Ethics: Activity 6

(Answers can be encoded or written on a sheet of paper)

Name: MAVERICK JADD OCRETO Date: __________
Yr. & Sec: BS IN ARCHITECTURE 2-C Score: _________
Instruction: Analyze and answer the following questions. Write your answer on the space
provided.
1. How realistic is Kohlberg’s ideal of the highest stage of post-conventional morality, that
of universal ethical principles, given that feelings and emotions are inseparable from
human choice?

- The highest stage of post-conventional morality by Kohlberg is an ideal, and when we

look at its definition, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be realistic. Just like any
ethical principles/ideals, they are simply goals, aspirations, moral guidepost, a direction
and not absolute rules. To say that one’s system of ethics is the absolute way to achieve
morality is absurd and presumptuous. Ethical principles serve their own time and place of
reference, thus serving only a specific culture and a specific time which is far from being
universal. We can conclude, that it is an attempt to achieve being close to realism as
possible. Because in a practical sense, morality only happens when we are in that
situation in the real world, with real people that have a diverse and complex behaviors
interacting with oneself and nature, thus, it is hard to imagine a system that can be an
absolute law to being ethical when we each have different reference on morality.
-
2. If global ethic is currently emerging, does this mean that the true meaning of morality
changes over time? Please explain your answer.

- Yes, morality change over time. If we go back to our primitive days where we are
considered nomadic and act solely on our instinct to survive, there’s a huge difference in
the evolution of morality and this proves that it progresses as we become more civilized.

In the ancient times where slavery, public executions, genocide, ethnic-cleansing,

adultery, pedophilia, and where some groups are seen inferior to other groups are widely
acceptable by society. And at that point in time, it is considered as moral or at least as
society sees it. Although, no one can blame this people as they are only following what
was the society sees as acceptable. I’m not trying to justify what the wrongdoings they
did back then, but in a civilization, where we are all in a “social contract” in which we
benefit from. The society protects us from the delimitation of certain rights, the society
does this by implementing rules/laws in which people shall abide. In our end of bargain,
we pay the society by adhering to these laws/ rules of the society at the same time being a
productive member of it. But as time passes, we recognize and become aware of this
rules that are implemented on us, questioning whether its fair and just or are they using to
obtain power, wealth, influence, or desires that may oppressed both man and nature. We
 become more and more agents of reason and we used this skill to tackle ethical dilemmas
and help us improve our own morality.

It is so easy in this modern time to grow complacent and see ourselves morally superior
to past generations, but is that really the case? No, we are not excluded to the fact that
what we believe as the true meaning of morality in the present maybe seen as flawed in
the next few generations. Although, what’s important is to recognize the fact that it is
indeed flawed and there is something to be changed about it, and not fall to the trap of
social conditioning.

3. Is there a difference between one’s ethical responsibility toward fellow humans and
toward nonhuman nature? Please explain your answer.

- As we all know, we all formed a social contract, in which it can benefit humanity alone
excluding the nonhuman nature. But that is, in the scope of societal responsibility. Give
for an example, a building is on fire and you could choose to save one: a human or a dog.
In this situation most of us would likely save the human instinctively as we care more at
some level to the same specie as we are rather than that of other species, in which that is a
societal responsibility.

But ethical responsibility is different from this, the dilemma stated above is an extreme
scenario with limited choices, but in reality, it’s not like that. If we are to adhere to being
“ethical” as our responsibility then we should treat humans and nonhuman nature alike.
Remember that the end goal of being ethical/morally right is to ensure that no group
should be oppressed/exploited and that does not end in human kind but extends to all life
on earth. Now some may argue that they are not even part of the “social contract”, in
which they don’t contribute to. Although they are not part of it, they are still sentient
being, and as sentient beings like us--humans, have a commonality to avoid suffering.
And unfortunately, we humans forced and use them as mere means to achieve an end in
which we can only benefit. But isn’t it that we are the ones who can reason, thus we have
a moral agent that can think of what’s right and wrong, to act in means of treating
everything as it should be treated, isn’t that our ethical responsibility?

Although it is considered ethical to kill and eat an animal if necessary for the sustenance
of human life, doing it unnecessarily (hunting for sports, out of cruelty, or simply for
taste) is to be deemed unethical/immoral. In the first place, if we are to say that there
should be difference in our ethical responsibility between human and nonhuman nature,
then we are in conflict with the fundamental purpose of what it means to be truly ethical.