Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lesson Abstract
Lesson Abstract
Name Plate
College of Education
Name/s:
Baracina, Joshue L.
Boncayao, Ryan T.
Prestado, Kareen T.
Tud, Abanie
S/T/R/D:
Contemporary World
Topics:
Instructor:
At the end of this lesson, the learners should acquire the following:
For better comprehension of the concepts or terms connected in this study, the
following terms are highlighted conceptually and operationally.
Life has no specific value to us, other than as the way we can have
experiences, and these experiences are what we find to be valuable. Humans
do not put the value of life into the physical state of mere aliveness, but give it
value through its ability to allow for experiences. Life, as a set of experiences
that are good, is what has value, and our capacity to have them is the intrinsic
value of life. (Burnham)
The ability to experience gives life its inherent meaning, which is not
reducible to the physical, yet the physical has the possibility for these
experiences. Because the options here are unlimited, it would be incorrect and
discriminatory to try to confine physical capability as any criterion, or even
anticipate how experiences can flow from it. When the physical sense is linked
to the concept of life quality, it disregards what has been discovered to be
useful in experience.
When we value our life, it guides our core values in life such our
behavior, attitude, goals and even your aspirations in life. Doing so, it also
appears that we must weigh our decision in life if it will result in goodness or
rightness. Humans tends to be very impulsive and when they decide they did
not think first if it will bring goodness to someone, or if it is inclined to
rightness. Rightness follows from goodness. One person's pleasure is not good
as another. An action is morally right when it brings us happiness and when it
has certain good effects to us. Right actions are right when we achieve
something that is good. Kant says that the virtues evenness of temper, patience
can be turned evil if they are used for evil.
Most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of
talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that
are created when goods and services are scarce, and people differ over who
should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles
of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for
determining what people deserve. How do we determine what people
deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what
is due to this or that person? The most fundamental principle of justice—one
that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than
two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated
equally and unequally.” In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes
expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they
differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved.”
Truth and honesty are a basic human value that human can provide to
someone, in this world we always seek for validation if it is the truth because
when something is factual and has an integrity, people can go along with you
easily without any hidden agenda. Human can be untruthful and dishonest, but
it is a matter of choice because honesty is the foundation of having trust in a
relationship without which there might be a lot of arguments, and when there
is honesty in a specific relationship the truth will follow to function and thrive.
It is very simple, when you are honest with someone, they can trust you
because you are committed, and you are upholding your values.
Freedom is also a basic human right; we all have freedom but with
limitations under the law, it should not be taken for granted that it ignores its
fragility. Humans has a variety of freedom, this includes the religious freedom,
political freedom, external freedom, internal freedom, collective freedom, and
many others. Freedom allows us to exercise our thoughts and opinion in the
society. Remember that there is no Absolute freedom, all freedom requires
compromise between the rights of the individual and the goals and obligations
of the state. As a result, there are many laws, regulations, and judicial
pronouncements regarding the ideals of freedom and the details of how it is to
be practiced.
According to the Respect for Life Principle all living things have a
moral status and on account of that should not be killed or harmed without
good reason. But, of course, human moral agents kill and harm other living
beings all the time. Should we feel guilty about this? What constitutes a "good
reason" for killing, or harming, or otherwise failing to protect something that
is alive?
For Warren, the Respect for Life Principle, "imputes no wrongdoing
to those who harm living things when there are morally sound reasons for
doing so," but the principle alone "does not explain what counts as a
sufficiently good reason for harming a living thing". But what counts as "good
reason" is a function, at least in part, of that thing's moral status. It is also a
function of the moral status of the things that are doing the harming and their
reasons for acting as they do.
According to William Meacham (2011) a way to determine which one
(Goodness or Rightness) is right. To do that we have to determine the rules by
which to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. But there is
profound disagreement among philosophers and across cultures about what the
rules are. Moral rules are not publicly observable, and there is no easy way to
come to agreement about them. Observe what makes us healthy and what
makes us sick, what makes us happy and what makes us unhappy, and what
leads to be flourishing.
Charles Larmore (2022) Stated that Right’ and ‘Good’ are the two
basic terms of moral evaluation. In general, something is ‘right’ if it is morally
obligatory, whereas it is morally ‘good’ if it is worth having or doing and
enhances the life of those who possess it. Acts are often held to be morally
right or wrong in respect of the action performed, but morally good or bad in
virtue of their motive: it is right to help a person in distress, but good to do so
from a sense of duty or sympathy, since no one can supposedly be obliged to
do something (such as acting with a certain motive) which cannot be done at
will.
Source: Dreamstime.com
and
cartoonistsatish.blogspot.com
These pictures portray how humans acquired with different pathways to have a
moral philosophy and a foundation of ethical system in the society. The variety of principles
is one way of leading a person to have a quality of life and moral standards. Why do we need
ethics in the society? Mainly, because ethics is our guidelines, it is our character that truly
define who we are. Our values correspond to our personality and to society. That is why
being truthful, righteousness, and honest is our greatest virtue or values. These are norms of
behavior that everyone should follow. Our society might fall into chaos if we accept that each
of us could pick and choose what the right thing to do is. Some people may lie; others may
not do what they say they will do; still others act irresponsibly and engage in harmful
behavior. There is nothing wrong with pursuing one’s own interests. However, an ethical
person must be willing – at least sometimes – to place the interests of others ahead of self-
interest, because of our responsibility to a civil society. This is the moral point of view. We
could all achieve freedom, our desire but with limitation, because if we use our rights that
destroyed someone’s life it is not freedom, it is already an abused freedom.
VII. Conclusion
Human’s has a diverse principles to live on in order to live in a society
morally.
VIII. Recommendation
IX. Bibliography
Meacham, 2011, Ph. D. The Good and The Right,
https://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html
Larmore, 2022, Right and Good, Informa UK Limited, an Informa Group
Company, Routle Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/right-and-good/v-1
DeRenzo, E.G. & Moss, J. (2006). Pg.20, Writing Clinical Research Protocols:
Ethical Considerations. New York: Academic Press.
https://books.google.com.na/books?id=9X-
YPkWvwokC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Barnett, R., 1998, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.–, 2004, “The Moral Foundations of Modern
Libertarianism,” in P. Berkowitz (ed.), Varieties of Conservatism in America,
Stanford: Hoover Press, pp. 51–74.
Locke, J., 1690 [1988], Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (ed.),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brennan, J., 2012, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.–––, 2016, Against Democracy, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
ŞENER, M. B. (2021). A Review of the Meaning and Importance of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 15-
25.
Keown, J. (2018). The Value of Human Life. In Euthanasia, Ethics and Public
Policy: An Argument against Legalisation (Cambridge Bioethics and Law, pp. 37-
49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.