INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

The course is an effect of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order (CMO) No.
20, series of 2013 otherwise known as the “General Education Curriculum: Holistic Understandings,
Intellectual and Civic Competencies” is the policy cover for the revised General Education Curriculum
(GEC), which offers greater flexibility than the current curriculum. The passage of the K to 12 Law enables
such flexibility by freeing the GEC from Science, Mathematics, English, Filipino, Literature, Humanities
and Social Studies subjects that are more appropriately taught in Senior High School. In so doing, the Law
paves the way for the exposure of undergraduate students to various dimensions of knowledge and ways of
comprehending social and natural realities “that promise to develop in the process, intellectual
competencies
critical, analytical and creative thinking and multiple forms of expression—and civic capacities demanded
of members of community, country and the world”.

As a minimum prescription of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), “Ethics deals with principles
of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the person, society and interaction with the environment
and other shared resources. (CMO 20 s 2013).

Morality pertains to the standards of right and wrong that an individual originally picks up from the
community.

The course discusses the context and principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the
individual, society and the interaction with the environment and other shared resources.
The course also teaches to students to make moral decisions by using dominant moral frameworks and by
applying a seven-step moral reasoning to analyze and solve moral dilemmas.

MORAL VERSUS NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Lesson 1. Key concepts of Ethics

Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:
Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth
values (if any) can be determined, normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a
moral course of action and applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a
specific situation or a particular domain of action.
Lesson 2. Moral versus nonmoral standards
Moral experience encompasses a person's sense that values that he or she deems important are being
realised or thwarted in everyday life. This includes a person's interpretations of a lived encounter, or a set
of lived encounters, that fall on spectrums of right-wrong, good-bad or just-unjust.

The Derivation of Moral Standards

The foundations of evolving moral systems rest on a complex cybernetic process that sustains and preserves
the human species. This is a dynamic process that drives the creation of moral and ethical standards. Every
human action inspires a corresponding reaction whether subtle in nature or violent. Some people are more
emotionally reactive than others. Emotions can get out of control if not regulated by laws, customs, moral
codes, professional codes and even the rules of etiquette. Rules are a stabilizing force that enhance the
survivability of individuals, families and nations. Mathematically, the initial point* evident in human
behavior is the survival of the species. It is defined and redefined in many ways, such as a concern for
public safety. The complexity of this process cannot be understated, and it is best described by cybernetic
science. There is a considerable difference between the static term "moral standards" and the cybernetic
process that creates them. A basic understanding of this process can be conveyed through a series of
illustrations: For example, the evolution of traffic laws demonstrates the creation of standards of vehicular
conduct directly related to public safety. Public safety itself is dedicated to increasing human survival on
the highways. If an action on the highway consistently leads to unnecessary pain, suffering and death, it is
an action discouraged by new rules and regulations designed to prohibit it. Thus, by the destructive
consequences of human actions, the notion of "right" and "wrong" evolves. The standards of vehicle codes
integrate seamlessly into cultural morality as illustrated by the example of consuming alcohol while driving
an automobile. Here, the standards of behavior are statistical in nature. The probability that any outcome
will occur is ranked from the first standard deviation to the fourth. Some of the facts surrounding alcohol
abuse go back thousands of years. Alcohol has long been known to have a profound affect on human
thinking. The destructive tendencies alcohol motivates is compounded in multiples if you add the
simultaneous emotions that, for example, come from the breakup of a romantic relationship—or stress from
the workplace. Put job and family problems together with a fifth of 100-proof alcohol and a fast car traveling
10 miles across crowded city streets, and you have the formula for a very likely accident. This destructive
behavior conflicts with a fundamental value—self-preservation—and the preservation of others in society.
So in time, rules evolve to restrict drinking and driving. Every time there is a tragedy produced by alcohol
abuse, it reinforces and perpetuates a long history of the moral sentiments and laws relating to the use of
alcohol. There is larger dimension to the creation of laws prohibiting drinking and driving: There are
economic considerations that drive the creation and implementation of new laws based on survival.
Economics is a primary force in human cultures; it is a powerful expression of the will to survive.
Economics sometimes overrides ethical concerns because the survival as a person, nation or world demands
it. If a society allows intoxicated people to drive on the highways, there is a statistical certainty many
unnecessary deaths will occur. Property will also be destroyed, the flow of goods and services will be
interrupted and the healthy spirits of people will be damaged. All of these factors, if allowed to go
unchecked, will affect the health and efficiency of an economy. Maximizing economic health requires the
evolution of behavioral standards that avoid pain, suffering and death and embrace the values of peace,
prosperity and productivity. There must be an uninterrupted flow of goods and services and minimal
accidents and dislocations sufficient to evoke a societal spirit and willingness to work hard. That is how, in
theory, a particular economic or social system survives when others have failed.
(end)

Especially in everyday language, the distinction between the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ is not always
clear. Even in some philosophical texts both are used synonymously, while others seem to draw a clear
distinction between them. Historically, the term ‘ethics’ comes from Greek ethos which means the customs,
habits and mores of people. ‘Morality’ is derived from Latin mos, moris which denotes basically the same;
it was introduced by Cicero as an equivalent to the Greek ethos.

For the sake of clarity we assume as a standard definition that morality means the customs, the special do-
s and don't-s that are shared and widely accepted as standard in a society or community of people —
accepted as a basis of life that doesn't have to be rationally questioned. Ethics on the other hand is the
philosophical reflection upon these rules and ways of living together, the customs and habits of individuals,
groups or mankind as such. This comes close to the conception of Aristotle.

In ancient Greek philosophy the question was to find how to act well and rightly and what
personal/individual qualities are necessary to be able to do this. Ethics therefore encompasses the whole
range of human action including personal preconditions. This is still true today, but for e.g. Aristotle ethics
focused mainly on the pursuit of the ‘good (life)’, the eudaimonia.

The aim was to identify and to practically realise ‘the (highest) good’ in life — which means that you have
to evaluate what is ‘good’ as regards content: what life is a good life and what is not?
As opinions concerning the question what makes a good life differed more and more in modern times, ethics
had and has to face the question how the resulting conflicts of interests and values could be solved
peacefully and justly without taking the part of one side or the other. And this leads to the question of what
is morally right; moral rightness and ‘good life’ become separate issues. Whereas questions of ‘good life’
are tied to an evaluation of what is good and are answered in the form of recommendations how to achieve
that goal, norms or principles of moral rightness generate imperatives.

Today it is common to separate ethics into three sub-branches:

• descriptive ethics
• metaethics
• normative ethics

Descriptive ethics aims at empirically and precisely mapping existing morality or moralities within
communities and is therefore linked to the social sciences. Another aim is to explain the development of
existing moralities from a historical perspective. No normative prescriptions are intended.
Metaethics is a relatively new discipline in the ethical arena and its definition is the most blurred of all.
The Greek meta means after or beyond and indicates that the object of metaethical studies is morality and
ethics itself. The aim is to better understand the logical, semantic and pragmatic structures of moral and
ethical argumentation as such, their origin and meaning. Other fields of inquiry are e.g. whether morality
exists independently of humans, and the underlying mental basis of human judgments and conduct.

Normative ethics means the methodological reflection upon morality tackling its critique and its rationale.
Norms and standards for acting and conduct are being set up or tore down, and argued for or against. When
“ethics” is talked about in a common sense then we are talking about this general normative ethics. When
inquiry is directed towards the principles of moral judgement or the criteria for the ethical analysis of
morality, then we talk about fundamental ethics.
Finally in the realm of normative ethics, there is applied ethics. Here normative theories are applied to
specific, controversial moral issues like animal rights, abortion, euthanasia etc. − generating the classic so
called hyphen-ethics, e.g. bio-ethics, medical ethics, business-ethics, nano-ethics etc. Inversely, these
special issues constantly challenge theory and demand improvements, changes and specifications.

Alongside hyphen-ethics it is also possible to distinguish between ethics that focuses on societal and
institutional dimensions (social ethics) or on the individuum (individual ethics). While we consider applied
ethics to be a sub-branch of normative ethics, other moral philosophers treat it as a discipline on the same
level as normative ethics, arguing that it uses normative elements but is independent otherwise.
In normative ethics there are different theories as to how criteria of moral conduct should be defined.
The three main theories can be sketched as follows:
Deontological, i.e. duty theories locate the basis of morality on specific, foundational principles of duty
and obligation. These principles are binding regardless of the consequences that acting on their basis might
bring.
Consequentialist theories on the other hand determine the value of an action on the grounds of a cost-
benefit analysis of its consequences. If the positive consequences outweigh the negative ones then the action
is morally proper.
Virtue theories focus on a given set of rules like “do not steal” etc. But instead of defining them merely as
obligatory duties, the emphasis lies on the individual to develop good habits of character based on these
rules (and avoid vices). Thus virtue theory emphasises moral education.

Q: What are “codes of ethics/conduct” or what is “ethical research”? Shouldn‘t that be called moral?
A: By calling research or a code “ethical”, the authors want to point out that the moral rules they set up are
based on rational deliberation and can be subject to critique.

Q: Looking at the definitions of ethics and morality − what is moral philosophy?

A: It is mostly used as a synonym for ethics. Some, like the French philosopher Jean-Pierre Dupuy use it
differently. For him ‘ethics’ stands for the effort to force everything into universal harmonized principles
while ‘moral philosophy’ endures colliding or incompatible values or concepts in the discourse.

MORAL EXPERIENCES

A moral dilemma is a conflict of morals, where you are forced to choose between two or more options and
you have a moral reason to choose and not choose each option. No matter what choice you make in these
situations, you always end up compromising some moral value.
What are Moral Dilemmas?
A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options,
neither of which is acceptable.
The person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor
faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and
loggers for economic development in the town. It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult
situation but is not forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or moral
dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics, are forced
to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally
acceptable manner.

Consider the following example: Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans
absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well
known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the
fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this
happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Lindsay continues with
her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the best way to save
Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus,
then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die. In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with
two conflicting options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time
jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus.
Indeed, Lindsay is faced with a huge moral dilemma.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be considered
moral dilemmas.
First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action
is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case of the example
of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action.
Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already pointed out above, there
must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for moral dilemmas to occur.
And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised. This
means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according
to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which
implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which
she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails
on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas

1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas:
Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each
other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence
over the other. In other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or wrong.
Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand, involve situations wherein two or more moral
requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements overrides each
other. This is not to say that the moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the
other. The point is that neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent
can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements.

2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas:

A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example, a political
candidate's promise during election
A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand, means that certain events in the world place the agent
in a situation of moral conflict. For example, the WW II Holocaust.

3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas:

Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory.
Prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden.

4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas:

In single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all things considered, to
do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more
equally the same moral options but she cannot choose both. For example, the prisoner dilemma in the
movie, Dark Knight.
In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A. A
second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both
for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as
agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses A instead
of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma
occurs in situations that involve several persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is
expected to come up with consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. The multi-person dilemma requires
more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In
such a manner, the moral obligation to do what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the
integrity of the decision ought to be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also
prevent the organization from breaking apart”.

CULTURE IN MORAL BEHAVIOR

This module is concerned with developing your understanding of Ethics on the aspect of the moral agent.
The discussion, description and explanation in this module hope to equip you with ideas on the role of
culture in developing your moral character. As man belongs to home and communities, social relationships
are build that create ways of life. In one way or the other, people living together influence each towards
creating beliefs, practices and character which to them are necessary for their lives together.
This module will be divided into the following lessons namely:
Lesson 1. The Moral Agent
Lesson 2. Culture and Moral Development
Lesson 3 Cultural relativism
Lesson 4. The Filipino Axiological Morality
The main difference between morality and culture is that while morality is necessarily universal in its
outlook and concerns, every particular culture, as a way of life of a group of people, is inevitably relative
and limited to that particular group or people. Moral rules are different from all other types of rules.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for
his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions.
Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents.
Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme situations, like being held
hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others. Our
understanding of a human person as a moral agent points to the fact that man is by nature a rational being.
In as much as the human person is a rational being, his rationality makes him free and
therefore responsible for his activity because his action is his own. Hence, the moral quality of any human
activity depends on the human person himself.

Human act vs Act of Man

In essence it is agreed that a human act is an act on which an individual can make a conscious
decision whether or not to carry out that act. An act of man is the natural act of vegetative and sense
faculties such as digestion, the beating of the heart, growing, bodily reactions and visual or auditory
perceptions.

The intellect (rationality) also plays a role in approving human acts. The intellect guides a person to do acts
that are either considered morally good or morally bad. Things that are morally good are associated closer
to religion, while things that are morally bad are not. Standards that determine what is good or bad vary
based on culture and upbringing.
A human act becomes good or bad depending on what the moral agent makes of it. In this regard, we have
to understand first the nature of human person in order to fully understand his being a moral agent.

What is Cultural Relativism?

What is “right” and “wrong” depends upon a society’s actual moral guidelines. These guidelines vary from
place to place and from time to time. A particular action may be right in one society at one time and wrong
in other society or at another time.

Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all
equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no
ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society.
Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately,
this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral
or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.”
The Cultural Differences Argument (Rachels: Elements, 18-20)
Different societies have different moral codes.
There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
There is no "universal truth" in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.
The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a
society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of
tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.

WHAT IS THE FILIPINO WAY?

The Filipino sense of good and bad is a value-based ethics (axiological ethics). There are three main traits
underlying Filipino values and value-orientation:
1. personalism,
2. familialism, and
3. particularism (popularism).
These strongly influence Filipino behaviour and decision making, and are the basis of his personal beliefs,
and cultural traditions and practices. They are the basis for acceptable behaviour.

FILIPINO CHARACTER TRAITS:

Personalism is the emphasis Filipinos give to interpersonal relations or face-to-face encounters. Successful
leadership or being a good manager necessitates a personal touch, and problem-solving is effective if
handled through good personal relations.

Familialism emphasises the welfare and interest of the family over those of the community. The family is
the basis of group action and almost all community activity centers on the family. The family, and not the
individual, decides on important matters, and these are decided on the basis of family, not individual
interest. The family honour, and not that of the individual, is at stake when a family member makes a
mistake.

Particularism results from the strong family influence on individual and group behaviour. Individuals
strive to promote their own and their family’s interests over community interests. Being popular among
peer groups is highly desirable, hence Filipinos make special efforts to entertain friends and relatives.
Knowing how to entertain people (marunong umasikaso ng kapwa) is important. Conformity to proper
codes of conduct reaps the rewards of cooperation and assistance; non-conformity is punished by
withdrawal of support.

Flaws of Filipino Morality:

• The exclusivist, or the tribal, undertone of the socially harmonizing tendency of the Filipino, which
makes it fragile and even poorly functional when brought outside the parameters of the originally
kin-based community
• Its short term and imperfect consequentialism makes it difficult for the Filipino to see that the
authentically good actions are those actions that immediately and mediately preclude evil effects
on him and on his community
The trails toward moral progress in Filipino morality is through rectifications of these shortcomings
• To have an inclusivist and meta-tribal harmony and a rigorous consequential morality
• Reconstruction of the objective criteria of morality

MORAL CHARACTER

Etymologically, the term "character" comes from the ancient Greek term charaktêr, which initially referred
to the mark impressed upon a coin. The term charaktêr later came to refer more generally to any distinctive
feature by which one thing is distinguished from others. Along this general line, in contemporary usage
character often refers to a set of qualities or characteristics that can be used to differentiate between persons.
It is used this way, for example, commonly in literature.
In philosophy, however, the term character is typically used to refer to the particularly moral dimension of
a person. For example, Aristotle most often used the term ēthē for character, which is etymologically linked
to "ethics" and "morality" (via the Latin equivalent mores).

Process Questions:
What is moral character? How is it developed?
What is the relationship between individual act and character?

Why do we need to study Kohlberg's theory?

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment - 'I do it so I don't get in trouble.'

Especially common in young children, but adults are capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this
stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute.

- Obeys rules in order to avoid punishment.

- Determines a sense of right and wrong by what is punished and what is not punished.
- Obeys superior authority and allows that authority to make the rules, especially if that authority has
the power to inflict pain.
- Is responsive to rules that will affect his/her physical well-being.

Stage 2 – Naively egotistical - 'I do it so I can get something out of it.'

At this stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based
on how they serve individual needs.

- Reciprocity is possible, but only if it serves one's own interests.

- Is motivated by vengeance or “an eye for an eye” philosophy.
- Is self-absorbed while assuming that he/she is generous.
- Believes in equal sharing in that everyone gets the same, regardless of need.
- Believes that the end justifies the means.
- Will do a favor only to get a favor.
- Expects to be rewarded for every non-selfish deed he/she does.

Stage 3 - "Good boy-good girl" orientation, 'I do it so you like me.'

This stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an
emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.

- Finds peer approval very important.

 - Feels that intensions are as important as deeds and expects others to accept intentions or promises
in place of deeds
- Begins to put himself/herself in another’s shoes and think from another perspective

Stage 4 – Law and Social Order -'I do it because it is the law.'

At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments.
The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.
- Is a duty doer who believes in rigid rules that should not be change
- Respects authority and obeys it without question
- Supports the rights of the majority without concern for those in the minority
- Is part of about 80% of the population that does not progress past stage 4

Stage 5 - Legalistic Social Contract - 'I do it because of a social contract we have with each other.'
At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules
of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these
standards.
- Is motivated by the belief in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people
- Believes in consensus (everyone agrees), rather than in majority rule
- Respects the rights of the minority especially the rights of the individual
- Believes that change in the law is possible but only through the system

Stage 6 – Universal ethical Principles - 'I do it because it is the right thing to do.'
Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning.
At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
- Believes that there are high moral principles than those represented by social rules and customs
- Is willing to accept the consequences for disobedience of the social rule he/she has rejected
- Believes that the dignity of humanity is sacred and that all humans have value

3 CHARACTER TRAITS TO BE AVOIDED BY THE MORALLY SERIOUS PERSON:

- Vice VS. Virtue

- Moral weakness VS. Moral strength
- Brutishness VS. Some form of Divinity

• Morally Weak- knows the good but does what is wrong

 • Morally good person- knows the good and masters their desires accordingly

Excessive and Idiosyncratic Desire:

• Morally Strong: knows the good, masters desire, does what is good
• Morally Weak: knows the good, gives in, does what is wrong

Idiosyncrasy: A mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual. An unusual feature of a

person. It could also mean an odd habit of a person.

Ideosyncratic Desire: The lust for power and superiority, poisons the heart more than any other.

Moral Weakness: the cause of moral decline of our current situation

Causes of Moral Weakness:

- Overpowering of reason by desire among the young who lack habituation in virtue
- Effeminacy or softness characteristic of women and womanly men
- Theoretical thinking or philosophy

Moral strength and moral weakness are like virtue and vice:

- Qualities to be sought
- Qualities to be avoided
- Virtue – activity of the soul in accordance with reason that determines the mean between excess
and deficiency
- Virtue – an internal motion of the soul that culminates in external action of the body

Virtue of Courage

- Soul disposed to suppress/ignore the feelings of fear = suffers from deficiency of fear
- Soul disposed to give in to fear = suffers from excess of feeling of fear = cowardice
- If guided by reason to the mean = disposed not to feel too much or too little fear = courage

Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by
doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.
 —Aristotle

Self-Control – Temperance is a mean with regard to pleasures (Aristotle)

Virtue of Self-Control
- Mean with regard to the desire for pleasure
- On bodily pleasures of taste and touch
- Act on excess of desire = vice: self-indulgence
- Act on deficiency = vice: insensitivity

Self-Control
- A Mean with regard to universal or natural physical pleasure
- But an extreme with regard to idiosyncratic pleasures
- Self-controlled persons neither desires nor enjoys them
- Self-indulgence is an excessive desire for and indulgence in both pleasures (U and I)

Moral Strong person

- Morally strong person has excessive and idiosyncratic desires for physical pleasures, but resists
and then masters them
- He know that they are ‘wrong’ or that indulgence in them is vice
- Desires go beyond the mean but reason does not
 Moral Strength

Moral Strength is not a virtue, it is Inferior to self-control.

Moral Weakness:
• Seems a condition between moral strength and self-indulgence
• Like MS, MW know their desires are wrong
• Like SI. MW give them free reign
• Is moral weakness a possible condition

Aristotle “agrees” with Socrates

Socrates: Vice/Improper behavior as result of ignorance
Knowledge is Virtue

Causes of Moral Weakness:

- Overpowering of reason by desire among the young who lack habituation in virtue
- Effeminacy or softness characteristic of women and womanly men
- Theoretical thinking or philosophy

Overpowering of reason by desire

 - Among the young, lack habituation in virtue They repeat the formula, but don’t yet feel
- To retain knowledge in the grip of passions, the subject must grow to be part of them
- Take moral knowledge into our soul, let it become part of our character=Internalization process

MORAL REASONING AND MORAL COURAGE

Lesson 1. Reason and impartiality

Rachels proposes a ‘minimum conception’ of morally reasonable act: a core that every moral theory
should accept, at least as a starting point.
Lesson 2. Seven point model for moral reasoning
There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it means to live morally,
and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’ simple formulation (“how we ought to live”) is bound to
offend at least one of them.
Scott Rae’s model for moral reasoning presents a 7-step approach to moral analyses and evaluation. It is
oriented towards virtues and principles with consideration of consequences as a supporting role.

LET US BEGIN THIS LESSON WITH THE GUIDE QUESTIONS BELOW:

What is reason? What makes an act morally reasonable?
What is impartiality? What makes an act morally impartial?

THE DISCUSSION:
Ethical deliberation requires at least two things:
• Rationality - moral judgments should be supported by good reasons (arguments).
• Impartiality - the interests and rights of all involved should be considered.

Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons.

• Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.
• We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they might be.
• Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural
conditioning.
• Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason.
• The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments.
• We need to separate factual issues from conceptual and value issues.
 For instance, in discussing abortion there are relevant issues concerning the gestation of
the fetus (factual issues), the notion of what makes up a person (conceptual issue) and whether or
not it is morally permissible to kill an innocent person (value issue).

The Requirement of Impartiality

Each individual’s interests are equally important, and no one should get special treatment.
If there is no good reason for treating people differently, then discrimination is unacceptably arbitrary.

The Minimum Conception of Morality

Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the
best reasons for doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s
decision.

TO SUM IT UP, THE FOLLOWING WILL SERVE AS YOUR GUIDE IN UNDERSTANDING THE
DIFFERENT MORAL PROBLEMS/ DILEMMAS:
There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it means to live morally, and
any definition that goes beyond Socrates’ simple formulation (“how we ought to live”) is bound to offend
at least one of them. Rachels proposes a ‘minimum conception’ of morally reasonable act: a core that every
moral theory should accept, at least as a starting point.

First Example: Baby Theresa

Theresa was born with anencephaly, a genetic disorder in which the newborn lacks a major part of the brain.
Most with this defect are born stillborn or die within the first few weeks.
The parents of Theresa wanted to donate her organs to help other children who needed organ transplants.
However, to do this they could not wait until Theresa’s heart stopped beating because if they did the organs
would deteriorate and would not be any help to other children.
Should Theresa’s life be sacrificed to help other children?

Second Example: Jodie and Mary

Conjoined twins, joined at the lower abdomen; spines fused; one heart and one pair of lungs between them.
The twins are Ischiophagus which when separated up is the Greek for 'fixed' and 'pelvis'
Without an operation to separate them, both twins would die within six months.
If separated, this would save Jodie, but Mary would die.
The parents were very Catholic and believed they should not interfere; they should allow God's design to
take its course.
The hospitals and the doctors believed the twins should be separated so that at least Jodie could survive.
Should the twins be separated?

Third Example: Tracy Latimer

12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy
Tracy weighed less than 40 lbs. and was described as “functioning at the mental level of a three month-old
baby.”
Killed by her father with exhaust fumes (euthanasia) while the rest of the family were at church.
Robert Latimer was sentenced to only one year in prison and later raised it to the mandatory 10 years in
prison.
Did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong? Wasn’t killing her an act of mercy?

SCOTT RAE’S SEVEN STEP TO MORAL REASONING MODEL

Scott Rae’s model for moral reasoning presents a Seven Step Approach to moral analyses and evaluation.
It is oriented towards virtues and principles with consideration of consequences as a supporting role (Rae
2018). This model is free from cultural, ethnic and religious background and biases, though it is
consistent/uses biblical principles.

The 7-step model is as follows:

1. Gather the facts
2. Determine the social issues
3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case
4. List the alternatives
5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues / principles
6. Consider the consequences
7. Make a decision
1. Gather the facts
The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. Ask: Do you have the
facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What do we know? What do we need to know? In this
light it might become clear that the dilemma is not ethical but about communication or strategy.

2. Determine the ethical issues

Ethical interests are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods. The competing interests are
what creates the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support the competing interests in order for an
ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical
dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and with passion because of the value / virtue beneath
them

3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case

In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are central to the competing positions. Identify these.
Determine if some should be given more weight than others. Ask what the source for the principle is -
constitution, culture, natural law, religious tradition.

4. List the alternatives

Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be
discarded but generally the more you list the greater potential for coming up with a really good one. It will
also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas.

5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues / principles

This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which have a bearing on the
case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives except one are eliminated. Here you must
satisfy all the relevant virtues and values - so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if
you still have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weight principles and virtues - make sure you have
a good reason for each weighting.

6. Consider the consequences

If principles have not yielded a clear decision consider the consequences of your alternatives. Take the
alternatives and work out the positive and negative consequences of each. Estimate how beneficial each
positive and negative consequence is - some might have greater weight than others.

7. Make a decision
Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it might be you have to choose the solution with the least
number of problems / painful consequences. Even when making a “good” decision you might still lose
sleep over it!