WEEK 0 - 1: INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

What is Ethics?
● Also called moral philosophy
● The discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
● Any system or code of moral rules, principles, or values (religions, cultures, professions,
or virtually any other group that is at least partly characterized by its moral outlook.)
● Consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns
include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be
judged right or wrong.

Ethics and Morality

● Traditionally, ethics referred to the philosophical study of morality, the latter being a more
or less systematic set of beliefs, usually held in common by a group, about how people
should live.
● Later the term was applied to particular (and narrower) moral codes or value systems.
● Ethics and morality are now used almost interchangeably in many contexts, but the
name of the philosophical study remains ethics.

Origin of Ethics
● Accordingly, ethics began with the introduction of the first moral codes.
Examples:
1. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing
the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi (died c. 1750
BCE), known as the Code of Hammurabi.
2. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) account of God’s giving the Ten
Commandments to Moses (flourished 14th–13th century BCE) on Mount Sinai
might be considered another example.
3. In the dialogue Protagoras by Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), there is an
avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who
were physically no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies,
Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that
they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another.
● Because, for obvious reasons, there is no historical record of a human society in the
period before it had any standards of right and wrong, history cannot reveal the origins of
morality. Nor is anthropology of any help, because all the human societies that have
been studied so far had their own forms of morality (except perhaps in the most extreme
circumstances).
● There is no historical record pero merong naging mode of inquiry. And ito yung pagtingin
sa characteristics nung human with animals including yung mga apes. Here, then, in the
 social behavior of nonhuman animals and in the theory of evolution that explains such
behavior may be found the origins of human morality.

Branches of Ethics

● Meta-Ethics (Ethics about Ethics)

- Deals with the definition of right and wrong.
- Meta means about the thing itself.
● Prescriptive Ethics (Normative Ethics)
- Deals with people's beliefs about morality.
- Deals with what society thinks as good or bad.
- It is an empirical investigation of the moral beliefs of various groups.
● Descriptive Ethics (Comparative Ethics)
- Checks if the action/outcome of an action fits into the definition of right or wrong.
- Sub-branches:
1. Deontological Ethics
2. Teleological Ethics
3. Virtue Ethics
● Applied Ethics
- Deals with ethical questions specific to practical fields.
- Includes bio ethics, legal ethics, business ethics, medical ethics etc.

Importance of Ethics
● It is part of how many groups define themselves and thus part of the identity of their
individual members
● Other-regarding values in most ethical systems both reflect and foster close human
relationships and mutual respect and trust
● It could be “rational” for a self-interested person to be moral, because his or her
self-interest is arguably best served in the long run by reciprocating the moral behavior
of others.
● Satisfying Basic Human Needs
Being fair, honest and ethical is one the basic human needs. Every employee
desires to be such himself and to work for an organization that is fair and ethical in its
practices.
● Creating Credibility
An organization that is believed to be driven by moral values is respected in the
society even by those who may have no information about the working and the
businesses or an organization. Infosys, for example, is perceived as an organization for
good corporate governance and social responsibility initiatives. This perception is held
far and wide even by those who do not even know what business the organization is
into.
● Uniting People and Leadership
 An organization driven by values is revered by its employees also. They are the
common thread that brings the employees and the decision makers on a common
platform. This goes a long way in aligning behaviors within the organization towards
achievement of one common goal or mission.
● Improving Decision Making
A man’s destiny is the sum total of all the decisions that he/she takes in the
course of his life. The same holds true for organizations. Decisions are driven by values.
For example an organization that does not value competition will be fierce in its
operations aiming to wipe out its competitors and establish a monopoly in the market.
● Long Term Gains
Organizations guided by ethics and values are profitable in the long run, though
in the short run they may seem to lose money. Tata group, one of the largest business
conglomerates in India was seen on the verge of decline at the beginning of 1990’s,
which soon turned out to be otherwise. The same company’s Tata NANO car was
predicted as a failure, and failed to do well but the same is picking up fast now.
● Securing the Society
Often ethics succeeds law in safeguarding the society. The law machinery is
often found acting as a mute spectator, unable to save the society and the environment.
Technology, for example, is growing at such a fast pace that by the time law comes up
with a regulation we have a newer technology with new threats replacing the older one.
Lawyers and public interest litigations may not help a great deal but ethics can.
Characteristics of Good, Bad, Right, Wrong, Happiness, or Pleasure

● Hedonism
- Pleasures to pain
- Achievement of happiness is the necessity of taking the long-range rather than
the short-range view; some pain to attain happiness.
● Good
- context of human experience and relationships
- bringing satisfaction is necessarily good.
● Excellence
- William Frankena
- Good involves some kind of degree of excellence; makes experiences better than
they otherwise be.
● Harmony and Creativity
- If action is creative or can aid in becoming creative and bring harmonious
integration to humans, then it’s the right action whatever a decision concerning
behavior, the moral decision will be the one leaning to the creation of trust,
confidence, and integrity in relationships.
● Amoral
- ‘no moral sense’ or indifferent to right and wrong
- Tend to be found among criminal types who can’t seem to realize they’ve done
nothing wrong; no remorse, regret, or concern
● Nonmoral
- ‘out of the realm of morality altogether’ (e.g., inanimate objects are neither moral
or immoral; person using gun may use it immorally, but the things are nonmoral)
● Summary
- The immoral person knowingly violates human moral standards by doing
something wrong or by being bad. The amoral person may also violate moral
standards because he or she has no moral sense. Something that is nonmoral
can neither be good nor bad nor do anything right or wrong simply because it
does not fall within the scope of morality.
Approaches to the Study of Morality.
● Two major approaches to the study of morality
1. Scientific (descriptive)
- Used on social sciences
- Deals with human behavior and conduct;
- Empirical
- Collects data on behavior, conduct, and draws conclusions. However, no
value judgements as what’s morally right or wrong nor prescribe how to
behave.
2. Philosophical
a. Normative (prescriptive) ethics.
- Deals with norms and standards.
- Prescribing how they behave and make moral value judgements.
b. Metaethics (analytic) ethics.
- focuses on reasoning, logical structures, and language rather than
on content.
- Analytic in two ways:
1. Analyze ethical language
2. Analyze rational foundations of ethical systems.

Synthesis Approach
● A complete study of ethics demands the use of descriptive, normative, and metaethical
approaches
● Ethicists draw on any and all data and on valid results of experiments on social sciences.

Morality and Its Applications

● Important distinctions and to arrive at a basic working definition of morality
1. Ethics and Aesthetics
a. Ethics
- The study of morality; good, bad, right, or wrong in a moral sense.
b. Aesthetics
- Study of values in art or beauty; good, bad, right, or wrong in art
and the beautiful and non beautiful in our lives.
2. Good, Bad, Right, and Wrong Used in a Nonmoral Sense
- We often use these value terms in neither an aesthetic nor a moral sense.
- Something is good because it can be used to fulfill some kind of function.
- Aristotle (384–322) argued that being moral has to do with the function of
a human being and that in developing his argument he moved from the
nonmoral to the moral uses of good and bad; good or bad if functioning
great or poorly
 3. Moral and Manners, or Etiquette
- Manners or Etiquette, another area of human behavior closely allied with
ethics and morals.
- actions acted by someone
- there is no connection between manners and morals, only that there is no
necessary connection between them.

To whom or what does Morality apply?

● Religious Morality
- Human beings in relationship to supernatural beings
● Morality and Nature
- Human beings in relationship to nature
● Individual Morality
- Refers to individuals in relation to themselves and an individual code of morality
that may/ may not be sanctioned by any society or religion.
- Allows ‘higher morality’
● Social Morality
- Human being in relation to other human beings
- Found in more ethical systems.
a. Ethical egoism
➢ Everyone ought to act in his own self-interest.
b. Utilitarianism
➢ Emphasizes the good of “all concerned” and therefore obviously is
dealing with the social aspect.

Who is Morally or Ethically responsible?

● Only human beings can be moral or immoral, and therefore only human beings should
be held morally responsible for their actions and behavior.

Where does Morality come from?

● Values as Totally Objective

- Come from supernatural beings
- Embedded within nature itself
- The world and objects have value.
a. Supernatural Theory
- Values come from some higher power or supernatural being.
 - These beings embody the highest good and they reveal to human
what is good and bad.
b. Natural Law Theory
- Morality somehow is embodied in nature and there are ‘natural
laws’.
● Values as Totally Subjective
- Morality stems strictly from within human beings
- If there are no human beings,then there can be no values.
- Criticisms of the Supernatural Theory
a. There is no conclusive proof of the existence of a supernatural being,
beings, or principle.
b. There are a great number of highly diverse traditions describing such
beings or principles; it is difficult to establish with certainty that morality
comes from this source.
- Criticisms of the Natural Law Theory
a. Natural laws are descriptive, whereas moral and societal laws are
prescriptive.
● Values as Both Subjective and Objective– A Synthesis
- Values are more complex
- Values are both objective and subjective.
- A third variable should be added so that there is an interaction of three variables
as follows:
1. The thing of value or the thing valued
2. A conscious being who values the value
3. The context of the situation in which valuing takes place

Where does morality come from?

● Most of our morality and ethics comes from ourselves— from human origins.

Customary or Traditional and Reflective Morality

● Customary or Traditional Morality

- First morality with which we come into contact
- Exists in cultures and societies based on tradition, often without critical analysis
or evaluation.
● Reflective morality
- Demands that every human belief be examined carefully and critically to ensure
its basis in truth.
- Urge only to be examined not be eliminated.
- We should not reject them out of hand, but neither should we endorse them
wholeheartedly unless we have subjected them to careful, logical scrutiny.
 - Socrates (470?–399 B.C.) said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” For
morality, a corollary might be, “The unexamined custom or tradition is not worth
living by.”

Morality, Law, and Religion

● Morality and the Law

- Unjust law serves as immorally.
- Laws provide guides in behavior and to protect them from doing harm. Morality is
not necessarily based on law.
- Michael Scriven
➢ For ten commandments, it’s moral admonitions that carries how one
should think or maintain interior morality
➢ For laws, prohibitions that are enforceable against certain human acts.
- Some laws have less moral import than others, but the relationship between law
and morality is not entirely reciprocal, vice versa. Also, certain human actions
may be considered perfectly legal but be morally questionable.
- Ethics and ethical behavior seem to be missing from many lawyers’ activities to
such a degree that law-school faculties have seen an intense need for courses
that teach future lawyers the rules of ethical behavior within their profession.
➢ morality precedes law, whereas law sanctions morality
- It is difficult to think of any law that does not have behind it some moral
concern—no matter how minor or remote.
- Law is the public codification of morality in that it lists for all members of society
what has come to be accepted as the moral way to behave in that society.
- Law is a public expression of social morality and also is its sanction.
- Law cannot in any way replace or substitute for morality, and therefore we cannot
arbitrarily equate what is legal with what is moral.
- To summarize: It should be obvious that law serves to codify and sanction
morality, but that without morality or moral import, law and legal codes are empty
● Morality and Religion
- Religion is one of the oldest human institution
- Provides laws or taboos for beings to behave in certain ways
- Serves as most powerful sanction for getting people to behave morally
- Ideas of punishment or reward can be more destructive or pleasurable
- morality need not and should not be based solely on religion.
- Difficulty of proving Supernatural existence.
➢ Prove that the supernatural world exists and morality exists. However,
dealing with morality, the only basis we have is this world, natural world,
the people who exist in it and the actions they perform
- Morality need not be founded on religion at all
➢ There is a danger of narrowness and intolerance if religion becomes the
sole foundation for morality
 - Religious people can be immoral
- Non-Religious people can be moral
- Most religions contain ethical systems
- Not all ethical systems are religiously based
- Difficulty of providing a rational foundation
➢ Its impossible to prove conclusively the existence and nonexistence of
god; basing their belief on faith, fear, hope, or their reading of the
evidence, but as a logical foundation for morality, religion is weak indeed
except for those who believe.
- Michael Scriven has stated, “Religion can provide a psychological but not a
logical foundation for morality.”
- Which religion? Which should be the basis of human ethics.
- Difficulty of Resolving conflicts
➢ When such resolutions are successful, it is usually because we have
gone beyond any particular religion’s ethical system and used some sort
of rational compromise or broader ethical system that cuts across all
religious and non-religious lines.

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

● Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) advanced, what many consider to be, the most
important theory of moral development in the twentieth century.
➢ His typography, influenced by the work of Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget
(1896–1980), sets up three distinct levels of moral thinking: the preconventional,
conventional, and postconventional; autonomous; or principled levels.
● Definitions of Moral Stages
a. Preconventional Level
1. Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation, moral decision based
on authority; avoidance of punishment and deference to an authority.
2. Stage 2: Instrumental/Relativist Orientation, individuals are pragmatic and
moral decisions conditioned primarily by self-interest.
b. Conventional level
3. Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or “Good boy- Nice girl”
orientation, ‘people pleasers; conformity and living up to other
expectations
4. Stage 4: The law and order orientation, maintaining social order for its
own sake; obeys the law because it's the law (doing one's duty and
showing respect to authority.
c. Postconventional, autonomous, or principled level
5. Stage 5: The social contract orientation, there are ends beyond law and
laws are crafted to bring about these ends.
6. Stage 6: The universal-ethical-principle orientation, Right is defined by the
decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles
appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency,
Why should humans be moral?

● Integration of religious foundation of morality

● Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest
- Ethical egoism
- Not necessarily captured on pursuits of one’s own self-interest.
● Arguments from Tradition and Law
- This argument suggests that because traditions and laws established over a long
period of time govern the behavior of human beings, and because these
traditions and laws urge human beings to be moral rather than immoral, there are
good reasons for being so.
● Evolution of the Arguments
- The self-interest argument can be a problem when other interests conflict with it;
often it is difficult to convince someone who sees obvious benefits in acting
immorally in a particular situation that it is in his or her self-interest to do
otherwise. Morality established by tradition and law is problematic because it is
difficult both to change and to question successfully. This lack of questioning
sometimes encourages blind obedience to immoral practices. It encourages the
belief that because something has been done a certain way for hundreds of
years, it must be right.
● Common human needs, in order to satisfy these needs, people must establish and follow
moral principles that encourage them to cooperate with one another and that free them
from fear; that adhering to moral principles enables human beings to live their lives as
peacefully, happily, creatively, and meaningfully as is possible.

Significance and Relevance of Ethics

● Certainly the most important aspect in our life; living more ethically improves the quality
of your life and others around you.

Working definition of Morality

● Morality deals basically with humans and how they relate to other beings, both human
and nonhuman.
● It deals with how humans treat other beings so as to promote mutual welfare, growth,
creativity, and meaning as they strive
WEEK 2: ETHICS AND MORALITY
In everyday language, there’s no clear distinction between morality and ethics.

● Ethics
- Greek, ethos
- customs, habirts, and mores of people
- Philosophical reflection upon these rules and ways of living together, customs
and habits of individuals.
● Morality
- Latin, mos, moris: basically the same
- Customs, the special do-s and dont’-s that are shared and widely accepted as
standard in a society.

In ancient Greek Philosophy, ethics encompasess the whole range of human action including
personal preconditions.

● Aristotle ethics
- pursuit of the ‘good’ (life), the eudaimonia
- Aim was to identify and realize ‘the (highest) good’ in life.

However, what’s a good: life and what’s not?

● Ethics has to face the questions how the conflicts of interest and values could be solved
peacefully. without taking the part of one side or another.

What is morally right; moral rightness and ‘good life’ become separate issues
● Questions of ‘good life’ are tied to an evaluation of what is good and an answered form
of recommendations on how to achieve the goal, norms or principles of moral rightness
generate imperatives.

Three Sub-branches of Ethics

1. Descriptive Ethics
- empirical and precisely mapping existing morality or moralities within and liked to
social sciences; explain the development of existing moralities from a historical
perspective.
2. Metaethics
- new discipline and most blurred of all
- Greek, meta means after or beyond; the object of metaethical studies is morality
and ethics itself
- logical, semantic and pragmatic as such their origin and meaning.
3. Normative Ethics
- methodological reflection on morality tackling its critique and rationale.
 - Norms and standards for acting and conduct
- General normative ethics / common sense
a. Fundamental ethics
- towards principles of moral judgment of the criteria for the ethical analysis
for morality.
b. Applied ethics
- normative theories are applied to specific, controversial moral issues.
1. Social
- societal dimensions and institutional dimensions.
2. Individual
- on the individuum
3. Hyphen-ethics
- generating the classic (e.g., business-ethics)
- In normative ethics, there are different theories as to how criteria of moral
conduct should be defined.
- Three main theories
1. Deontological
- duty theories locate the basis of morality on specific, foundational
principles of duty and obligation; binding regardless of
consequences acting on their basis might bring.
2. Consequentialist
- determine the value of an action using a cost-benefit analysis of its
consequences; positive consequence outweighs negative then the
action is morally proper.
3. Virtue
- Given set of rules like ‘do not steal’; not as obligatory duties,
emphasized on developing good habits of characters based on
rule (and avoiding vices); moral education.

Code of ethics/conduct (ethical research)

● to point out moral rules set up based on rational deliberation and can be subject to
critique.

Moral Philosophy
● Jean-Pierre Dupuy
● ethics, effort to force everything to universal harmonized principles, moral philosophy
endures colliding or incompatible values or concepts in the discourse.
WEEK 3: ETHICS IN PANDEMIC

VUCA World as explained by Systems Innovation

● What is VUCA World?
- It captures the experience of operating in complex environments
- Made prevalent by globalization and information technology
-
● Volatility
- Liable to change rapidly and unpredictably
- Complex systems can flip from one state to another rapidly
- In systematically volatile environments, change is constant. Strategy needs to
evolve from resisting it to working with it through agility and enabling adaptive
capacity
● Uncertainty
- Inability to know everything fully
- Comes from the large number of elements with nonlinear interactions and their
capacity to adapt to local events as they co-evolution over time
- Within complex environments the future emerges. Outcomes to an emergent
process cannot be known beforehand. Strategies shift from defining one
environment in the future that is most probable and creating a single optimal
strategy for this to developing organizations that can operate under multiple
outcomes by increasing diversity
● Complexity
- “Our world is an interconnected system straining under the burden of its own
complexity” WEF
- Complexity refers to many parts being interconnected and interdependent.
- Traditionally, we try to exclude complexity as to be able to to centrally control
organizations
- Managing complexity means giving up traditional conceptions of strategy and
leadership. Leaders have to focus on creating the context that enables the
emergence of the desired outcomes
● Ambiguity
- The quality of being open to more than one interpretation that results in the
haziness of reality and the potential of misleading
- When environments become complex, simple linear cause and effect
descriptions break down. Ambiguity arises due to this lack of models to explain
the observed phenomena
- Resolving ambiguity means understanding the context within which the events
take place. It requires systems thinking to see the interconnections, to gain
different perspectives.
Ethics in a Pandemic by Dave Archard
In an emergency, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, governments have at least
two important responsibilities.
The first is to provide information to citizens about what's happening, why, and for how
long.
Secondly, governments must provide citizens with guidance as to what they should do,
sometimes backed by legal penalties for non-compliance, and, again, they should explain why
citizens are being asked to do this and for how long.
The UK government has a strategy, and at the same time, it is committed, in the words
of the prime minister, to 'maximum transparency'. Yet in explaining the strategy to the public, the
government has continued to insist on a single mantra: that it is led by 'the science'.
There are two problems with this.
Firstly, there is no such thing as 'the science'. Scientists disagree, sometimes quite
radically, and science progresses by contestation and debate about competing claims.
Second, science alone is not enough to justify a strategy: you need values.
Indeed, science and values are often inextricably mixed.
To give two examples -social isolation may, science tells us, work to reduce the rate of
infection. But we need to ask a moral question. There are particular social groups - the old, the
vulnerable, single -who will be particularly disadvantaged by social isolation. What then do we
owe them by way of support? Second, a contact-tracing app, such as has been proposed for
phones, may work very well to reduce or mitigate transmission rates. But, again, we need to ask
a moral question: is the possible loss to individual privacy by having such an app on your phone
more than outweighed by the gains to public health?
So a government needs to do ethics even if it says it doesn't and needn't do ethics,
rather in the way that, famously, Alastair Campbell interrupted Prime Minister Tony Blair by
saying, 'We don't do God.'
So what is it to do ethics? In the first place, what one often finds is a shopping list of
principles, such as respect for persons, equity, minimizing loss of lives, maximizing benefits. But
there are at least three problems with listing principles in this way. First, there is the question,
well, why these principles and not some others? Doesn't it seem arbitrary to pick out these
particular principles? And one is reminded of the famous joke by Groucho Marx: 'Well, these are
my principles. Well, if you don't like them, here are some others.' Secondly, principles can
conflict, and we need to know how to deal with such conflicts. How are principles to be ranked?
Are some more important than others? Indeed, are some of paramount importance? And, lastly,
we need to know how to move from general principles to particular moral judgements.
For instance, it's often said that in dealing with priority amongst COVID-19 patients, we
should use a principle of equity or fairness. But what exactly does fairness demand in this
particular situation?
Does it, for instance, demand that we should give priority to the young over the old? So if
a government must do ethics, we need people who are qualified, competent, and skilled to
assist the government in this way, and that is people who are trained in ethics and moral
philosophy.
There are examples in other jurisdictions of national ethics committees composed of
people trained in moral philosophy who will assist the government in law and policy.
 The German national ethics committee and the French national ethics committee are
good examples of that. But there is no such thing in the UK. It is not enough in this particular
case to use committees or stakeholders or caring and compassionate citizens, the wise and the
good, or whatever.
We need people with a particular skill in the subject of ethics, just as science committees
that advise the government need competent and trained scientists to help them. Now, bear in
mind this is not a case of people from on high offering ethical advice to the population that must
then be followed.
Rather, it is a question of helping the public and the government to make sense of the
ethical issues, to render our judgments consistent and coherent, to tease out what are the
relevant considerations and how they should be balanced. Above all else, ethics advice is
something that should be done clearly and transparently. It is not something that should be done
in locked rooms, unminuted, and in secret. Because at the end of the day, consideration of
ethical matters must be by the public in a transparent fashion. In this particular pandemic, we
are going to face very difficult choices. And some of us are going to have to make more difficult
choices than others. Those choices are essentially moral ones, and we need to know why
they're moral ones, and we need to know how to address and resolve them. We need, in short,
to do ethics
WEEK 4 - 5: INFLUENCES

Culture
● Culture
- In 2007, Matsumoto defined human culture as a unique meaning and information
system shared by a group and transmitted across generations, that allows the
group to meet the basic needs of survival, coordinate socially to achieve a viable
existence, transmit social behavior, pursue happiness and well-being, and derive
meaning from life.
- culture is a way of life of a group of people.
● Cultural relativism
- a belief that every culture is equal.

Culture and Moral Behavior

● Culture
- A way of life of group of people
● Moral Behavior
- Shared responsibility that everyone in the society must uphold
- Everyone can be a moral agent and it wouldn’t be problematic as long as they act
in a good manner
● How does culture shape moral behavior?
- What we do in our daily lives is a result of the culture in which we were raised
and the environment in which we interact.
- As human beings, the activities we engage in are, to some extent, directed by a
set of social norms concerning morality, which make up a fundamental
component of our culture.
● In the Republic, Plato addressed three factors that, in his view, are essential to the
growth of one’s moral development.
1. Genetic traits
2. Early childhood experiences
3. Culture
● In a study by Kwang-Kuo Hwang in 2015, he considered the morality of the west to be
distinguished by an emphasis of an individual as more fundamental than society. While
on the east, morality is built in one’s life as an inseparable part of the world which one
finds oneself.
● West = individualistic societies, East = collectivistic societies
● Cultural Relativism
- In his book “The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” James Rachel lays out the five
claims of why culture relativists regard moral behavior as a matter of cultural
standards.
1. Different societies have different moral standards.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right and wrong.
3. There is no universal moral truth.
 4. The moral code of a particular society has no special status.
5. It is arrogant for one culture to judge another.
- Holmes (2007) defined cultural relativism as the view that moral beliefs and
practices vary with and depend on the human needs and social conditions of
particular cultures.
- This viewpoint holds that our morality can be understood based on what is
culturally acceptable or not in the culture to which we belong.
- An act is moral in a culture that accepts it and immoral in a culture that
condemns it.
- Cultural relativism permits us to recognize that the unquestionable truths we
embrace are only the result of society’s conditioning. Thus according to Rachels
(n.d.), cultural relativism teaches us to retain an open mind and be more
receptive to learning the truth.
- It also teaches us not to assume that our preferences are the absolute rational
standard.
- Tangwa (2005) asserts that “ Culture, being a way of life for a group of people,
must be relative and limited to that group of people, whereas morality must be
universal in its outlook and concerns.

Culture and Values

● Culture
- is a way of life of people in the society wherein they share common beliefs,
tradition, rules and values.
● Value
- Value is formed as a result of our experiences—where it comes from to our
society.
- Values weigh based on our experiences in life; it is a guide to our thinking
ability, actions and motivation in decision making.
- Thus, value can develop or change depending on the environment we belong
to.
- At some point, we have the same values but different ways to uphold them as
we do not share the same community.

Ethical Behavior
● Ethical Behavior
- values driven in which we define ethical
- It is to show respect to others’ values and to gain their trust.
- defined as honesty, justice and equity.
● Culture in EB
- It is the fundamental driver of ethical philosophy which influences their action
ethically.
Filipino Value system
● Filipino Value System
- common assumptions and ideas that guide Filipinos about facts and action.
● Some values Filipino people treasure are:
1. Family-orientedness
2. Utang na Loob “Depth of Gratitude”
3. Good Education
4. Respect
5. Hiya “Shame”
6. Joyful and Humorous
7. Bayanihan

Moral Agents
● A Moral Agent is a person who can be held accountable for his or her actions because he or
she has the ability to tell right from wrong.
● 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 relinquished 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.
WEEK 6 - 7: THE ACT

I. Ethics vs. Feelings

● Feeling is the nominalization of the verb to feel.
● It plays a major role in most of the ethical decisions people make. Many people
tend to equate ethics with their feelings. This means that feelings are used as
instinctive responses to moral dilemmas.
● Feelings may sometimes prohibit us to make right decisions but it can also be
used in making the right one. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is
ethical.
● Most of our feelings in today’s world are unethical, politically incorrect or even
outright harmful. It takes a great deal of effort to retrospect and self-analyze our
feelings to judge whether they are ethical or not.
● Groupism
- According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, groupism is the tendency to
think and act as members of a group.
- In our natural feelings, when in a groupism, we will only help our own
group and will not care about other groups and will compete with them.
- But when we change our viewpoint in a more ethical way, we will help
other groups aside from our own group and we will not compete with them
because we think that competing is wrong.
● Patriotism
- According to Britannica, patriotism is the feeling of attachment and
commitment to a country, nation, or political community.
- When we enable patriotism using our feelings, we will only help people
who are only near us because they are inside the country we are living in
and we will not help people who are outside the borders because we think
they are outsiders and they do not deserve our help in times of war
because they are our enemies.
- While in ethics, we will think that war is bad and we will help people
regardless of their nationality.
● Dunbar's number
- It is a theoretical limit that says that we only can be able to sustain stable
relationships of up to 150 persons.
- When we read about Dunbar’s number and enable our feelings, we will
think that Dunbar’s number is true and will actually limit ourselves with
roughly 150 relationships but when we think of it in a more ethical way, we
will accept that all life forms in this world are part of us. Even animals and
plants are part of us.
● Negative feelings about content on social media.
- When we use our feelings in social media, we will hate what’s being
posted on Facebook. We will compete with other people by bashing. We
will think that people posting their achievements are boastful. We will
think that people posting their TikTok dance challenges are stupid and just
 entirely irrelevant, but when we put ethics, we will realize that we can
applaud their life achievements without comparing our lives with them.
We will also support those who are posting their talents and we don’t
compete with our friends on social media.
- Social networks aren’t thrusted into our face. We can choose to stay away
from them if they are noisy. Or even better, adjust the content shown in
our feed and tailor it to our comfort.
● It is easy to give in to our feelings. An analogy would be with unhealthy foods.
- It is easy to choose unhealthy foods because they are tasty and easy to
prepare. But we hit the gym, avoid those foods and exercise because we
want to become better individuals. Similarly, we can take the ethical route,
avoid negative feelings, and exercise those reactions because we want to
become better individuals.
● When we put feelings in our view of the world, sometimes it is right but we cannot
deny that sometimes we are being carried by our emotions that we perceive the
world without ethical values and it affects our moral decision making.
● People do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. No one
can deny the fact that when the human person is placed in a moral dilemma, their
decisions can also be greatly affected by his/her feelings.
● Moral decision making is the ability to produce a reasonable and defensible
answer to an ethical question or case.
● It is important that one knows how to be morally good in decision making. In
discerning over the facts, it is important that decision makers must be impartial to
certain issues.
● One should be able to consider that every moral decision is equally important to
others. In this regard, no decisions should be given more favor than the others.
II. Feelings and Moral Decision Making
● Ethics is a matter of emotions too, as being good involves thinking and feeling.
● Feelings as an instinctive response
- It (feelings) is an important manifestation of our humanity and it’s adding
color to our lives. That’s why the study says that reasoning and feelings
are intertwined in decision-making.
● Feelings as an obstacle to making the right decision
- When do feelings become an obstacle?
➢ When someone fails to balance it and emotions are considered an
exaggeration that can be misinterpreted depending on an
individual’s judgment.
- Emotions that can affect an individual’s judgment
1. Sadness
2. Happiness
3. Fear
4. Anger
5. Surprise
6. Disgust
 - Theories
a. Ethical Subjectivism
- Tackles the nature of moral judgment that contradicts the
principles of objectivity.
b. Simple Subjectivism
- Focuses on personal preferences rather than objective
facts
c. Individualist Subjectivism
- Holds egoism that every human should pursue one thing.
d. Moral Relativism
- Also called Ethical Relativism
- Focuses on the view of morality rights that society accepts
that can differ based on time and community.
e. Ideal Observer Theory
- The view in which attitudes are hypothetically idealized is
seen as what is right.
f. Emotivism
- A theory that tackles moral judgment, sentences, words,
and speech acts.
- Believes that language expressed by emotion can
influence others.
● Feelings can also be a help in making the right decisions
- The study said that feelings and likes are useful to the rightness of
decisions and actions in various situations because rationality is not
always the best way to make ethical judgment.
- In Christian Philosophy, whereas love is a striking of liking, desire, and
feelings that we should serve God cheerfully, ethics without sentiments
contradicts it.
- Furthermore, this should be based on careful consideration.
● Six ways to control emotions and make better decisions
1. Pause and assess the situation
- Give yourself the time needed for you to make the right choices
and avoid headaches
2. Don’t always rely on your gut
- Gut feelings are an instinct we sometimes rely on, but it is a game
of chances where the probability is 50/50. Thus, in making a
decision, it should be avoided
3. Put it in writing
- Review your thoughts by taking notes
- Writing makes the thoughts clearer as it is a tried-and-tested form
of therapy that gives you alone time
4. Narrow your options
- Choices are important because it can save you stress.
 - It should be narrower because science shows that making better
decisions will make you happier
5. Seek consensus
- If it's a big risk or decision to make, getting a second opinion from
others is a good trick when it comes to choosing the right decision;
6. Avoid burnout
- Overwhelming emotions can affect your decision-making. Give
yourself some rest so that in the next few days, when you feel
refreshed, your mind will be clearer to pick a better option.
III. Reason and Impartiality
● American philosopher Thomas Nagel asserted that morality must be grounded in
reason.
● He stated that morality must be objective.
- Being defined by good reasons, moral truths are objective in the sense
that they are true no matter what we might want or think. We cannot make
an act moral or immoral just by wishing it to be so, because we cannot
merely will that the weight of reason be on its side or against it.
- Furthermore, if we based morality on our emotions, it would be subjective.
No matter how great our feelings are, they are not infallible and differ from
person to person, making it more difficult to resolve an issue.
● What is Reason?
- The ability of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a
process of logic.
- It is an innate and exclusive human ability that utilizes new or existing
information as bases to consciously make sense out of things while
applying logic.
- According to De Guzman et al. (2017), reason spells the difference of
moral judgments from the mere expressions of personal preference.
- Reason makes moral non arbitrary.
a. Reason commends what it commends, regardless of our feelings,
attitudes, opinions, and desires.
● Reasons are Not Created Equal
a. Appeal to Authority
- One should not follow or uphold a belief just because their
parent/teacher/boss/any higher authority said so. Appeals to
authority are ethical problems that make people do what they are
told without any good reason to do so.
b. Blind supporters
- Ancient philosophers thought that having moral role models was
crucial to leading and learning to lead an ethically good life.
- We learn to be good, just as we learn to read and ride a bike, with
the help of other people. And just like reading and riding a bike, it
takes practice to get really good at it. But we can't cop out by just
picking our moral role models and doing what they do. We need to
 find out why they do what they do (their reasons) and then figure
out if we agree with them. If so, after reflecting on it, then we may
adopt their ethical viewpoint. If not, we should reject it, even if the
person we most admire believes it.
● What is Impartiality?
- Similar to reason, impartiality is manifesting objectivity as stated in the
article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality.”
- It is the quality of being unbiased and objective in creating moral
decisions – underscoring that a (morally) impartial person makes moral
decisions relative to the welfare of the majority and not for specific people
alone.
- According to De Guzman et al. (2017), impartiality involves the idea that
each individual’s interest 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 benefits to
one person over another for improper reasons.
● Impartiality as the Bare Outline of the Source of Morality
- Though impartiality may be a good basis for making decisions, Thomas
Nagel believed that it is only the bare outline of the Source of Morality.
a. Partial Reason
➢ Partial reasons are reasons that show our biases for or
against persons based on our relationships with them.

● Why are Reason and Impartiality the Minimum Requirements for Morality?
- As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement
for Morality,” Reason and impartiality become the basic prerequisite for
morality as one is expected to be able to deliver clear, concise, rightful,
and appropriate judgments made out of logic and understanding in an
unbiased and unprejudiced manner while considering the general welfare
to accurately concoct moral decisions.
IV. Predicting consequences
● Predicting Consequences
- Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of our action
before we act on it. There are always consequences in what we do. And if
we do what is right or we try to be a good person, it will usually include
unintended as well as intended outcomes.
- But when we try to predict that, the adverse consequences will outweigh
the beneficial consequences, even when we are obeying the ethical rule
or following an inspiring story, then we should consider to whether make
an exception to the rule or to look at a different story.
- Therefore we must remember that we can never really know what will be
the consequences of our actions. We should take care in predicting what
will be the result based on the presumptions.
 - Again, in doing ethics we look at rules and at stories so that we may be
able to construct a presumptions. And from presumptions we test by
predicting what we know and what we don’t know.
● Consequences of the fundamental Principle of Impartiality
1. Non-discrimination
- One of the most important elements of all aspects of the protection
of every human being, namely human rights law, humanitarian
law, and refugee law.
- People must ensure that their professional judgment is not
compromised, and cannot reasonably be seen to be
compromised, by bias, conflict of interest, or the undue influence
of others.
2. Principle of Neutrality
- Also applies to the principle of Impartiality.
- An impartial action can give the image of an organization that can
be trusted by people to be assisted or protected. What neutrality
means is that we don't pick sides and we will not take part in
arguments or other conflicts or choose sides when it comes to
issues of politics, religions, ideologies or race.Impartiality in its true
sense requires that our difference in terms of race, religion and
beliefs are to be set aside.
- To illustrate the difference between the two: A National Society
that refuses to provide its services to a specific group of people,
because of their ethnic origin, fails to observe the rule of
non-discrimination; whereas National Society staff member who,
in the exercise of his functions, favors a friend by giving him better
treatment than that given to others, contravenes the principle of
Impartiality. Therefore, staff and volunteers should be trained to
ensure correct behavior.
- Being impartial means that you are not taking sides, you're open,
you treat everyone fairly and you're not biased towards any
particular group of people, person, or argument. You place
importance on equality, and you never discriminate.
● Why should a Mediator be Impartial?
- The main reason why a mediator has to be impartial is to protect the
interests of both parties as they try to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
agreement for resolving a particular case .
- The mediator should not somehow act cruel or brutal and not have a
feeling of bias towards a person or group of people, but he/she should
practice in a way that minimizes any manifestation of the bias.
- No-one can genuinely claim to be impartial, but he/she can continually
review his/her own feelings and thoughts about someone or a situation in
order to acknowledge this and then monitor, and adjust where necessary,
his/her practice as a mediator in the light of this awareness
 - Similarly, anyone supporting people in dispute will be more effective if
they maintain their impartiality in the situation, even If one of the people
involved is someone they know, they should assist and guide both parties
toward their own resolution.
- The mediator does not decide the outcome, but helps the parties
understand and focus on the important issues needed to reach a
resolution
- There can be a temptation to automatically “take side” when we know
someone who is in an argument with someone, but this will often just
establish his/her despair, anger, and disappointments and the result may
be less likely to be resolved.
- In mediation and in other conflicts, striving for impartiality means that the
process of resolution is not polluted by the mediator’s biases and
prejudices, so that the disputants can focus on resolving their own
concerns rather than have to respond to the input of the mediator.
- The mediator creates an open channel for communication to both parties
and they should not be an obstacle to both parties.
- The mediator must conduct mediation in keeping with following qualities:
diligence, timeliness, safety, presence of the appropriate participants,
party participation, procedural fairness, party competency, honesty and
mutual respect among all participants.
V. 7-steps in moral reasoning
● Moral Reasoning
- How to think about issues of right and wrong.
- To discern, individuals must go through a series of steps, and unless all of
the steps are completed, they are not likely to behave in an ethical way.
- Given the fact that moral dilemmas may not always be readily resolved
through the use of code of ethics, it might be useful to have a framework
in which to analyze and make ethical decisions.
● Scott Rae’s Model for Moral Reasoning
- Presents a 7-step approach to moral analyses and evaluation.
- Oriented towards virtues and principles with consideration of
consequences as a supporting role (Rae 2018).
- Introduces the use of reason and impartiality in deciding on moral
matters.
1. Gather Facts
- It is essential that in moral decision- making, one has to
know the general facts of the moral situation, before
coming up with a moral analysis, more so, a decision or an
evaluation.
2. Determine the ethical issues
- After having identified the facts and overall context of the
moral situation, the ethical issue/s involved in the situation
 must be clearly stated in order to specify what issue one
has to make a decision to.
- This section must likewise clearly state the major moral
dilemma involved in the case.
3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case
- Applicable ethical values and principles relevant to the
case must be identified and briefly explained in order to
justify how such principles could be used in coming up with
a decision concerning the moral dilemma later on.
- The sources of these principles must be acknowledged
likewise. These values, principles could come from: (1)
established philosophical ethical principles; (2)
socio-cultural norms; (3) socio-political norms and laws; (4)
religious traditions; and others.
4. List the alternatives
- After having identified relevant values, virtues, and
principles involving the moral situation, possible alternative
courses of actions must then be proposed and briefly
explained.
- These suggested courses of actions must then be
evaluated based on its applicability, sensibility, practicality
before selecting one as the course of action or decision to
be made regarding the moral situation.
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
weigh principles and virtues - make sure you have a good
reason for each weighting (Rae 2018).
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
consequences are – some might have greater weight than
others (Rae 2018).
7. Make a decision (including one’s justification for the decision)
- After having analyzed the moral dilemma situation (from
steps 1 thru 6), one must now make a decision based on
 what has been previously discussed and must clearly
justify the decision that has been made.
VI. Impediments to Ethical Decision Making
● Egocentrism
- Nararanasan natin na kapag nakatuon tayo sa ating pangangatwiran at
pakiramdam lamang, hindi natin maririnig at makikita ang sinasabi at
ginagawa ng iba. Kung mahulog tayo sa bitag na ito, mawawala ang ating
objectivity at magiging isang panig sa ating personal na isip at damdamin.
- Ang mundo ay para sa tama at katotohanan. Hindi lamang sa
katotohanan mo bagkus ay sa katotohanan ng lahat.
● Ability to think and make decisions
- Ayon kay Dr. Carlos Medina na fokus ang kaalaman at pag-aaral tungkol
sa edad, meron tayong konteksto ng katumpakan na nagbabago ayon sa
edad natin
- Nagiging hadlang ang developmental maturity kapag patuloy nating
ginagamit ang pattern sa pagpapasya at pagharap sa ating alalahanin
gamit ang diskarte natin nung mas bata tayo. Halimbawa ikaw 20 yrs old
tapos yung pag-rason mo pang 10 years old.
● Refusal to let go of our wrongful thinking and see things objectively
- Kung ibabase lang natin ang ating desisyon sa naranasan natin, ang
ating desisyon ay maaaring maging mali dahil ang ating karanasan ay
kadalasang napakalimitado.
VII. Moral courage and will
● Moral Courage
- According to Lopez, O’Byrne, and Peterson moral courage is “the
expression of personal views and values in the face of dissension and
rejection”
- Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the
risk of adverse consequences. (Vesilind)
- Moral courage requires us to rise above the apathy, complacency, hatred,
cynicism, and fear-mongering in our political systems, socioeconomic
divisions, and cultural/religious differences.
- An example of having moral courage is Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma
Gandhi was the leader of India's non-violent independence movement
against British rule and in South Africa who advocated for the civil rights
of Indians. Gandhi stood up and fought for India’s independence; despite
the threats from certain groups of people that were against his
movements and beliefs. Gandhi was non-violent even when he was faced
with violence.
- Moral courage involves the willingness to speak out and do what is right
in the face of forces that would lead us to act in some other way.
- For many ethicists, moral courage is also important in carrying out moral
decisions
 ● Will
- refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses, at the moment of making
decision, the strongest desire from among the various desires present
- does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act
decisively on one's desires.
- Its central role is to enable the person to act deliberately
● Freedom of Will
- The Freedom of the Will, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is the power
which human beings have in determining their actions according to the
judgment of their reasons.
- This always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a
certain action. Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or
liability on the part of the individual would be meaningless.
- Feelings is not enough in carrying our moral decisions, reason is not
enough the combination of the two is not enough, will is important as it
shows that you want what you choose or do
- It is then important to sharpen the “will” so that that we can become
consistent in doing the right and the good thing
● Will Power
- Refers to the "inner strength to make a decision, take action, and handle,
and execute
- Any aim or task until it is accomplished, regardless of inner and outer
resistance, discomfort or difficulties.
- Gives the ability to overcome laziness, temptations and negative habits,
and to carry out actions, even if they require effort, are unpleasant and
tedious or are contrary to one's habits."
● Moral Courage and Will
- Doing the right thing, which may include listening to our conscience (quiet
voice within)
- If we don’t listen to our conscience it may lead to feelings of inadequacy,
guilt and diminished personal integrity.
- Moral courage and will also requires us to recognize our responsibilities
and be accountable to the consequences of our own choice.
- Moral courage and will, will help us be responsible and not make
excuses.
VIII. Developing the will and moral courage
● Moral Courage
- Moral courage is the intentional act of a person after carefully thinking
that can put an individual to a risk and motivated to bring noble good even
though there is fear present.
- Moral courage is about doing good or the right thing even though there is
a risk of inconvenience, ridicule, punishment, loss of job or security or
social status, etc.
● Will
- Will enables an individual to act deliberately and a faculty of mind that
chooses when making decisions the strongest desire.
a. Will power
- helps individuals to overcome laziness, negative habits
and inner strength that take action, make decisions, and
execute or handle tasks until it is accomplished.
● Moral Courage + Will
- These two make an individual to recognize responsibilities and be
accountable to the action or decision they made.
- 5 tips in developing will and moral courage (Mañebog, 2013)
1. Develop and practice self-discipline.
- Having moral courage cannot be obtained overnight, it is
developed and gradual and developing and practicing
self-discipline helps us to improve.
- It is also the rejection of instant gratification for us to
achieve something better. Individual give up instant
pleasure or satisfaction to achieve better goal
- practice makes perfect but nothing is perfect in this
world but with the help of practicing we can be better
and improved.
a. Self-control
- an inner strength that makes an individual
focus on perseverance until a task is
accomplished
- ability to stick to action
- thought/behavior that leads an individual to
be morally improved and successful.
2. Do mental strength training.
- This is declining in satisfying unimportant and unnecessary
desires that helps people to get stronger and courageous
in refusing things.
- Saying no to useless, harmful desires or deeds, and
behaving contrary to one’s bad habit improves people's
mindset.
- Having a moral courage means that even though the
temptation was already in front of you, You will refuse it
and you will stick to your decision
- This may result to:
1. Improved one’s inner strength. You will not be
easily swayed.
2. Have more control over one’s life.
3. Realize ethical goals - you will now know what is
good or bad and right or wrong
4. Improve one’s life because you can now put your
time on necessary and important things like
improving your skills, talents or knowledge.
 5. Achieve satisfaction and peace of mind
3. Draw inspiration from people with great courage
- This is about admiring a person who have won great
success by having self- discipline and willpower
- They are the people who are:
➢ People in all walks of life
➢ Who with sheer will power and moral courage
➢ Overcame difficulties and hardships
➢ Improved their moral life
➢ Advanced on the spiritual or moral path
➢ Worthy of imitation.
4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will
- Repeatedly doing things helps an individual to not forget it
and for it to stay in their system.
5. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will
- This is about avoiding act that show irresponsibility,
cowardice, apathy, rashness, imprudence, ill will, and
wickedness
WEEK 8 - 9: VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue Ethics in the Account of Aristotle

● Deontological ethics
- Defines ethics about how well someone obeys the law
● Teleological ethics
- Defines ethics based on the outcome of someone’s actions
● Nicomachean ethics
- Ethics is based on the virtue of being human
● Virtues as Habit
- Average between excess and deficiency
● Happiness as Virtue
- The highest aims are living well and attaining eudaimonia
● Telos
- Final end or condition
- Reason
● Aristotelian Virtue ethics
- Agent centered
- Character is greater than the actions
● Criticism of Virtue Ethics
- No harmony between motif and reason
- Does not properly tell people what should motivate them
- Does not allow the agent to be motivated about what’s important to them