property
The United States is said to be founded upon a Rights
Based Ethics System in which citizens are held to have
certain unalienable rights. The philosopher John Locke
is one of the main supporters of this system which takes
the viewpoint of what the ideal world looks like and
generates a rights system based upon those ideas.
The Bill of Rights of the United States of America is a
document that characterizes the type of rights that are
embraced by Rights Based Ethical Systems. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights also upholds and
manifests the values of a Rights Based Ethical System.
Some ethical theorists define the term ‘right’ as
“justified claim that individuals And groups can make
upon other individuals or upon society, to have a right is
to be In a position to determine by one’s choices, what
others should do or need not do (“Rights Based Ethics,”
n.d.). Rights can be legal in nature, or pertain to human
rights Or moral rights.
4. Legal vs. Moral Rights
What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what
is moral is not necessarily legal in a particular country.
These principles prove, among other things, that being
moral and being legal may be practically related but not
one and the same.
Some explain the difference between legal and moral to
the difference between is and ought. That is, moral
rights refer to what ought to be, whereas legal rights
are the rights that are on the books Moral rights
represent the natural law while legal rights embody the
conventional positive law
4.1. Legal rights- Legal rights denote all the rights found
within existing legal codes. As such, they enjoy the
recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to
their existence can be resolved by just locating the
pertinent legal instrument or piece of legislation
Technically, a legal right does not exist prior to its
passing into law and the limits of its validity are set by
the jurisdiction of the body which passed its legislation.
An example of a legal right would be the right of an
Englishman’s daughter to receive an adequate
education, as enshrined within the United Kingdom’s
Education Act of 1944. The exercise of this right is
limited to the United Kingdom that she has no legal
right to receive an adequate education, say, from a
school board in Southern California.
4.2 Moral rights. Moral rights, in plain contrast, are
rights that exist prior to and independently from their
legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral
right is not deemed to be dependent upon the actions
of jurists and legislators” (“Human Rights,” n.d.). For
instance, many people argued that the black majority in
apartheid South Africa had a moral right to full political
participation in that country’s political system, although
there existed no such legal right.
What many found so ethically objectionable about
apartheid South Africa was its denial to the majority of
that country’s inhabitants of many fundamental moral
rights, such as the rights not to be discriminated against
on grounds of color and rights to political participation.
This specific line of opposition and protest could only be
pursued because of a belief in the existence and validity
of moral rights, with or without recognition of a legal
system.
It must be clear, therefore, that human rights cannot be
reduced to, or exclusively identified with legal rights. In
fact, some human rights are best identified as moral
rights. Human rights are meant to apply to all human
beings universally, regardless of whether or not they
have attained legal recognition by all countries
everywhere.
Human rights are best thought of as being both moral
and legal rights. The legitimacy claims of human rights
are connected to their status as moral rights.
Nonetheless, the practical efficacy of human rights is
essentially dependent upon their developing into legal
rights.
Lesson IV: Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill
(1808-73) are British philosophers who had immense
impact on British thought. Bentham was the head of a
group of reformers called “the philosophical radicals,”
whose members included James Mill and his son, John
Stuart Mill. Bentham and the younger Mill are
considered the main proponents of the moral theory
called Utilitarianism.
1. Utilitarianism Explained
Perhaps the most prominent moral philosophy in the
last two centuries, utilitarianism is known as a
consequentialist theory, a subclass of teleological moral
theory. A teleological ethical system judges the
rightness of an act in terms of an external goal or
purpose. Its basis in the determination of what one
ought (or ought not) to do rests exclusively on the
consequences of the act, not the nature of the act nor
the traditional moral rules. (Notice though that not all
teleological theories are consequentialist since some
teleological systems, like that of John Rawls, is
considered teleological but not really consequentialist.)
Consequentialist ethics proposes that actions, rules, or
policies should be ethically measured and evaluated by
their consequences, not by the intentions or motives of
the agent. As opposed to absolutists who hold that
some actions are intrinsically wrong and must never be
done no matter what the results are, consequentialists
suppose that there is no kind of act which may not be
justified by its effects. Absolutists believe in a natural
law or in natural rights which render some acts-those
which violate those rights or conflict with that law-as
immoral, no matter what their outcomes are.
Consequentialists, on the other hand, believe that there
is no class of actions which must be ruled out in
advance independent of their consequences.
Utilitarianism is the most influential consequentialist
theory. Derived from the Latin term utilis which means
‘useful,’ utilitarianism basically states that what is useful
is good, and that the moral value of actions are
determined by the utility of its consequences. Arguing
that the consequences of an act is what make it either
moral or immoral, it explains that those actions that
bring about favorable effects are moral while those that
produce damaging results are immoral. Utilitarianism is
thus essentially opposed to ethical theories that
consider God’s will or some inner sense or faculty, like
the conscience, to be the final arbiter of morality.
Utilitarian ethics argues that the right course of action is
one that maximizes overall happiness. This ethical
system is basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness
with pleasure. In general, it puts forward that an action
is right if it amplifies pleasures and minimizes pain.
The principle of utility can be applied to either
particular actions or general rules. The former is usually
called 'act-utilitarianism' and the latter, 'rule-
utilitarianism.
1.1 Act Utilitarianism. In Act Utilitarianism, the principle
of utility is applied directly to every alternative act in a
situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the
one which brings about the best results, or, the least
amount of bad results.
One of the criticisms against this outlook is the difficulty
of getting a full knowledge and certainly of the
consequences of people's actions. Moreover, it is
argued that it is possible to justify immoral acts using
Act Utilitarianism: "Suppose you could end a regional
war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy
soldiers, thus revealing the hide outs of the fathers"
("Utilitarian Theories," n.d.).
1.2 Rule Utilitarianism. In Rule Utilitarianism, on the
other hand, the principle of utility is used to decide the
validity of rules of conduct (moral standards or
principles). A moral rule such as promise-keeping is
established by evaluating the consequences of a world
in which people broke promises at will and a world in
which promises were binding Moral and immoral are
then defined as following or breaking those rules.
One of the criticisms against this view is that it is
possible to produce unjust rules according to the
principle of utility. For example, "slavery in Greece
might be right if it led to an overall achievement of
cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated
individuals" ("Utilitarian Theories," nd).
2. Origins and Nature of the Theory
Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of utilitarianism
but John Stuart Mill later systematized and modified
some of Bentham's utilitarian principles.
Jeremy Bentham proposed the primary form of
utilitarianism in his Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation (1789). He confessed
nonetheless that he took over the principle of utility
from David Hume, Upon reading Hume's account of the
principle of utility, Bentham wrote that he felt as if the
scales had fallen from his eyes.
2.1 means that property in any object, whereby it
tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or
happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief,
pain, evil, or unhappiness. The principle of utility thus
states that an action is right insofar as it tends to
produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. This dogma thus considers the advancement of
the greatest happiness for the greatest number as the
supreme objective of human action.
For Bentham, it is the principle of utility-not the so-
called natural law natural rights, or social contracts-
which serves as the objective barometer in ethically
evaluating human action, state laws, and legal systems.
Bentham observes that people act in their own
interests. For him, this should be understood in terms of
pleasure and pain, for people are essentially seekers of
pleasure and avoiders of pain. Bentham wrote that
pleasure and pain are ‘two sovereign masters’ under
which nature has placed mankind. The concepts
pleasure and pain spell the scope and limit of
Bentham’s ethical system.
For Bentham, nothing else but pleasure is intrinsically
good. Though he recognizes four sanctions or sources of
pleasure the physical, the moral, the religious, and the
political-the physical source, for him, is the basis of all
the others. Giving emphasis on only one kind of
pleasure, Bentham gives no importance to the quality of
pleasures.
Dubbed as quantitative hedonist or quantitative
utilitarian, Bentham even went so far as to create a
detailed method, the ‘hedonic calculus,’ to calculate the
quantitative worth of pleasures. The method has seven
criteria or ingredients that allow one to quantify the
amount of pleasure or pain an action brings about-(1)
intensity, (2) duration, (3) certainty, (4) propinquity (or
remoteness), (5) fecundity (or fruitfulness), (6) purity,
and (7) extent to which pleasure and pain are shared
among the greatest number of people.
In general, utilitarianism determines the moral value of
an act by calculating the sum of pleasure it caused, and
the amount of pain generated. Remember that a moral
deed is that which maximizes benefits and minimizes
damages or costs. Therefore, the one moral act to carry
out in any case is that which can be sensibly seen to
afford the greatest net benefit, when the projected
costs are deducted from the anticipated benefits.
As regards justice and punishment, Bentham
disapproves the retributive principle or that which
requires that he who has done harm shall endure harm.
Rendering of evil for evil, for mere retribution’s sake,
would just augment the quantity of evil in the society.
Bentham’s account of the justification of punishment is
thus a deterrent account instead. Punishment can only
be justified if it deters people from perpetrating future
harms.
2.2 which states that it is the greatest happiness of
the greatest number that is the measure of right and
wrong
Mill differs fundamentally from Bentham on two central
aspects. First, Mill rejects the purely quantitative
treatment of the principle of utility; second, he
introduces the so-called ‘secondary principles’ which set
the tone for a contemporary variant form of the theory
called rule utilitarianism.
Concerning the first point, Mill distinguished between
higher and lower pleasures. Addressing the criticism
that utilitarianism basely defines man in terms of mere
pleasure and pain, Mill cites Epicurus (341-270 B.C) who
explained that while the good or happy life is the life of
pleasure, it does not mean only sensual pleasure.
Physical pleasures belong to the lower pleasures or
those which animals, too, can experience, such as those
from food, drink, and sex. Believing that some pleasures
are intrinsically superior to others, Mill famously
declared, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.”
By higher pleasures, Mill basically means intellectual,
which includes artistic, political, and even spiritual
pleasures. These more desirable and more valuable
pleasures are exclusive to humans, like the pleasures
that accompany reading a good novel or poetry,
listening to music, enjoying visual arts, meditating on
nature or the cosmos, and solving a complex scientific
or mathematical problem.
Note that Mill, nonetheless, does not remove the lower
pleasures from the picture of a happy life. Considered a
qualitative hedonist, he just wants qualitative
distinctions among pleasures. And for him, a happiness
that is made up principally of higher pleasures is a
higher, deeper, truer, and more Valuable form of
happiness. Mill thus denies the limited identification of
the term ‘happiness’ with ‘physical pleasure and the
absence of pain and the concept ‘unhappiness’ with
‘pain and the absence of bodily pleasure’. In ethics, Mill
purports that ‘happiness’ and ‘unhappiness’ are the
basis for good and evil. While ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ are
significant matters, they are only the basic minimum.
As regards Mill’s ‘secondary principles’, he believes that
past experiences teach us which kinds of action
promote happiness and which do not. These principles,
which are based on the history of human experience,
would save us from doing taxing utilitarian calculations
every time we act. Secondary principles serve as
practical rules, giving knowledge about the tendencies
of actions when no better information is available. This
does not mean however that the actions are justified by
these practical rules-it’s the consequences manifested
in past experiences which validate them.
3. An Analysis of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism appears to be a direct negative reaction
against Kantian ethics. While Kant proposes that an act
is justified by the person’s motive to perform his duty,
Bentham and Mill counteract this by submitting that
actions are evaluated through their consequences.
As a moral theory, utilitarianism appears to be
attractive. Basically anchored on the pleasure and pain
concepts, utilitarianism has transcultural appeal as all
sentient beings understand pain and pleasure.
Simulating the cause and effect reasoning in science, it
proves an action to be right or wrong by pointing to
observable evidence. As it is based on perceptible
effect, it promotes actions that empirically improve life
on earth. Somehow therefore, utilitarianism inspires
and encourages people to act morally, even if one does
not believe in an afterlife, for moral actions can be
observed to improve life on earth.
Utilitarianism also allows for exceptions to the rule if
justified by the consequences. Take the case of lying to
protect another from sure danger. For some rule-bound
theories like that of Kant, such an act is exceptionless
rule. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would say that
such an act is warranted if that an course of action will
generate the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.
The theory nonetheless receives some negative
criticisms. For one thing, it is not easy to foresee with
certainty the consequences of actions. The theory, in
effect, thus demands us to perform a computation that
we practically do not have time to do before acting. It is
also impractical and improbable to find out in advance,
before we must act, all the people who might be
affected by our options, whether they will be pleased or
hurt, and to what extent they will be affected. And as
the case concerns more people and choices, it becomes
harder to ascertain which action would cause the best
outcomes.
Moreover, utilitarianism's principle that the total
number of outcomes should be considered before an
act can be declared to be right or wrong is also
problematic. For if we take into account only the
immediate amount of pleasure and pain, we may be
misguided because the act may yield a different brand
of long-range consequences. That is, an act may have
had advantageous immediate effects, yet its long-range
effects may be extremely detrimental. But if we can not
determine the rightness or wrongness of an action until
we identify all of its outcomes and we shall have to wait
considerably long for there may be a countless amount
of consequences, then the theory is none less than
impractical.
These comments are somehow addressed by Mill's
introduction of 'secondary principles, that is, those
experience-based 'practical rules' which teach us which
actions more or less would yield good results and which
would not. But again, we may argue that this
supplementary principle by Mill is not purely utilitarian
and can even be viewed as supporting Kant's categorical
imperative. Moreover, there's a possibility that we may
act in accordance with the 'secondary principles' and
yet our action may not produce the outcomes we
expect it would have.
In such a case, we may ask Mill, "Did we act wrongly in
acting upon 'secondary principles, or did we act
rightly?" If he answers that we acted rightly, then he, in
effect, rejects utilitarianism's core dictum that a right
action is one that yields favorable outcomes. And if he
replies that we acted wrongly, then his doctrine on
secondary principles should be ignored.
By giving moral importance exclusively to the
consequences of actions, utilitarianism may also bring
about complications. A student, for instance, may be led
to cheat in his exams following utilitarian principle. He
may think that if he cheats, he will pass the course; if he
does not cheat, he will surely fail in the exam and
consequently the course. Cheating therefore is justified
as it will maximize pleasures And will minimize pains
(being embarrassed, repeating the subject, being
disqualified to graduate, paying more for tuition fee,
etc.). This could be the result if we totally disregard the
nature of the act in moral evaluation of actions. We
may ask the adherents of the theory, “Does the end
always justify the means?”
Finally, utilitarianism definitely indicates that an act is
right even if it is done from an evil motive as long as it
brings about advantageous effects. Obviously, a society
in which all people act from evil motives is a creepy
place to live in regardless of the consequences of their
actions.
4. Business’s Fascination with Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is perhaps the most broadly understood
and normally applied ethical theory to business. In an
organizational context, utilitarianism basically teaches
that a decision regarding business conduct is proper if
and only if that decision generates the greatest good for
the greatest number of persons.
In the theory, ‘good’ is typically defined as the net
benefits that accrue to those Parties affected by the
choice. Moral choices must thus be evaluated by
calculating The net benefits of each available alternative
action. In business, this implies that all The stakeholders
affected by the decision must be given their just
consideration.
Act utilitarianism, one major school of thought in the
theory, centers on the action that has been taken,
evaluating it along the lines of whether the chosen
action produces more good than bad consequences.
A pharmaceutical company, for instance, may operate
by the principle that it will release any officially
approved drug with some side effects as long as it aids
more persons combat a specific disease than the
number bothered by a minor side effect. On act
utilitarian grounds, if the benefits are adequately great
and the problems with the side effects satisfactorily
limited, then the action of the pharmaceutical company
may be justified.
Business executives normally embrace the utilitarian
approaches to ethical problems because they are so
compatible with traditional business thinking. Just as
utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness, or the good,
business executives usually hope to maximize profit,
return on investment or share price. If a businessperson
makes the conclusion that the greatest good is
equivalent to the highest profitability and this condition
produces the most benefits for society, then his
‘philosophy is so compatible with utilitarianism which is
oriented to optimum results.
Another influential appeal of the utilitarian approach, as
long as business is concerned, is its cost-benefit
character. Practically, business managers often weigh
the pros and cons of alternative economic and
managerial actions. This method to solving business
problems is a staple of many business courses so is thus
embedded in the psyche of many business managers.
Like utilitarians, business executives recognize that not
everybody will benefit
from a particular action. Thus, utilitarianism's emphasis
is on the net utility of the set
of outcomes resulting from a decision being considered.
Of course, business managers also understand that their
business decisions must often be placed in the context
of a 'win-lose' situation. That is, the repercussions of a
business action are rarely singular, "rather, they are
multiple and may "cut both ways" For instance, in
mature markets, the only way to gain market share is
for at least one competitor to lose share. Or increasing
long-term shareholder value may require sacrificing
short-term profits (and perhaps management bonuses)
in favour of reinvestment in the business, its products
and services" ("Utilitarianism," n.d.).
Another reason business managers are so fascinated
with utilitarianism lies in its flexibility in response to
differing situations. Utilitarian philosophy
accommodates complex situations more easily than
others, more absolute, moral theories. The factors
taken in a utilitarian structure can be conveniently
varied from the short term to the long term or from
financial to non-financial criteria. While conflicting
stakeholder claims can be recognized, managers
typically weigh business owner or shareholder goals
associated with corporate profitability as more
important than the goals of other groups such as
employees or the community" ("Utilitarianism," n.d.)
Lesson III: The Role of Religion in Ethics Religious ethics
concerns beliefs and practices of what is good or bad,
right or
Wrong, virtuous or vicious, from a religious point of
view. A Christian ethic, for instance, may be based on
the radical teachings of the religious leader Jesus Christ
about loving one’s neighbor, being a good Samaritan,
loving one’s enemies, being guided by the Father’s will,
and the like. For some, the religious response is what is
really needed concerning the challenges posed by
globalization and other contemporary issues.
1. Religion and Ethics
Practically, ethics may be defined as a system of moral
principles which affect how people make decisions and
lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good
and right for persons and society. On the other hand,
religion is defined as “people’s beliefs and opinions
concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity
or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and
human life” (“Religion,” 2009). Referring to the sacred
Engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual
reality, religion denotes the
Belief in, or the worship of, a god (or gods) and the
worship or service to God or
The supernatural. The term ‘supernatural’ means
“whatever transcends the powers
Of nature or human agency” (“Religion,” n.d.). The term
‘religion’ is sometimes used
Interchangeably with ‘faith, ‘creed,’ ‘belief system,’ or
‘conviction.
A religion is also viewed as “an organized collection of
beliefs, cultural systems, and worldviews that relate
humanity to an order of existence” (“Religion,” n.d.).
Many religions possess holy scriptures, narratives, or
sacred accounts that aim to explain the origin and
meaning of life and the universe. From the religions’
beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, adherents
usually draw religious laws, an ideal way of living, and
detailed rules of ethical or moral conduct. (For a
detailed discussion about religion, you may consult the
Appendix K: “Religion and Belief Systems” of this book)
Some submit that the difference between religion and
ethics is about the disparity between revelation and
reason. In some measure, religion is based on the idea
that God (or some deity) reveals insights about life and
its meaning. These divine insights are compiled in texts
(the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and introduced as
‘revelation.’
From a strictly humanistic perspective, ethics, on the
other hand, is based on the tenets of reason. That is,
anything that is not rationally provable cannot be
deemed justifiable. This definition of ethics, however,
does not necessarily exclude religion or a belief in God,
for it is also a common belief that human reason,
designed also for ethical discernment, is a gift from a
supernatural God, Indeed, many ethicists emphasize the
relationship, not the difference, between ethics and
religion.
2. Religion's Role in Ethics
Many ethicists believe that religion is necessary for the
continued survival of morality as an integral part of
human life, especially in a globalized world, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) Philosophy professor
Glenn C. Graber calls this apologetic claim the 'cut-
flowers thesis' (1972, pp. 1-5) which consists of a
hypothetical judgment that, "Morality cannot survive, in
the long run, if its ties to religion are cut." This
proposition is a prediction of what would happen to
morality if it were severed from religion. In 1894,
Russian writer Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) made the
following early statement of this thesis:
"The attempts to found a morality apart from religion
are like the attempts of children who, wishing to
transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the
roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous,
and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion
there can be no real, sincere morality, just as without
roots there can be no real flower." (1964, pp. 31-32)
The cut-flower thesis thus implies that those who
believe that morality is a valuable human institution,
and those who wish to avoid moral disaster, should
therefore make every effort to preserve its connection
with the true religion and the sound religious belief that
forms its roots. As morality is currently in a withering
stage in this globalized era, its decline can be identified
with the exorbitant secularization of many things.
Support for this claim can be found both among those
sympathetic to religion and surprisingly enough, among
those with little or no sympathy for religion.
Basil Willey, a religionist, calls for urgent action to re-
unite religion and ethics. He holds that there has been a
progressive de-Christianization during the last three or
four centuries, the outcome of which is what we see
around us in the world today the moral and spiritual
nihilism of the modern world, particularly of the
totalitarian creeds" (1964, p. 118).
2. Theistic Ethics

W.T. Stace, a secularist, surprisingly supports the cut-

Religions fundamentally endorse theism (the belief in
flower thesis when he said, “the chaotic and bewildered
God) and theistic ethics (God-based morality). Theistic
state of the modern world is due to man’s loss of faith,
Ethics believes that a supernatural being called God is
his abandonment of God and religion, I agree with this
the foundation of morality. God is viewed as the true
statement...... Along with the ruin of the religious vision
source of all moral laws, and as the only plausible cause
there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed all
of moral obligations which possess overriding and
values” (1967, pp. 3, 9).
binding character.

The theory holds that the truth of moral judgments

And for those who doubt that religion ever promoted
morality in history (since immorality has flourished even
in ages of religious domination), not less than the well-
known agnostic historians Will and Ariel Durant explain,
thus:
“Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed,
dishonesty, robbery and violence existed in the Middle
Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a
millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic
devastation, and political disorganization would have
been much worse without the moderating effect of the
Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars,
and a calming, unifying ritual.... [The] Church labored to
reduce slavery, family feuds, and national strife, to
extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to replace
trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of
established courts. It softened the penalties exacted by
Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded the scope
and organization of charity.” (1968, p. 44)
depends on God’s will. In theism, “X is moral” means
“God wants us or a particular agent to do X As to how
we can know God’s will, proponents admit sources like
revelation (Holy Scriptures) divinely guided human
reason, and God’s laws written in man’s heart
(conscience) The theory views Ethics as necessarily
linked to true religion. Unlike other ethical theories,
theism considers faith in and obedience to God as
necessary part of being truly moral
Theists claim that unlike secularists’ ethical theories,
this moral system which is
Also called moral supernaturalism can satisfactorily
explain the existence of objective
Ethical values and the moral law,

3.1 Can Justify Moral Values. While other ethical views

All these statements call attention to the prediction of can just postulate good moral principles, only a theistic
the cut-flowers thesis which, by way of summary, view can justify them. At least four reasons are usually
suggests that morality cannot survive without religion. given for this:
Some words of caution are needed here though: The
cut-flowers thesis does not say that a consequence of
abandoning religion leads immediately to murder, rape, (a) Unless morality is grounded on the
robbery, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and the like. unchangeable nature of a morally
Nor does it say that the morality per se will soon cease
to exist if its ties to religion are cut. However, it does
argue that to have a real ground or reason for moral
Perfect being (God), there is no basis for believing in
action, one must admit a religious or theological
moral absolutes. Only an Absolute Moral Law-Giver is a
foundation.
sufficient foundation for absolute moral laws;

(b) And, if everything is relative, then there is no
good reason why anyone ought to abstain from doing
anything he wishes to do, including rape, murder, and
unreasonable maltreatment. It is not denied that those
who refute moral absolutes can believe in general
moral principles, many of which are agreeably
righteous. What they cannot do nevertheless is to
justify this belief, since according to their system, there
is no real ground for such a conviction.
(c) Only in theism are all persons held morally
accountable for their actions. In the real sense. With
this theory, we can, with consistency, make moral
choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even
carry out acts of extreme self sacrifice, knowing that
such decisions are not just empty and meaningless
gestures, rather, our moral lives ultimately have a
paramount significance.
Finally, (d) only the ethics rooted in a Moral Law-Giver
can be truly prescriptive in any objective sense of the
word. A descriptive ethic is no ethics at all-it merely tells
us what people are doing, not what they ought to do.
An ethics that is merely descriptive is flawed since we
see people doing all kinds of evil acts which even
relativists and non-theists do not approve. To prove it,
just try insulting, raping, or killing a relativist or non-
theist. His reaction will betray his true belief that these
acts are wrong.
3.2 Can Explain Moral Accountability. Ethical
supernaturalism, compared to its non-theist
counterparts, is said to be better as an ethical system in
terms of explaining moral accountability.
Theists have simple explanation for the “binding force”
and character of the moral obligation. These are
attributed to God or Supernatural Being who is believed
to be man’s creator and thus also the cause of man’s
moral dimension “overriding
Theists believe that all people have this moral
experience of feeling morally obligated and that this
sense of moral responsibility is connected to God This
idea is consistent with the meaning of religion itself-the
word “religion” being a compound of the Latin re and
ligare meaning “to bind back”. Thus, for the theists,
there is a bond that exists between the Creator and His
human creatures. This bond involves the feeling of
being morally obligated to live up to some moral laws
that press down on everyone which express God’s will
and nature.
Morality is believed to be “something above and
beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet
quite definitely real-a real law, which none of us made,
but which we find pressing on us” (Lewis, 1943, p.17).
Theists consider it absurd to think that this moral law
just popped into existence or just assembled itself.
When we admit a moral law, theists explain, we also
affirm a moral lawgiver, for otherwise, it looks
impossible to think of a moral law that has a moral
force on our behavior.
Theists thus believe that Someone made the moral law
so that moral rule is not just a disembodied principle
but a rule of Somebody. It accounts for the moral force
of the moral law on our behavior. Since Someone higher
than us made the moral law, whenever we break ethical
rules, we offend that Someone who Himself created the
law. It is that Someone who appears in us, urging us to
do right, and making us feel accountable and
uncomfortable when we do wrong.
Furthermore, theistic ethics maintains that man’s life
does not end at the grave and that all persons are truly
held morally accountable for all their actions. Its belief
in an afterlife entails that evil and wrong will be
expelled righteousness and virtue will surely be
vindicated.
Ultimately, good triumphs over evil, and we will see
that we do live in a moral universe after all. Theism
expects that in the end, the scales of God’s justice will
be balanced. Thus, the moral choices that we make in
this life are infused with an eternal significance.
 saint. As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly said, “If
there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.”
It is noteworthy that even non-theist Professor Taylor,
(1957, p. 8)
in his writings, agrees that supernaturalism provides a
sound basis for morality in justifying moral obligation
and accountability. In the book he authored, he writes,
With theists, we wonder what non-theists would say to
thus: “The idea of moral... obligation is clear enough,
someone who contends that we may as well just live for
provided reference to some lawmaker higher... than
self-interest, live just as we please, and do whatever we
those of the state is understood. In other words, our
deem pleasurable. Secularists may argue that it is in our
moral obligations... can be understood as those
best self-interest, being theist or not, to adopt a moral
imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the
lifestyle. True, but as we observe, that is not always the
claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon
case. We know of situations in which morality is
us than our political obligations” (1985, pp. 83-84).
dispensed with in the face of self-interest. If one is
sufficiently powerful, like a Hitler or a dictator, one can
just snub the dictates of conscience and live in pure self-
Unfortunately, Professor Taylor does not believe in God,
indulgence. Acts of self-sacrifice are valueless in a
and so he denies a supernatural foundation for
secular-naturalistic worldview and to deny oneself for
morality. Nevertheless, he admits that if God exists,
others is plain stupidity. If this life is all there is, then it
then the foundations for morality are secure. Thus,
really does not matter how one lives.
even non-theists can agree to the reasons proving that
supernaturalism provides a sound and better
foundation for morality.
Some secularists argue that the idea of life ending at
the grave still makes

3.3 No Real Accountability in Non-theism. With

reference to theism, we can reasonably say that there is
no real moral accountability for one’s actions non-
theistic ideologies. In naturalism or secularism, human
life just finds its end in grave. Absent in non-theism is
the so-called ‘life-after’ of theism where the final
reward and punishment-that which accounts for the
ultimate justice will be given. This aspect, theism is
extensively plausible and better than its non-theistic
counterparts.
Even if we grant that there were objective moral values
under naturalism or secularism, they would be
ultimately immaterial and meaningless because there is
no moral accountability. In a worldview where the real
sense of moral liability is absent, there is no legitimate
sanction for the moral and immoral. Hence, there would
be no essential difference between following and
transgressing moral rules. For if one can simply evade
state or federal penalties and the like. Say because of
power and influence, then, in non-theism, there is no
way his wicked deeds can be punished. So if life just
ends at the grave as non-theism suggests, then it makes
no difference whether one has lived as a villain or as a
A difference whether you live as a saint or as a devil. It
makes a difference, they
Claim, to what kind of a person you are. They suggest
that you can say, “I want
To look good as a human being, and that is not a bad
ideal, so they say.
Well, indeed, it is not a bad ideal for a teacher, parent,
husband, wife, or anybody to look good to themselves
as human beings. However, it does not make any real
difference what kind of person you are on the secularist
worldview-for like animals in forests, our end is all the
same, and we ultimately do not contribute to the good
of the universe or the ultimate betterment of morality.
There simply is no moral value in secular worldview as
in the case of lesser beings. All will be ultimately
extinguished in death and in the ‘heat death’ of the
universe. It simply makes no difference what kind of
person we become. And so, why adopt the moral point
of view? We cannot see any basis for this in secularism,
where there is no moral accountability.
Clearly, the absence of moral accountability in the
philosophy of secularism reduces virtues, like those of
compassion and self-sacrifice, to hollow abstractions.
Secularism, therefore, fails to match theism in supplying
this necessary element for a sound moral foundation.
3.4 The Euthyphro Dilemma. The most common attack
against moral theism is the famous philosophical
argument called ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’. In Plato’s
writing, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates asked
an insightful question “Is a good thing good because
God desires it? Or does God desire it because it is
already good?”
If theists go with the latter view, which says that God
desires moral things because they are already good,
then good and bad are independent of God’s will-and
thus moral theism is incorrect. On the other hand, if
theists answer that moral acts are good just because
God desires them, then cruelty, torture, and
maltreatment would be good if God desired them. (For
proposed solutions for this dilemma, look for the article,
“Countering Euthyphro Dilemma” in the search engine
of www. OurHappySchool.com)
Lesson I: Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to
Ethics
Globalization has renovated the globe from a collection
of separate communities interacting infrequently into a
virtually one multi-faceted community, Politically,
economically, and culturally therefore, communities
across the world now function in what is fundamentally
a shared space although divided into artificial political
condominiums called nation-states. The transnational
relations made possible by globalizing forces and
processes have opened up new forms of social bonds
and responsibilities.
In a globalized era, peoples and communities across the
world have become culturally connected, the distinction
between the global and the local has become
progressively blurred and actions and events in one
locality carry with it the potential to breed transnational
and transgenerational impacts. It is precisely for these
reasons that moral reflection about our responsibilities
and obligations in a globalized age has become an
imperative.
In this lesson, we will deal with the ethical challenges
and problems brought about by globalization. And in
addition to various theories in Ethics discussed in this
book, we will discuss in this lecture another ideology,
called Pluralism, which has arisen in the age of
globalization.
1. Pluralism
As a philosophical doctrine, Pluralism is a concept used
in many diverse ways, but, in general terms, it is the
philosophical theory that there is more than one basic
substance or principle, whether it be the constitution of
the universe, of the mind and body, the sources of
truth, or the basis of morality. In this discussion, we are
more concerned with moral pluralism.
1.1 Moral Pluralism. Also known as ethical pluralism and
value pluralism, moral pluralism is the idea that there
can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of
respect. It thus implies that there are some values
which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet
in conflict with each other. Moreover, moral pluralism
proposes that in many cases, such incompatible values
may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no
objective ordering of them in terms of importance.
Moral pluralism is a metaethical theory, rather than a
theory of normative ethics or a set of values in itself,
Russian-British social and political theorist philosopher,
and historian of idea Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) is
credited with being the first to popularize a
considerable work describing the theory of objective
value-pluralism, taking it to the attention of the
academe. However the pertinent idea that basic values
can and, in some cases, do conflict with each other has
already been prominent in the thought of the German
sociologist and philosopher Max Weber (1864-1920).
Moral pluralism seems to advocate flexibility when
faced with competing perspectives. It evaluates issues
from various moral standpoints in deciding and taking
action. An example of value-pluralism is the notion that
the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a
mother, yet there is no strictly rational measure of
which is preferable. It thus concludes that ethical
decisions frequently necessitate radical preferences
with no rational calculus to decide which alternative is
to be chosen.
Moral pluralism holds that many moral issues are
extremely complicated. It thus proposes that no single
philosophical approach will always provide all the
answers. For instance:
... assume a building is on fire. A woman has the
opportunity to rush inside and save the children
trapped in the burning building. But in doing this she
may die, and leave her own child an orphan. A moral
pluralist would conclude that there is no definitive way
to decide which is the better course of moral action.
Indeed, moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes
difficult to choose between competing values.” (“Moral
Pluralism,” n.d.)
Moral pluralists occupy a middle ground between
“there is only one right answer as moral absolutists say,
and “there is no wrong answer as moral relativists
claim. Value-pluralism differs from value-relativism in
the sense that pluralism admits limits to differences,
such as when crucial human needs are transgressed.
Pluralists point out that choices are complex, and so
claim that we must not shy away from the proposition
that values are plural. In short, the charm of pluralism is
that it appears to allow for the complexity and conflict
that is part
of our moral experience. "We do not experience our
moral choices as simple additive puzzles. Pluralists have
argued that there are incommensurabilities and
discontinuities in value comparisons, value remainders
(or residues) when choices are made, and complexities
in appropriate responses to value" ("Moral Pluralism,"
n.d.).
1.2 Against Moral Pluralism. Although moral pluralism,
at first glance, seems to be flawless and attractive, it is
definitely not immune to valid criticisms when
philosophically analyzed. For one thing, moral pluralism
fails to stipulate what to do when two or more of its
values or theories indicate inconsistent practical
imperatives:
Basically, not only is moral pluralism ethically
irresponsible, it is also morally impotent. It gives us no
moral standard, and offers us no moral power. Moral
pluralism leaves us either concluding that (a) there is no
real solution to ethical dilemmas or (b) all possible
answers are acceptable as long as they have underlying
fundamental values. The second implied conclusion is
very much like moral relativism.
Some also argue that moral pluralists ignore the fact
that values are indeed commensurable as they can be
compared by their varying contributions towards the
human good. Concerning the ends of freedom, equality,
efficiency, creativity, and the like, for instance, some
claim that none of these are ends in themselves, but are
valued for their consequences. So technically, moral
pluralists fail to prove that the problem of conflicting
values is in principle insoluble.
In principle, moral pluralism is untenable. To propose
that it does not matter which values we adhere to is, in
effect, to claim that it does not matter what behavior
we adopt. The two are intrinsically linked. Some thus
explain that the popularity of pluralism (and relativism)
in the globalized age is accompanied by substantial
moral collapse today. Pluralism in belief and pluralism in
morals go together. The outcome is said to be
disastrous. As AE McGrath of Wheaton College explains:
 Globalization is said to have begun after World War II
but has accelerated since the mid 1980's, driven by two
"Think of the unwanted girl children left exposed to die
factors. The first is the technological advances that have
on the hillsides of Ancient Greece. Think of the human
reduced the cost of transportation, communication, and
sacrifices to the fish deity in ancient Polynesian religion.
computation to the degree that it has become
Think of the murder and gang rape carried out by
economically viable for a firm to place different phases
practitioners of Satanism, Are we to believe that these
of production in various countries.
all spring from differing insights into the same ultimate
reality, as the pluralists claim? ...Think, for example, of
the Sawi tribespeople in Indonesia, savage cannibals
The other factor has to do with the business escalating
and ruthless killers, for whom treachery was the highest
liberalization of trade and capital markets. More and
virtue. "Moral pluralism] can never control or even rival
more governments are declining to protect their
our natural sloth and greed... The terrorist groups
economies from foreign competition or influence
[have] morality [which] is determined by their political
through import tariffs and nontariff obstacles like
goals. If you believe in your cause as the most
import quotas, legal prohibition, and export restraints
important thing on earth, you will bomb, maim, and kill
Many international institutions founded after World
in order to achieve that goal. And the casualties? These
War II, such as the World Bank, International Monetary
are regrettable but inevitable. Many ancient religions
Fund (IMF), and General Agreement on Tariffs And
included the idea of human sacrifice: if these still
Trade (GATT) (succeeded in 1995 by the World Trade
existed, would this practice be tolerated? Certainly
Organization) have played a crucial role in endorsing
not." (McGrath, n.d.) Thus, we can identify negative
free trade in place of protectionism.
social consequences of moral pluralism. Superficially, it
has a plausibility to a liberal-minded public, yet, on
closer scrutiny, it has its darker side. 2. Globalization
Globalization may be defined as the world-wide 2.1 Some Problems with Globalization. Although
integration of government policies, cultures, social generally seen as downright 'good' especially by many
movements, and financial markets through trade and economists, globalization unfortunately has a dark side.
the exchange of ideas. The British sociologist Anthony Author Gail Tverberg enumerates some reasons why
Giddens defines it as "intensification of worldwide globalization is not living up to what was ideally
relationships which link distant localities in such a way expected of it, and is, in fact, our very major problem
that local happenings are shaped by events occurring today. The following is a summarized version of his
many miles away and vice versa" (as quoted in online article, "Twelve Reasons Why Globalization is a
"Globalization," n.d.). Various interrelated definitions Huge Problem" (Tverberg, 2013)
are given for the concept globalization. However, the
common theme that runs through the definitions is the
stress on the trans-nationalization of the connections a. Globalization uses up finite resources more quickly.
taking place in the world today. Globalization As an example, China joined the world trade
emphasizes the increasing trans-border or transnational organization in December 2001. In 2002, its coal use
relations, which are occurring in the contemporary began rising rapidly. In fact, there is also a huge increase
world. Globalization, in effect. restructures our social in world coal consumption. India's consumption is
space or geography from one that is mainly territorial to increasing as well, but from a smaller base.
one that is increasingly transnational. In other words,
whereas individuals usually have most of their
interactions and affiliations in the past with others who b. Globalization increases world carbon dioxide
share the same territorial space (eg the village, town, or emissions. If the world burns its coal more quickly, and
nation), there is massive mushrooming of interactions does not cut back on other fossil fuel use, carbon
and affiliations across these territories today because of dioxide emissions increase.
globalization Evidently, globalization has brought about
the escalation of global relations.
C Globalization makes it virtually impossible for playing field, in a way that makes it hard for developed
regulators in one country to foresee the worldwide countries to compete. A country with a lower cost
implications of their actions. Actions which would seem structure (lower wages and benefits for workers, more
to reduce emissions for an individual country may inexpensive coal in its energy mix, and more lenient
indirectly encourage world trade, ramp up rules on pollution) is able to out compete a typical
manufacturing in coal producing areas, and increase OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
emissions over all Development) country, in the United States, the
percentage of US citizens with jobs started dropping
d. Globalization acts to increase world oil prices. Oil
about the time China joined the World Trade
supply is not growing very much, due to limits we are
Organization in 2001,
reaching, and partly because demand is exploding due
to globalization. If we look at world oil supply, it is
virtually flat. Part of our problem now is that with
g. Globalization transfers investment spending from
globalization, world oil demand is rising very rapidly.
developed countries to less developed countries. If an
Chinese buyers purchased more cars in 2012 than did
investor has a chance to choose between a country with
European buyers. Rapidly rising world demand,
a competitive advantage and a country with a
together with oil supply which is barely rising, pushes
competitive disadvantage, which will the investor
world prices upward. The East has sufficient pent-up
choose? In investment shouldn’t be too surprising shift
demand that it will make use of any oil that is made to
the market.

In recent years, the US domestic investment has

dropped off and is now close to consumption of assets
e. Globalization transfers consumption of limited oil
(similar to depreciation, but includes other removals
supply from developed countries to developing
from service, such as removals because manufacturing
countries. If world oil supply isn't growing by very much,
has moved overseas). The assets in question include all
and demand is growing rapidly in developing countries,
types of capital assets, including government-owned
oil to meet this rising demand must come from
assets (schools, roads), business owned assets
somewhere. The way this transfer takes place is
(factories, stores), and individual homes. A similar
through the mechanism of high oil prices. High oil prices
pattern applies to business investment viewed
are particularly a problem for major oil importing
separately.
countries, such as the United States, many European
countries, and Japan. Because oil is used in growing
food and for commuting, a rise in oil price tends to lead
to a cutback in discretionary spending, recession, and i. With the dollar as the world’s reserve currency,
lower oil use in these countries. globalization leads to huge US balance of trade deficits
and other imbalances. With increased globalization and
the rising price of oil since 2002, the US trade deficit has
soared. A major reason for this is the fact that the US
Developing countries are better able to use higher-
dollar is the world’s “reserve currency.” With the
priced oil than developed countries. In some cases
current working mechanism, the result is that the US
(particularly in oil-producing countries) subsidies play a
can run deficits year after year, and the rest of the
role. In addition, the shift of manufacturing to less
world will take their surpluses, and use it to buy US
developed countries increases the number of workers
debt. With this arrangement, the rest of the world
who can afford a motorcycle or car. Job loss plays a role
funds the United States’ continued overspending
in the loss of oil consumption from developed
countries.

High oil prices together with globalization have led to

huge US deficit spending since 2008. This has occurred
f. Globalization transfers jobs from developed countries
partly because a smaller portion of the population is
to less developed countries. Globalization levels the
working (and thus paying taxes), and partly because US
spending for unemployment benefits and stimulus has
risen The result is a mismatch between government
income and spending.
Globalization tends to move taxation away from
corporations, and onto individual citizens Corporations
have the ability to move to locations where the tax rate
is lowest. Individual citizens have much less ability to
make such a change. Also, with today’s lack of jobs,
each community competes with other communities
with respect to how many tax breaks it can give to
prospective employers.
High oil prices seem to lead to depressed US wages. If
wages are low at the same time that wage-earners are
being asked to shoulder an increasing share of rising
government costs, this creates a mismatch that wage-
earners are not really able to handle.
j. Globalization sets up a currency "race to the
bottom," with each country trying to get an export
advantage by dropping the value of its currency,
Because of the competitive nature of the world
economy, each country needs to sell its goods and
services at as low a price as possible This can be done in
various ways-pay its workers lower wages; allow more
pollution, use cheaper more polluting fuels; or debase
the currency by Quantitative Easing (also known as
"printing money,") in the hope that this will produce
inflation and lower the value of the currency relative to
other currencies
There is no way this race to the bottom can end well.
Prices of imports become very high in a debased
currency-this becomes a problem. In addition, the
supply of money is increasingly out of balance with real
goods and services. This produces asset bubbles, such
as artificially high stock market prices, and artificially
high bond prices (because the interest rates on bonds
are so low). These assets bubbles lead to investment
crashes. Also, if the printing ever stops (and perhaps
even if it doesn't), interest rates will rise, greatly raising
cost to governments, corporations, and individual
citizens.
k. Globalization encourages dependence on other
countries for essential goods and services. With
globalization, goods can often be obtained cheaply from
elsewhere. A country may come to believe that there is
no point in producing its own food or clothing. It
becomes easy to depend on imports and specialize in
something like financial services or high priced medical
care-services that are not as oil-dependent.
As long as the system stays together, this arrangement
works, more or less. However, if the built-in instabilities
in the system become too great, and the system stops
working, there is suddenly a very large problem. Even if
the dependence is not on food, but is instead on
computers and replacement parts for machinery, there
can still be a big problem if imports are interrupted.
L. Globalization ties countries together, so that if one
country collapses, the collapse is likely to ripple through
the system, pulling many other countries with it.
History includes many examples of civilizations that
started from a small base, gradually grew to over-utilize
their resource base, and then collapsed. We are now
dealing with a world situation which is not too different.
The big difference this time is that a large number of
countries is involved, and these countries are
increasingly interdependent.
There are significant parallels between financial
dislocations now happening in the United States and
the types of changes which happened in other societies,
prior to collapse. It is not just the United States that is in
perilous financial condition. Many European countries
and Japan are in similarly poor condition. The failure of
one country has the potential to pull many others
down, and with it much of the system. The only
countries that remain safe are the ones that have not
grown to depend on globalization, of which there are
probably not many today-perhaps landlocked countries
of Africa.
2.2 Ethical Challenges of Globalization. The previous
section deals mainly with economic aspects of
globalization. This portion, nonetheless, contend with
their ethical implications and other moral challenges
posed by globalization itself.
One criticism against the presently unfolding neoliberal
globalization is that it concentrates wealth in the hands
of a few, leaving the majority in the condition of
poverty. While advocates of globalization paint a pretty
picture of a globalized world marked by the spread of
liberal democracy, prosperity, and peace, globalization
has actually caused radical inequality, a deepening of
exclusions brought about by inequalities that present
the world to be a fragmented space where some
benefit at the expense of others. Critics thus describe
globalization as a process driven by progressive
capitalist countries to perpetuate their economic and
political domination.
That globalization and the propagation of the laissez-
faire capitalism deepen the inequalities within and
between nations is ethically condemnable from both
the consequentialist and deontological standpoints.
From the consequentialist viewpoint, the moral
argument against globalization is that it fails to
maximize happiness for the greatest number of people.
From a deontological perspective, particularly in
Kantian ethics, globalization is condemnable on the
account that exploited populations are treated as
means to an end and not as end in themselves.
Another problem with globalization is that states are in
effect increasingly losing their sovereignty. In a
globalized world, organizations such as the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade
Organization (WTO) virtually take over their traditional
functions. For example, the World Bank and the IMF
usually prescribe dislikeable neoliberal policies such as
currency devaluation, subsidy removal, and the
privatization of strategic public enterprise as conditions
for granting loans to financially distraught states. The
disastrous repercussion of this is that elected
indigenous leaders cede their prerogative over
economic management to unelected officials of
international organizations. This scenario generated by
globalization is thus seen as morally condemnable
intrusiveness of international economic organizations,
characterized by lack of accountability to the people
openly affected by their policies and the tendency to
impose agonizing conditions on indebted governments.
Ecologically speaking, another moral challenge arising
out of globalization is the problem of handling the
global environment in order to prevent a global
ecological collapse, a scene that threatens humanity
with the threat of annihilation. It is now basic
knowledge among environmentally literate people that
today the world is threatened by a host of
environmental problems that carry with them potential
planetary costs. These involve anthropogenic
greenhouse effect that is supposedly generating global
climate change, commonly known as global warming.
There is also the challenge of ozone Layer depletion,
which progressively extinguishes the protective blanket
that shields the world’s population from unsafe ultra
violet rays being discharged from the sun. The global
biosphere is also encountering a speedy reduction in
the diversity of ecosystems, in the number of species of
life, and in the variety of genes that circulate within
individual species.
Aggravating the various global environmental problems
mentioned is the explosive population growth which
threatens to surpass the earth’s carrying capacity and
bust the biosphere. Combined, these environmental
problems essentially elucidate the idea of transnational
harm and the interdependent condition of human
existence in the 21st century primarily due to
globalization. Industrial capitalism, an essential partner
of globalization, is chiefly responsible for the damage of
the ozone layer and the escalation of global warming,
two major environmental problems today.
Global environmental considerations form the need for
international environmental ethics which is an aspect of
global ethics. The use of the global commons or
environment ought to be controlled by international
regulations. Sensibly, the regulation of the global
commons should be based on sound ethical principles.
One of the ethical and sound ideologies concerning 11
environmental protection is the so-called 'Human-
Environment Systems For one thing, this approach
categorically affirms the significant relation between
humans and their natural environment and other broad
implications of this connection. (For a detailed
discussion about this approach, you may read the
Appendix 1: "Human-Environment Systems of this
Millennials, also known as ‘Generation Y or the Net
book.)
Generation, are the demographic cohort directly
following Generation X. There are no exact dates for
when this cohort starts and ends, although
2.3 Globalization and Business Ethics. As globalization is
demographers and researchers normally use the late
largely an economic concept and system, it is rational to
1970s to early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-
have a separate section that deals with the issues and
1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years
challenges it creates that concern business ethics.
Basically, business ethics is a form of applied ethics that
examines moral principles concerning business
1. Millennials and Filinnials
environment involving issues about corporate practices,
policies, business behaviors, and the conducts and
relationships of individuals in the organizations.
The Center for Generational Kinetics mentions five
generations that presently make up our society and
specifies birth years for each generation as follows (“An
Globalization has made the world a global village.
Intro to Generations, nd)
Although businesses grew and the globalized
environment has provided more markets and numerous
opportunities, but with it also came various ethical
issues such as duplication of products, child labor, Gen 2, iGen, or Centennials: Born 1996 and later
money laundering, environment issues, and many other Millennials or Gen Y: Born 1977 to 1995
business malpractices. Additionally, sundry business
crimes have existed such as cybercrimes, sexual Generation X: Born 1965 to 1976
harassments in work places, and intellectual property Baby Boomers Born 1946 to 1964
and patent thefts.

Traditionalists or Silent Generation: Born 1945 and

Focusing on child labor, it is said that globalization before
paved the way for the existence of this controversial
business practice. Like other ethical issues (such as
homosexuality), the child labor issue is taken differently
Millennials are generally the children of baby boomers
in different nations. In Europe, it is seen as an unethical
and older Gen Xers Filinnials is a term used to denote
activity whereas in Asian countries, it is somewhat
the Filipino Millennials
tolerated. In many countries, like India, where poverty
is high, children in a family after a certain age start
working to contribute to family income.
Filinnials’ generation is commonly characterized by an
increased use and familiarity with communications,
media, and digital technologies. Their trust in Google or
The international company Nike in its Vietnamese
Wikipedia, which provide them plenty of various
factory employs. children. Nike Vietnam however,
worldviews, is extraordinary. Even in the Philippines,
provides free education and food to these children.
millennials upbringing is said to be marked by an
Fundamentally though, the main reason for employing
increase in 2
children is that it reduces the cost of production line.
Hence, the practice, in many cases, has resulted in legal
conflicts and loss of custom for being seen as immoral
Liberal approach to politics, economics, and morality,
although this claim is disputed Seven basic traits are

Lesson II: Challenges of Filinnials and Millennials

ascribed to the Millennials: “special, sheltered,
confident,
Team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving”
(“Millennials” nd). Ther being “team-oriented,
nonetheless, is questioned, as one study reveals that
they have a sense of entitlement and narcissism, based
on personality surveys showing increased narcissism
among Millennials compared to preceding generations
when they were teens and in their twenties”
(“Millennials, nd) Same psychologists th consider
Millennials (including Filinnials) to be part of what is
called ‘Generation Me instead of Generation We
Millennials came of age in a time where the
entertainment industry started to be significantly
influenced by the Internet. Being the most ethnically
and racially varied compared to the generations older
than they are, millennials nonetheless are seem to be
the most educated
2. Ethical Outlook and Cultural Identity
In the United Kingdom, a 2013 poll found that
Millennials were more open minded than their parents
on controversial topics. In 2013, a Pew Research Poll
found that 84% of Generation Y members favored
legalizing the use of marijuana. In 2014, the same
research center issued a report revealing that
Millennials in adulthood are detached from institutions
and networked with friends. Some authors describe
Millennials approach to social change “as pragmatic
idealism’ with a deep desire to make the world a better
place, combined with an understanding that doing so
requires building new institutions while working inside
and outside existing institutions (“Millennilas,” n.d.).
Are also labeled as the ‘Boomerang Generation’ or
‘Peter Pan generation, because of their perceived
tendency for delaying some rites of passage into
adulthood for longer periods than most generations
before them and for living with their parents for longer
periods than previous generations.
Generation Y members are very upbeat and more open
to change than older generations. Based on a survey by
the Pew Research Center in 2006, Millennials are the
most likely of any generation to self-identify as liberals
and are also more supportive of progressive domestic
social agenda than older generations” (“Millennials,”
nd)
Concerning beliefs on ethical issues, most millennials of
every religion, race, and ethnicity support access to
affordable contraception according to a study
(Grossman, nd). “And 56 percent of people ages 18 to
35 say that in some situations, choosing to have
abortion is the most responsible decision that a woman
can make” (Grossman, nd.).
A. sampling of other findings reveals the following
(Grossman, nd): a. One-quarter of millennials say that
marriage has become old-fashioned and out of date,
while 71 percent disagree
B. Millennials fall into a four-way split on "pro-life"
and "pro-choice" labels While 25 percent say they are
exclusively "pro-life" and 27 percent sey they're "pro-
choice, 22 percent rebuff both labels and nearly 27
percent say that both labels describe them equally well.
C. 77 percent of millennials identify either as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
3. Work Ethics
It is said that whereas Boomers are hardworking,
idealistic, and committed to harmony and Gen Xers are
entrepreneurial, flexible, and self-reliant, and
comfortable with technology, on the other hand,
Millennials are tech-savvy, appreciative of diversity, and
skilled in multitasking (Verschoor, n.d.).
Concerning negative traits and workplace attributes,
Boomers are said to be self-centered with sense of
entitlement, workaholics, self-motivated, don’t
appreciate feedback while Millennials lack basic literacy
fundamentals, very short attention spans not loyal to
organization, demand immediate feedback and
recognition, integrate technology into the workplace,
expect to have many employers and multiple careers,
and work dress is whatever feels comfortable
(Verschoor, n.d.).
One study concerning generational analysis reveals
relatively high percentages Of Millennials who consider
some behaviors in the workplace to be ethical, including
(Verschoor, nd)
a. Using social networking to find out about the
company’s competitors – 37 percent
b. “Friending” a client or customer on a social
network – 36 percent
c. Uploading personal photos on a company
network-26 percent
d. Keeping coples of confidential documents – 22
percent
e. Working less to compensate for cuts in benefits
or pay – 18 percent
f. Buying personal items using a company credit
card -15 percent
g. Blogging or tweeting negatively about a
company – 14 percent
h. Taking a copy of work software home for
personal use – 13 percent
The widespread use of social networking appears to
pose challenges, substantial numbers of Millennials post
questionable information on their personal social
networking sites, including the following (Verschoor,
nd)
a. Feelings about their jobs-40 percent
b. Bad joke told by the boss-26 percent
c. Work on a project-26 percent
d. Picture of a coworker drinking-22 percent
e. Annoying habit of a coworker-20 percent
f. Information about the company’s competitors-
19 percent &
g. Opinion about a coworker’s politics-16 percent
Interestingly though, the same study shows that
millennial workers were more kely to report unethical
behavior in workplaces. The types of misconduct
observed include personal business on company time,
lying to employees, abusive behavior, company
resource abuse, discrimination, stealing or theft,
falsifying expense reports, goods/services fail to meet
specifications, falsifying time sheets or hours worked,
and offering improper payments/bribes to public
officials Millennials are the group most likely to report
by using the hotline option (Verschoor, nd).
Millennials expect close relationships and frequent
feedback from supervisors They typically associate job
satisfaction with free flow of information, strong
connectivity to supervisors, and more immediate
feedback
Generation Y members can also be characterized by an
indination to a flat corporate culture, an emphasis on
work-life balance and social consciousness Millennials
put an emphasis on producing meaningful work, finding
a creative outlet, and favoring familial over corporate
values. Their extensive use of social media has
augmented their collaborative skills and created a
preference for a team-oriented environment.
Studies also suggest that Millennials are driving a shift
towards the public service sector as more and more of
them consider a career in public service. Some of them
show a preference to work for companies engaged in
the betterment of society
For business companies having millennials in their
workforce, a strong ethics and compliance program will
have a significant role in developing and maintaining
the organization’s moral culture. Millennials are chiefly
driven by a strong program to be more proactive in
their ethical conduct
Proactive training programs must be the hallmark of a
strong ethical culture Companies must focus more on
issues of ethical culture during the orientation of new
employees, which should alleviate their feeling of not
knowing much about how to behave within the culture
of their new workplace.
4. Individualism
Millennials are habitually painted as the entitled, selfie-
snapping generation They are said to be a class of self-
centered and self-absorbed 20-somethings. Some
however, defend them by explaining that millennials
just have more time to be themselves
Millennials Individualism is qualified as the self-focused
time in life. It does not necessarily mean that they are
selfish; it rather means that they have fewer social rules
and obligations, and more freedom to be self-directed.
They typically have highly individualistic traits, such as
being independent and relying on oneself They take
more time to find themselves in their 20s and want to
have that time to themselves before settling down.
“The stigma around being single has evaporated,
leaving more time for young people to explore and find
themselves.... Pew’s recent report said 25 percent of
millennials will never marry” (Raphelson, nd).
Millennials individualism nonetheless also reflects in
their moral outlook One study reveals that their
generation views morality as personal and subjective,
based on feeling, and nontransferable to others
(Fitzgerald, n.d.). In other words, for them. Morality is a
personal matter.
It is said that largely responsible for their individualism
are today’s institutions, including some churches
“Evangelicals in particular, and the mega churches their
movement spawned, are absolutely guilty of
propagating extreme individualism They ‘modernized
the gospel in such a way that gave us a “personal
savior” found only by praying a sinner’s prayer”
(Fitzgerald, nd).
Overall, Millennials are said to be more individualistic
and materialistically motivated Compared to other
generations, there seems a “decline in [Millennials
moral values that is based on a culture of rampant
narcissism. Others point to a veritable epidemic of
misplaced overconfidence that has turned Millennials
into the ‘self-esteem generation” (“Millennials,” n.d).
In describing Millennials ethics, it is however essential
to note that new technologies generate new moral
problems, and the Millennials are, to a greater degree
than any prior generation, defined by the technology in
which they are embedded. The ethical questions that
face them may be qualitatively different that those
encountered by earlier generations.
5. Conflict with Parents
Millennials are generally the children of Baby Boomers
(and older Gen Xers) There is now a common
observation that Millennials are often in conflict with
Baby Boomers. For one thing, Millennials are seen by
Baby Boomers as somewhat greedy self-absorbed, and
wasteful.
One of the supposed causes of the alleged conflict is the
difference in mentality. The Boomer life principle goes
like this: attain a good education, get a well-paying full-
time job, find a stable partner, purchase a house and a
car, and preferably have a child or children. To Baby
Boomers, failing any stage of this course is a reflection
of one’s dignity and somewhat shows a lack of moral
fiber.
As previously explained, Millennials are perceived to
have tendency for delaying some rites of passage into
adulthood and for living with their parents for long
periods of time. They are thus blamed for not living up
to Baby Boomers’ (especially their Respective parents’)
ideals. Millennials are seen as denying the lifestyles of
their Parents.
There are some generalizations about Baby Boomers
and the Millennials that are more grounded in fact. The
Pew Research Center made public opinion surveys and
demographic data which reveal some of the contrasts
between the two generations. The following are some
of the major differences between Baby Boomers and
Millennials (“Differences Between Boomers and
Millennials, nd)
a. Millennials are more progressive on social
issues. According to Pew Research, Baby Boomers
oppose gay marriage by a thin margin, whereas a solid
majority (68 percent) of millennials support this form of
marriage An equal number support the legalization of
marijuana
b. Millennials are hesitant to identify themselves
with a political party. In the US, half of millennials say
they are independents, compared to 27 percent
confessed to be Democrats and 17 percent as
Republicans. Some 70 percent approved of President
Obama when he was first elected in the highest office,
but that support has weakened to about 50 percent
c. Millennials are less wealthy Millennial
generation is the first in US history to come into
adulthood in worse economic shape than their parents.
The unemployment rate for them is higher than it was
for their parents at the same age, and they have higher
student debt.
d. Millennials are reluctant to get married. More
interestingly, when millennials get married, they are
more likely to marry someone of a different race. Back
in the 1960s, “less than 3 percent of marriages were
between people of differere races or ethnicities. Today,
it’s 15 percent. More than a quarter of Asians and
Hispanics marry outside their ethnicity, as do one out of
six African Americans and 10 percent of whites. Half of
millennials say intermarriage is a good thing for society,
compared with a third of boomers” (“Differences
Between Boomers and Millennials, nd)
e. More millennials live at home than their
parents (Baby Boomers) did at the same age. In the US,
more than a fifth (22 percent) of households presently
have two or more adult generations living under the
same roof, a level not seen since the end of World War
II.
6. Secularism and Humanism
Millennials are less openly religious than the older
generations About one in four Millennials are
unaffiliated with any religion, which is much more than
the older generations when they were the ages of
Millennials (“Millennials, n.d.). Especially in dealing with
morality, Millennials are more likely to advocate
secularism and humanism.
Secularism is basically a non-theistic belief system or a
worldview which does not acknowledge supernatural or
divine views of reality. As such, it includes atheism
agnosticism, naturalism, materialism, scientism,
Darwinism, and other ideologies that reject all spiritual
explanations of the world. (For detailed discussions and
analysis of these worldviews, you may read the
Appendix D: “Atheism, Naturalism and Materialism
Appendix E “Darwinism and Evolutionism and Appendix
P “Scientism” of this book).
Humanism is a system of thought which gives emphasis
to the value of human beings and favors man’s thought
over faith or religious doctrine. Originally, the term
refers to Renaissance cultural and intellectual
movement featuring the rediscovery of the arts and
philosophies of ancient Greeks and Romans. The word
“humanist” is derived from the olden Italian term
umonista which pertains to a teacher or scholar of
classical Greek and Latin literature.
Though humanism does not necessarily imply non-
theism, before 1800, it began to refer to beliefs
centered on humanity without attention to any
concepts of the supernatural. Especially nowadays,
humanism has become essentially synonymous with
secularism. It proposes, among others, that the universe
is a natural phenomenon without supernatural aspect,
that this earthly life is the only life we have, and in the
absence of an afterlife and any pre-determined purpose
to the universe, we can act to give meaning to our
respective lives by seeking happiness in this life and
helping others to do the same.
As an ethical perspective, humanism refers to a belief in
human-based morality Rejecting any supernatural
authority, it submits that we can live ethical and
fulfilling lives by placing human well-being, interests,
and happiness at the center of our moral decision
making
Denying supernatural and religious views as a basis of
morality and decision making, secular humanism affirms
some notions of a human nature-human experience,
human need, and human reason-as ethical foundations.
6.1. Human Experience as Moral Basis. Secular
humanism explains that moral rules are derived from
human experience. For instance, it claims that we do
not have to be religious to realize that to live in peace
and happiness, we must not assault each other.
Through experience, its adherents explain, we
understand that though we may want to assault, we do
not want to be assaulted. Even if sometimes we are
tempted to steal, yet we do not want to be stolen from.
And although at times we are enticed to kill, yet we do
not want to be murdered
From experiential knowledge, a rule like this allegedly
emerged. “Let no one do these things that we can live in
peace and realize the human good we need” Secular
humanists aver that there is every reason people have
come up with these rules without having to be told by
God that these are legitimate moral laws.
MODERN SOCIETY
6.2 Human Need and Reason. Secular humanists admit
that Ethics is conventional but it has a natural basis. For
them, its natural basis is not the so-called nature law,
nor some law written in man's heart or in Scriptures.
The natural basis of ethics, they assert, is none less than
human need and human reason
To prove this view, they point to things which we hate,
we hate to bleed, to be wounded, to be killed, and to be
stolen from. It is claimed that we make ou laws, using
our reason, by considering these things. Thus, it is
submitted the the natural basis of morality are the
universal human needs such as the need for security,
safety, love, and by extension, the need to secure our
families and teach our children to fulfill their potentials
Allegedly, the reason we have reasonable moral rules is
that we have these needs. Hence, it is claimed that we
do not need rules from God-all we need in to be human,
to have the needs we have, and to have some human
intelligence or reason.
6.3 An Analysis of Secularism and Humanism. By
removing God in the picture, secularism and humanism,
in effect, affirm that the rules of morality were just
fabricated by human beings using human nature as the
basis of this fabrication As their proponents inevitably
admit, morality is conventional having human need,
experience, and reason as natural foundations.
However, advocating this view amounts to proposing
that objective right and wrong does not exist at all.
Subscribing to secularism and humanism, it is
impossible to really condemn maltreatment, cruelty, or
corruption as morally wrong
Some courses of actions, say rape, may not be
practically beneficial, and so in the course of human
history it has been prohibited. But notice that on
secular humanist perspective, there is nothing really
wrong about it. If moral rules are nothing but mere
conventional rules or customs that people adopt over
the course of time, then a freethinker who decides to
disobey the conventional rules is not really immoral in
the true sense but is merely unconventional or
'uncultured: In fact, if a violator-for instance, a very
influential person can escape the social consequences,
then there is nothing really wrong with transgressing
'conventional rules
Also, we cannot praise brotherhood, equality, or love as
really morally good in secular humanism. At best, we
can only regard them as ‘practical or beneficial. Thus, in
secular humanist worldview, it is hard to have absolute
right and wrong that imposes itself on our
consciousness or conscience
Secular humanism cannot also account for the objective
morality sensibly established by moral realism and
objectivism. In essence, objective morality means that
moral rules are non-conventional, Moral rules are not
simply based on human convention but they relate to
necessary values that stand regardless of whether or
not anyone believes in them. If Hitler’s party had
conquered the world in the Second World War and
eliminated everybody who disagreed with its anti-
Semitism, we maintain that anti-Semitism would still be
wrong. The attempt to obliterate all the Jews is an
example of an objective wrong
In their attempt to reject God and submit human nature
as basis of morality, we may ask the secular humanists,
“If there is no God who made humans in His image,
then what’s so special about human beings?”
Humanists confirm ethical concepts such as moral
responsibility, human rights, dignity, and values. But the
question is, how did we come to be morally responsible,
rights-bearing beings? If humans were just material
beings produced by a material universe, as claimed by
non-theists, then why think we have moral obligations
and dignity?
Non-theism explains that we are products of valueless,
physical and chemical processes in a cause-and-effect
series from the big bang However, we know that from
nothing, nothing comes, and so from being valueless
comes being valueless. Thus, it’s unexplainable how we
progress from a valueless sequence of causes and
effects from the big bang onward, finally arriving at
valuable, morally accountable, dignity-bearing human
beings that we are
Correspondingly, we may also ask the non-theists, “If
nature is all there is how do we move from the way
things are (the descriptive) to the way things ought to
be (the prescriptive)?”
In the absence of God, it is so hard to think that human
beings have non material properties such as
consciousness, reasoning power, personhood, moral
sense, and values. No physical science textbook explains
moral value as one of matter’s properties. So again, we
ask, how could morally valuable and responsible beings
emerge from valueless matter?
In non-theist standpoint, mankind is essentially nothing
but just like cosmic rock lost somewhere in a
purposeless universe doomed to perish soo In this
worldview, it’s inexplicable how objective value or
goodness can be accounted for
Understandably, non-theists are typically materialists
and naturalists wh regard man as a purely animal
organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his
being, then he is not qualitatively different from other
animal species On a materialistic anthropology, there is
no reason to think that human beings are objectively
more valuable than rats. And it’s hard to imagine how
love or justice could exist in an animal world, say, during
the Jurassic period. Suppose one person kills another,
the act could never be considered unjust or immoral for
it would be just like a predatory bird seizing a fish from
the sea. Moral duties, ethical values, and objective right
and wrong simply do not exist in this philosophy.

We do not in any way discredit the role of human

experience and reason in ethics. In fact, we
acknowledge that they are necessary in determining
which course of actions is morally preferable and in
actually performing moral actions. In fact, moral
judgments must be supported by good reasons as
morality is ideally an effort to guide one’s conduct by
reasons-that is, to do what there are the best reasons
for doing. However, to suppose that hurnan reason is
never God-given and that it exists with no non-natural
property would give us no reason to trust our own
reason. As C.S. Lewis puts it

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the

universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody
designed my brain for the purpose of thinking merely
that the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or
chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain
way, this gives me, as a bye-product the sensation I call
thought. But if so, how can trust my own thinking to be
true it is like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the
way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of
London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course!
Can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and
therefore have no reason to be an atheist or anything
else. Unless believe in God, I can’t believe in though so I
can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” (Lewis,
1943, p. 32)