NGEC 8 Merged

NGEC 8 - QUIZZES
1. This theory advocates that what is right and wrong comes from God.
Divine Command Theory
2. This theory states that right and wrong is just determined by what you- “the subject”-
think is right and wrong.
Moral Subjectivism
3. He is an advocate of Virtue Ethics.

Aristotle
4. According to this theory, right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism
5. Aristotle equates this concept with “excellence of character”

Virtue
6. This view of right and wrong is to be found in women’s responses to the relationship of
caring.
Feminists Ethics
7. This theory puts emphasis on working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest
number of people.
Utilitarianism
8. This theory embraces the idea that morality is based on rationality and doing one’s
duty.
Kantian Ethics
9. This theory advocates that the principles of right and wrong are those which everyone
in society would agree upon in forming a social contract.
Contractarianism
10. This is the concept of “True Happiness” fulfillment and self-actualization according to
ancient Greeks.
Eudaimonia
1. Jeremy Betham states that morality is to produce a more sophisticated version of

utilitarianism version in which pleasures way be higher or lower.
False
2. The Divine Common Theory refers to right and wrong from the commands of God.
True
3. The Right-based Theories are connected to Kantianism and are Non-Consequentialist.

True
4. Categorical Imperative simply refers to a set of moral rights in which possess simply by
being human.
False
1. Virtue defines as the average between excess and deficiency by Aristotle.

True
2. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, virtue is a habit.

False
3. Morally right action is one that will produce a good outcome according to from
the consequentialist standpoint.
True
4. The term deontology is derived from the Greek word deon “happy” and logos “science”.
False
5. It is comprised of those percepts of the eternal law that govern the behavior of beings
possessing reason and free will.
Natural Law
1. Aristotle is a Greek philosopher and not a scientist.

False
2. Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character that are essential to human
obligations.
False
3. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of
their consequences for human welfare.
True
4. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, virtue is a habit.

False
5. Happiness is a pleasure and a virtue.

False
6. The rule and measure of human acts is the wisdom which is the first principle of human
acts.
False
7. Human happiness does not depend on acquiring a moral character.

False
8. From a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that will produce a
good outcome.
True
9. The term deontology is derived from the Greek word deon “happy” and logos “science”.
False
10. Aristotle defines virtue as the average between excess and deficiency.
True
1. Which one is not included in highlights of Kantian ethics?

Only act upon which you can at the same time, will that it should not be a universal law
2. Kantians stressed that if you are inclined to do something, your actions have moral
worth.
False
3. From the standpoint of the idea of goodwill, If you are inclined to do something, your
actions have no moral worth.
True
4. These arise out of a general principle of fairness and justice which may or may not be
enforced and supported by the law of the land but which ought to be respected.
Moral Rights
5. Moral rights are the most solid rights laid down in law and because they can be
defended in a natural court of law.
False
6. It is referred to it as the categorical Imperative which this theorist believed that there
was a supreme principle of morality.
Kant's Theorist
1. What type of person believes that people have a shared responsibility to each other?
Socialist
2. A punishment that gives wrongdoers help, so they can learn how to get along in society
and follow its rules called?
Rehabilitation
3. What is called a social and political philosophy that promotes the equal status of all
people?
Egalitarianism
4. A socialist is a person who fight for civil rights.

False
5. When conflict arise, we need principles of justice that can accept all as reasonable and
fair standards for determining what people deserve.
True
6. Distributive justice is absent when equal work produces an equal outcome.

False
1. Bio-ethics is an analysis of ethical questions arising out of the relationship among the
following except.
Education
2. What is the keystone of every Merchant Marine Deck Officer in the conduct of his
profession?
Professionalism
3. The right to the creation of one’s mind in any area literature, fictional works, etc. Is
called the Intellectual Property of Rights.
True
4. A theory of justice is the title of the book written by John Rawl that presented a
conception of justice.
True
5. The following specified acts of a a deck officer shall be deemed to be unethical as a

breach of professional ethics, subject to immediate actions except.
True recommendation on the competency of another officer.
6. The moral reflection about obligation and responsibilities became imperative in a

globalized world where actions are capable of giving rise to transnational
consequences.
True
7. In what article of Marine Deck Officers Code of Ethics does this statement belong? “ He
shall make financial gain secondary only to the service that the entire profession can
render to the economic growth of the country.”
Article II
8. He was the Commission Chairman of the Board of Marine Deck Officers who approved
the effectivity of the Code of Ethics for Marine Deck Officers?
Hermogenes P. Pobre
9. Communities across the world are divided into artificial political condominiums called
globalization.
False
10. They are aware of their intelligence, strengths, and their likes are essential
characteristics of people who are involved in finding out the principle of justice in their
original position.
False
Lesson 13
Moral Theories and Mental
Frames
What is a Moral Theory?
Theory
- is a structured set of statements used to
explain (or predict) a set of facts or
concepts.
Moral theory
- is a theory of how we determine the right
and wrong conduct in a certain actions.
It is clear that we cannot draw a sharp
division between moral theory and applied
ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics). For
instance, in order to critically evaluate the moral
issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt
to evaluate what actions or policies are right (or
wrong) independent of what we take to
determine right and wrong conduct.
• Note, though, that sound moral thinking does
not simply involve going one way -- from
theory to applied issue. Sometimes a case may
suggest that we need to change or adjust our
thinking about what moral theory we think is
the best, or perhaps it might lead us to think
that a preferred theory needs modification.
Moral Theories:
a) Descriptive
what people are doing in their
every days life
b) prescriptive
thinking how to judge them in what they
are doing if it is right or wrong
Common Moral
Theories
1. Moral Subjectivism
- Morality is not dependent on society but
only on the individual.
- it is the amounts to the denial of moral
principles of any significant kind, and the
possibility of moral criticism and argumentation.
In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their
meaning because so long as someone thinks or
feels that some action is 'right', there are no
grounds for criticism.
• If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot
object to anyone's behavior (assuming people
are in fact acting in accordance with what they
think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw
in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly
everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object,
on moral grounds, to at least some peoples'
actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about
moral issues.
2. Cultural Relativism
-right and wrong is determined by the
particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time.
• Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral
Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot
criticize the actions of those in cultures other
than our own. And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles. Also, it
implies that a culture cannot be mistaken
about what is right and wrong (which also
seems not to be true).
3. Ethical Egoism
- right and wrong is determined by what is in
your self- interest.
- it is immoral to act contrary to your self-
interest.
- based upon Psychological Egoism by
nature and act of selfishly.
- does not imply hedonism or that we ought
to aim for at least some 'higher' goods (e.g.,
wisdom, political success), but rather that we will
(ideally) act so as to maximize our self interest.
This may require that we forgo some
immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving
some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does
not exclude helping others. However, egoists will
help others only if this will further their own
interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the
altruist helps others only because they want to
(perhaps because they derive pleasure out of
helping others) or because they think there will
be some personal advantage in doing so. That is,
they deny the possibility of genuine altruism
(because they think we are all by nature selfish).
This leads us to the key implausibility
of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who
helps others at the expense of their self-
interest is actually acting immorally. Many
think that the ethical egoist has
misunderstood the concept of morality --
i.e., morality is the system of practical
reasoning through which we are guided to
constrain our self-interest, not further it.
Also, that genuine altruism is indeed
possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.
4. Divine Command Theory
Many claim that there is a necessary connection
between morality and religion, such that, without religion
(in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality,
i.e., no right and wrong behavior. Although there are
related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and
guide people to behave in morally good way, most take
the claim of the necessary connection between morality
and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the
commands of God (or the gods). This view of morality is
known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an
action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it,
wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and
morally permissible if God does not command that it not
be done.
5. Virtue Ethics
- right and wrong are characterized in terms of
acting in accordance with the traditional virtues –
making the good person.
For Aristotle, the central concern is "Ethica" =
things to do with character. Of particular concern
are excellences of character -- i.e., the moral virtues.
• Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had
nothing to say about moral duty, i.e., modern day
moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with
what makes human beings truly 'happy'. True
'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well-
being / fulfilment / self- actualization).
5. Virtue Ethics
Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that
there are objective reasons for living in
accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom,
courage, justice and temperance). For Aristotle,
this comes from a particular account of human
nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is the 'happiest'
(most fulfilling) life.
Three steps to the argument:
(1) The ultimate end of human action is
happiness.
(2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance
with reason.
(3) Acting in accordance with reason is the
distinguishing feature of all the traditional virtues.
Aristotle thought that humans had a specific
function. This function is to lead a life of true
flourishing as a human, which required abiding by
the dictates of rationality and so acting in
accordance with the traditional virtues.
6. Feminist Ethics
-right and wrong is to be found in womens'
responses to the relationship of caring.
Comes out of the criticism that all other moral
theories are 'masculine' -- display a male bias. Specifically,
feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other
moral theories (they take individualism to be a 'masculine'
idea). Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we need to
consider the self as at least partly constructed by social
relations. So morality, according to some feminist moral
philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love
and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This
allows legitimate biases towards those with whom we
have close social relationships.
7. Utilitarianism
- right and wrong is determined by the overall
goodness (utility) of the consequences of action.
- is a Consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
All action leads to some end. But there is
a summumbonum -- the highest good/end. This is
pleasure or happiness. Also, that there is a First
Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility', alternatively
called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually
characterized as the ideal of working towards the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP
implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human
welfare We do this in a particular instance by choosing
the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and
minimizing suffering.
• Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not
distinguish between kinds of pleasures. However, Bentham's
student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more sophisticated version of
Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower. The higher
pleasures (those obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits),
carried greater weight than the lower pleasures (those obtained
through sensation). The upshot is that in determining what action
to perform, both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness count.
• Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only
with their own happiness. Utilitarians are concerned with
everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic. In general, morally right
actions are those that produce the best overall consequences /
total amount of pleasure or absence of pain.
• Other key points:
– For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.
– No person's preferences or interests (including your
own, your relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.) carry a
greater weight than any other person's.
– Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian
calculation before acting. So, in most situations,
following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best
consequences.
– Democratic and economic principles reflect
Utilitarianism.
8. Kantian Theory
- right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving
universal duties.
- is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
- That there is "the supreme principle of morality".
Good and Evil are defined in terms of Law / Duty / Obligation.
Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that
acting morally was quite simple. That is:
- you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your
duty).
- Reason guides you to this conclusion.
- Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only
thing that is good without qualification. So, actions are truly
moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good
Will.
• This is called the Categorical Imperative =
Principle of Universalizability (something like
The Golden Rule). The basic idea is that we
should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e.,
maxims) only those that can be universally
accepted.
• Kant had another way of formulating the
Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
• Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end.
Rather, treat everyone as an end in themselves.
• We can understand this by noting an example, i.e.,
the slave society What is wrong with the slave
society, following the above principle, is that a
slave is treated as a means to the slave owner's
ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a
person. The upshot is that no person's interests
(or rights) can be overridden by another's, or the
majority.
9. Rights-based Theories
- it is an act in accordance with a set of
moral rights, which we possess simply by being
human.
- it is the basic idea that if someone has a
right, then others have a corresponding duty to
provide what the right requires.
Most distinguish between positive and
negative rights.
a) Positive right is one in which the
corresponding duty requires a positive action,
Example: giving a charitable donation in order to
sustain someone's right to life, shelter,
education
b) Negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining
from doing something that will harm someone.
10. Contractarianism
- the principles of right and wrong (or
Justice) are those which everyone in society
would agree upon in forming a social contract.
is the principles or rules that determine
right and wrong in society are determined by a
hypothetical contract forming procedure.
John Rawls's example:
developed a way of getting people to come
up with universal principles of justice. The basic
idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial developing
a social contract of universal principles -- but
many find Rawls' novel method very appealing.
The idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that
we are at the beginning of forming a society and we want
to know which principles of justice to ground the society.
However, in this 'original position' we do this without
knowing which position we will occupy in the future
society -- we don't know if we will be rich or poor, male
or female, old or young, etc. We then advocate those
principles that will be in our self-interest (though we
don't know what 'self' that will be). This forces us to be
impartial, and if we are rational, to propose universal
principles. The idea of the thought experiment is not to
think that we actually begin again, and construct a society
from scratch. Rather, we can use the thought experiment
as a test of actual principles of justice. If a principle is one
that would not be adopted by people in the original
position, behind the 'veil of ignorance' (about who they
will be), then it is unjust and should be rejected.
TOPIC 14 :VIRTUE
ETHICS
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• At the end of the lesson, the students must have:

1. Articulated what virtue ethics is
2. Differentiated the concept of virtue ethics from
deontology and consequentialism
3. Explained the major tenet of the natural law
ARISTOTLE'S VIRTUE ETHICS
• Aristotle (c. 384 B.C. to 322 B.C.) was an
Ancient Greek philosopher and scientist
who is still considered one of the greatest
thinkers in politics, psychology and ethics.
In 335, Aristotle founded his own school,
the Lyceum, in Athens, where he spent
most of the rest of his life studying,
teaching and writing.
• Aristotle defines virtue as the average or

mean between excess and deficiency.
basically, he says the idea of virtue is " all
things in moderation". Human s should
enjoy existence but not be selfish. They
should avoid pain and displeasure but not
expect a life completely void of them.
VIRTUE ETHICS
• Virtue ethics takes the notion of virtue (often conceived as

excellence) as fundamental.
• Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character
that are essential to human flourishing, not with the
enumeration of duties.
VIRTUE ETHICS
• It falls somewhat outside the
traditional dichotomy between deontological
ethics and consequentialism: It agrees with consequentialism
that the criterion of an action’s being morally right or wrong
lies in its relation to an end that has intrinsic value, but more
closely resembles deontological ethics in its view that morally
right actions are constitutive of the end itself and not mere
instrumental means to the end.
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to

distinguish right from wrong. Deontological ethics,
in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis
on the relationship between duty and the morality of
human actions. The term deontology is derived from the
Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.” It is only about
following the rules and does not require weighing the cost
and benefits of the situation.
• In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good
because of some characteristic of the action itself, not
because the product of the action is good. Deontological
ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory
regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty
for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and
“Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
EXAMPLE
• Do Not Kill - We all see killing or murdering
as the wrongest human deed because we
are taught since our childhood that killing
anybody including an animal is a wrong act.
For instance, if we found a killer in our
society, we all will hate him and consider him
wrong because he/she has killed somebody.
But we dont know the detail behind the
situation. Maybe that person has killed
another one in self-defense.
EXAMPLE
• Do Not Steal - Stealing is also considered as a legal crime.
We are taught not to steal anything or take anybody’s thing
without asking them.
• Religious Belief - Every person of the particular religion
has to follow the rules and regulation of his religion. For
example, If you’re a Hindu you might believe that it’s wrong
to eat beef; this rule would be part of our deontology
because we think it is wrong to eat beef.
EXAMPLE
• Keeping Promises - If you have made a promise, you
must keep it. For example, you might borrow money on
the promise to pay it back, but you don’t intend to pay it
back. So, making false promises is considered wrong.
• Respect The Elders - Elders have to be respected.
Respecting them is considered Right. If someone is found
disrespecting them, (may have a genuine reason behind
the disrespect) is considered as a bad person.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Teleological Ethics, (teleological from Greek telos,

“end”; logos, “science”), theory of morality that derives
duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as
an end to be achieved. Also known as
consequentialist ethics or consequentialism.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• It upholds that the consequences of one's conduct are the
ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or
wrongness of the conduct. Thus from a consequentialist
standpoint, a morally right action is one that will produce
a good outcome. Consequentialism is primarily non-
prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is
determined by its potential consequence, not by whether
it follows a set of written edicts or laws.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Consequentialism is controversial because many people
believe that certain things, such as justice, truth, selflessness,
or obedience to God, embody the highest good. Most
consequentialists would not say that any of these principles
should automatically be upheld in every situation, unless they
believe in a kind of consequentialism where that principle is
the end that justifies all means.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Consequentialism is a kind of rationalism. In order to

determine the best course of action according to
consequentialism, you have to add up the total negative
and positive consequences and subtract one from the
other. For example, you need to consider not only the
degree of happiness caused by an action, but also the
number of people affected and for how long.
EXAMPLE
• Suppose that by killing X, an entirely innocent person, we
can save the lives of 10 other innocent people. A
consequentialist would say that killing X is justified
because it would result in only 1 person dying, rather than
10 people dying. A non-consequentialist would say it is
inherently wrong to murder people and refuse to kill X,
even though not killing X leads to the death of 9 more
people than killing X.
EXAMPLE
• For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But
if telling a lie would help save a person’s life. Entail lying under
the threat of government punishment to save an innocent
person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath.
• Child labor – imagine you run a factory in a very poor country
and a child comes to your door and ask for a job. If turning
the child away means that she would starve or turn into
something worse then it would be ethical to give her the job.
VIRTUE AS A HABIT
• According to Aristotle, virtue is a habit. He believed that

virtue as a habit requires an intentional choice when you
begin. The habit of virtue is not yet developed, but over
time one becomes used to behaving virtuously and after a
while one acts virtuously without needing to use volition.
HAPPINESS AS VIRTUE
• Happiness is not pleasure nor is it virtue. It is the exercise

of virtue. Since man is a rational animal, human
happiness depends on acquiring a moral character where
one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice,
friendship and citizenship in one's life.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS' NATURAL LAW
• Thomas Aquinas was an Italian
Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic
priest, and Doctor of the Church. An
immensely influential philosopher,
theologian, and jurist in the tradition
of scholasticism, he is also known
within the latter as the Doctor
Angelicus and the Doctor Communis.
• St. Thomas Aquinas, for example,

identifies the rational nature of
human beings as that which defines
moral law: "the rule and measure of
human acts is the reason, which is
the first principle of human acts"
NATURAL LAW
• A principle or body of laws considered as derived from

nature, right reasons or religion and as ethically binding in
human society.
NATURAL LAW
• The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the
eternal law that govern the behavior of beings possessing
reason and free will. Here it is worth noting
that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what
is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the
rational nature of human beings.
KANT
AND
RIGHTS THEORIST
Kant’s Theory
■ Represent deontological ethics

■ For him, a right action consists solely in an action that is
ruled and justified by a rule or principle
■ It was the rational and autonomous conformity of one’s
will to see right the universal moral law
■ Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals, explains the
philosophical foundation of morality and moral actions
GOODWILL,
MORAL WORTH
AND DUTY
Kant’s Idea of Goodwill
■ Kant's Idea of Goodwill

■ Kant argues that no consequence can have
fundamental moral worth; the only thing that is good in
and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses t do its moral duty. That duty in turn is dictated
solely by reason. The goodwill thus consists of a
person's free will motivated purely by reason.
Highlights of Kantian ethics
■ Treat everyone as an end and never as a means

■ Good Will is the only good thing in itself
■ Only act upon that maxim which you can at the same
time, will that it should be a universal law
■ Actions that fuel the good will are done for the sake of
duty
■ If you are inclined to do something, your actions have
no moral worth.
Goodwill, Moral Worth and Duty
fundamental moral worth; the only thing that is good
in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses to do its moral duty. That duty, in turn, is
dictated solely by reason. The Good Will thus consists
of a person’s free will motivated purely by reason.
Because the dictates of reason allow for no exceptions,
moral duty is absolute.
■ Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the

thought that the only thing good without qualification is a
“good will”. While the phrases “he’s good hearted”, “she’s
good natured” and “she means well” are common, “the
good will” as Kant thinks of it is not the same as any of
these ordinary notions. The idea of a good will is closer to
the idea of a “good person”, or, more archaically, a “person
of good will”. This use of the term “will” early on in analyzing
ordinary moral thought prefigures later and more technical
discussions concerning the nature of rational agency.
■ Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important
commonsense touchstone to which Kant returns
throughout his works. The basic idea, as Kant describes it
in the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person
good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way
“determined” by, or makes its decisions on the basis of,
the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be
the idea of one who is committed only to make decisions
that she holds to be morally worthy and who takes moral
considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for
guiding her behavior. This sort of disposition or character
is something we all highly value, Kant thought. He
believes we value it without limitation or qualification.
■ In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are
wholly determined by moral demands or, as he often
refers to this, by the Moral Law. Human beings
inevitably feel this Law as a constraint on their natural
desires, which is why such Laws, as applied to human
beings, are imperatives and duties. A human will in
which the Moral Law is decisive is motivated by the
thought of duty. A holy or divine will, if it exists, though
good, would not be good because it is motivated by
thoughts of duty because such a will does not have
natural inclinations and so necessarily fulfills moral
requirements without feeling constrained to do so.
■ It is the presence of desires that could operate

independently of moral demands that makes goodness in
human beings a constraint, an essential element of the idea
of “duty.” So in analyzing unqualified goodness as it occurs
in imperfectly rational creatures such as ourselves, we are
investigating the idea of being motivated by the thought that
we are constrained to act in certain ways that we might not
want to simply from the thought that we are morally
required to do so
GOODWILL
■ Only thing that is good without qualification

■ Other goods like intelligence and health can be qualified.
Good Will is good by virtue because it is the will to follow
the Moral Laws.
CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
What is Categorical Imperative?
Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral
theory–according to these theories, the rightness or
wrongness of actions does not depend on their
consequences but on whether they fulfill our
duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle
of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical
Imperative.
■ Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century
German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical
philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute
for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not
depend on any ulterior motive or end. “Thou shalt not
steal,” for example, is categorical as distinct from
the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire,
such as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.” For
Kant there was only one such categorical imperative,
which he formulated in various ways.
■ “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at

the same time will that it should become a universal law”
is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses
the condition of the rationality of conduct rather than
that of its morality, which is expressed in another
Kantian formula: “So act as to treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in another, always as an end, and
never as only a means.”
1st Formulation of Categorical Imperative
■ “Act as if the maxim of your actions were to

secure through your will a universal law of
nature.”
■ Meaning act as if in your will you were defining
a maximum rule for all to follow.
2nd Formulation of Categorical Imperative
■ “Act so that you treat humanity , whether in your own
person or that of another, always as an end and never
as a mean.”
■ See if your actions are using others or affecting others,
in the meaning of never using them as a mean to
achieve but always as an end.
MORAL AND LEGAL
RIGHTS
LEGAL
RIGHTS
■ These are rights laid down in law and because they can
be defended in a natural court of law they are the most
solid of all rights.
■ In simple words, the court of law can enforce legal rights

against persons and also against the government. A
legal right is an interest accepted and protected by law.
Also, any debasement of any legal right is punishable by
law. Legal rights affect every citizen. Legal rights are
equally available to all the citizens without the
discrimination of caste, creed & sex.
Characteristics of Legal Rights
■ Created: upheld or altered by government or legislation

■ Unequal: there are situations in which distribution of
legal rights is unequal
■ Alienable: can be taken away with or without consent
■ Local: They can vary based on jurisdiction.
Kinds of
Legal Rights
Perfect & Imperfect Rights
■ The Perfect Rights has the following features:
■ It is recognized by law. It is enforceable by law.

■ So, in the case of breach of this right, a person may go
to court for enforcing this right.
■ Thus, all fundamental rights, viz. Right to equality, right
to religion, etc. are perfect rights as these are
enforceable by law.
■ The Imperfect Right has the following features:
■ It is recognized by law.
■ It is not enforceable by law. This means that a person
cannot go to court for the breach of imperfect right.
■ All the time-bound claims or debts come under the
category of imperfect rights.
Positive and Negative Rights
■ The basis of distinguishing right as positive or

negative is the nature of correlative duty it carries
with it.
■ Under Positive Rights, the person has to perform
some positive duty to fulfill this right.
■ Negative Rights prevent a person to do some act,

that is it corresponds to a negative duty.
■ Example: Right to life under article 21 of the Indian
constitution is a negative right because it prevents a
person to kill another person.
Real & Personal Rights
■ Real Right - rem corresponds to the duty imposed upon
the people in general. It is available against the whole
world in general. Example: Tort or crime is a real right.
■ Personal right - persona is available against a particular

person & it corresponds to duty the duty imposed upon
a particular person. Therefore, the personal right
generally arises out of contractual obligation. Example:
breach of contract is a personal right.
Proprietary & Personal Rights
■ A Proprietary Right is available with respect to a
property that is it relates to the owner & his assets. The
assets must have some monetary value. Example: the
right to ownership of property, Right to patent, Right to
goodwill, etc.
■ A Personal Right is related to a person’s life i.e. his

reputation or standing in the society. These rights
promote a person’s well being in society & have no
economic value. Example: Right to life.
Public & Private Rights
■ The rights which are vested in a person by state or govt.

or constitution is called Public Rights. Example: Right to
vote, Right to use public parks, etc.
■ Private rights are connected with private individuals or

persons. Example: A contract entered into by two people
gives rise to private rights to them.
Inheritable & Uninheritable Rights
■ Inheritable Rights can be passed from one generation to

another, i.e. this right survives even after the death of
its owner. Example: A son is a legal heir to the property
of his father after his death.
■ Uninheritable Rights die with the death of its owner.

Example: All personal rights are uninheritable rights.
Right in Repropria & Right in Realiena
■ A person possesses Right in Repropria with respect to
his own property. He can use, dispose of, destroy,
modify or exclude others from his property. Thus, this
right gives a person, absolute ownership over the
property.
■ Right in Realiena is the right in the property of another

person. Example: Right of way over the neighbor’s field.
So, it is not an absolute right.
Moral
Rights
Characteristics of Moral Rights
■ Natural: an entitlement that exists simply from being
human
■ Equal: no injustice in how rights are distributed
■ Inalienable: moral rights cannot be taken without
consent
■ Universal : the same regardless of your location
■ These arise out of a general principle of fairness and
justice. A moral right may or may not be enforced and
supported by the law of the land but which ought to be
respected.
■ There are legal obligations to attribute creators and
treat their work with respect. These creators’ rights are
known as ‘moral rights’.
■ They mean you must: attribute (give credit to) the
creator not say a person is a creator of a work when
they’re not do something with a work (such as change or
add to it) that would have a negative impact on the
creator’s reputation
■ These obligations do not apply if you have the
creator’s consent, or if you act reasonably (as set
out in the legislation; industry practice can be
relevant).
■ Creators have moral rights even if they do not own

copyright in their work. They cannot sell or
completely waive their rights, but they can give
consent for certain things that may otherwise breach
their moral rights.
■ Moral rights are a provision within copyright law
intended to codify and protect the author's association
with the creative work by preserving the integrity of the
work and intent behind the work. Moral rights can be
divided into two overarching categories: rights of
attribution and association and rights of integrity.
■ Attribution rights refer to the author's ability to name

himself or herself as the author of the work publicly, and
to have their name appear in any relevant authorship
sections of the work (i.e., credits of a film, signature of
the artist on a painting, name of an author on a literary
work, etc.). Rights of attribution also entitle the author
to remain anonymous, if they so choose.
■ The right of association or being able to choose in what
contexts and in association with which works or causes
the creative work is shown and/or used is also an
important author's right in copyright law. An author may
be able to claim moral rights infringement and seek a
remedy if use of their original work directly threatens an
author's good name or reputation (i.e., a painting being
showcased in a hunting exhibition that was created by
an animal rights advocate who makes works about
animal rights).
Lesson 15: Kant and
Rights
Course Outline
Kant and Right Theorists
1. Kant
a. Categorical
Imperative
b. Good Will
2. Different Kinds of
Rights
a. Legal
b. Moral
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
1. Explained the essence of Kant’s theory on

morality
2. Differentiated legal from moral right
3. made a case analysis using rights theory
Categorica
l
Imperativ
e
Kant's Moral Theory -
Categorical Imperative
Kant's theory is an example of a

deontological moral theory–according
to these theories, the rightness or
wrongness of actions does not depend
on their consequences but on whether
they fulfill our duty. Kant believed that
there was a supreme principle of
morality, and he referred to it as The
Categorical Imperative.
Kant's Idea
of Goodwil
Kant's Idea of Goodwil
Kant argues that no consequence can

have fundamental moral worth; the
only thing that is good in and of itself
is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses t do its moral duty. That duty
in turn is dictated solely by reason.
The goodwill thus consists of a
person's free will motivated purely by
reason.
Highlights of Kantian ethics:
# Treat everyone as an end and never as a
means
# Good Will is the only good thing in itself
# Only act upon that maxim which you can at
the same time, will that it should be a universal
law
#Actions that fuel the good will are done for the
sake of duty
# If you are inclined to do something, your
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MORAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL RIGHTS
LEGAL RIGHTS
- these are rights laid down

in law and because they
can be defended in a
natural court of law they
are the most solid of all
rights.
Characteristics of Legal rights:
• Created: upheld or altered by government or legislation
• Unequal:there are situations in which distribution oflegal rights is unequal
• Alienable: can be taken away with or without consent
• Local: They can vary based on jurisdiction.

MORAL RIGHTS
- these arise out of a general

principle of fairness and
justice. A moral right may or
may not be enforced and
supported by the law of the
land but which ought to be
respected.
Characteristics of Moral Rights:
• Natural: an entitlement that exists simply from being human
• Equal: no injustice in how rights are distributed
• Inalienable: moral rights cannot be taken without consent
• Universal: the same regardless of your location

Therefore,
Moral rights are rights accorded under
some system of ethics. ... Legal rights are
rights that people have under some legal
system, granted by a duly authorized legal
authority or government. For example, where
I live, kids have a legal right to an education
THANK YOU
GAMES
QUESTION:
Give one highlight

of Kantian Ethics
and explain.
QUESTION:
What is
Categorical
Imperative and
who formulated
it?
QUESTION:
Differentiate Legal
Rights from Moral
Rights and give one
example.
ACTIVITY
QUESTIONS:
1. Explain the essence of Kant’s theory on morality
2. Differentiate legal rights from moral rights
UTILITARIANISM
DEFINITION OF UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism , states that something is
moral, or good when it produces the greatest
amount of good for the greatest number of
people. It's a theory of normative ethics that
asks whether a specific action is good or bad,
moral or immoral.
Utilitarianism answers this question with an
economic analysis that focuses on human lives and says
that those actions that make people happy are good.
For example, a utilitarian may ask whether it's moral
for politicians to spend billions of dollars on campaign
ads. He or she would examine how the money is spent
and whether the ads directly resulted in improving
people's lives, or if that money could have been better
spent on something else.
C:\Users\PETRON\Desktop\GROUP3ETHICS\E
thics Defined- Utilitarianism.mp4
Some Actions Are More Moral Than Others
In any ethical theory, morals are separated
into good and bad. In utilitarianism, good is
defined as the existence of pleasure and the
absence of pain. This is called utility. An action
that maximizes utility is one that maximizes total
benefits while reducing negative consequences
for the largest number of people.
Some Actions Are More Moral Than Others
Something is good if it does more good than harm
for a lot of people. In utilitarianism, this is called
the greatest happiness principle, which states that a
moral action is one that increases the total utility in the
world. In other words, if an action is moral, it increases
the amount of happiness in the world. This allows
actions to be ranked by morality. If an action makes one
person happy, it is moral. However, if another action
would make many people happy, it is more moral.
UTILITARIANISM
PHILOSOPHY - Ethics- Utilitarianism, Part 2 [HD].mp4
BUSINESS’S FASCINATION WITH
UTILITARIANISM
The element that businesses require to apply
utilitarianism is welfarism. According to Eggleston (453),
welfarism is the understanding that the wrongness or
rightness of operations depends on society’s conceptions of
welfare or wellbeing. This aspect of utilitarianism suggests
that actions are good for the greatest wellbeing of the
society or many people.
UTILITARIANISM
According to Sen (471), welfarism aims at maximizing
every individual’s utilities. In business, the management
may decide to increase the wages and benefits of their
employees if it improves the wellbeing or promotes the
happiness of their employees. In this regard, the business
will be positively applying utilitarianism when they can
balance the principles of pleasure and pain and how they
can influence their performance.
UTILITARIANISM
The element that businesses need to understand as to how the
principle of utility applies to their operations is individualism. The
principle of individualism in utilitarianism holds that every individual,
as it is human nature, pursues happiness, thus, will engage in actions
that maximize utility. In this regard, businesses will take actions that
bring them happiness. Happiness for businesses may include
increased profits, increased customer satisfaction levels, superior
reputation, and improved employee satisfaction levels, among others.
By ensuring their employees are satisfied and happy at a personal
standard, the business will also be putting themselves on the path to
success.
UTILITARIANISM
BUSINESS UTILIRIANISM.mp4
ACTIVITY
You're on a ship with only two other things. The first thing is a
huge supercomputer that controls the lives of 100,000 people. The
machine has school records, banking records, medical and prescription
info, etc. that is not backed up anywhere else. To lose this machine
would be a huge inconvenience, and a lot of people would have their
lives disrupted. It's not a guarantee that anyone would die, though.
The second thing onboard is a monk who lives in a mountain
somewhere in Tibet, and does nothing but pray and meditate all day. He
does not talk to anyone or do anything outside the monastery, and the
only reason he is on the ship is to go to another monastery. The ship
sinks. There is no way to save both; you can only save one. Which do
you save? Why? Which are you in this case?
GLOBALIZATION
Globalization can be defined as an
extensive network of economic, cultural,
social and political interconnections and
processes which goes beyond national
boundaries. It has been regarded as a result
of technological development, but also
derived from market economy.
GLOBALIZATION
As advancement of communication
technologies and the increase in productivity
necessitate states’ expansion of their market
territory. The decline in protective social policies,
the increase in the incentives for foreign trade
and the convergence of free market economy, are
all in line with these “perceived” global
necessities.
CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION
One is to ensure that the benefits of globalization extend to all countries.
That will certainly not happen automatically.
The second is to deal with the fear that globalization leads to instability,
which is particularly marked in the developing world.
The third challenge is to address the very real fear in the industrial world
that increased global competition will lead inexorably to a race to the bottom
in wages, labor rights, employment practices, and the environment.
And finally, globalization and all of the complicated problems related to
it must not be used as excuses to avoid searching for new ways to cooperate in
the overall interest of countries and people.
GLOBALIZATION
Globalization Benefits and Challenges.mp4
THANK YOU
Topic 17: Justice and
Fairness: Promoting
the Common Good
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, the students
must have:
1.articulated what justice and fairness are;

2.critiqued justice and fairness; and
3.made use of the rights theory.
Introduction:
• In the context of conflict, the terms 'justice' and
'fairness' are often used interchangeably.
• Arguments about justice or fairness have a long
tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea
in Western civilization has been more
consistently linked to ethics and morality than
the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by
the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory
of Justice, written by the late Harvard
philosopher John Rawls, every major work on
ethics has held that justice is part of the central
core of morality.
• Justice means giving each person what he or she
deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each
person his or her due. Justice and fairness are
closely related terms that are often today used
interchangeably. There have, however, also been
more distinct understandings of the two terms.
While justice usually has been used with reference
to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been
used with regard to an ability to judge without
reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness
has also been used to refer to the ability to make
judgments that are not overly general but that are
concrete and specific to a particular case. In any
case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is
crucial to both justice and fairness.
• When people differ over what they believe
should be given, or when decisions have to be
made about how benefits and burdens should be
distributed among a group of people, questions
of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, 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.
• But saying that justice is giving each person
what he or she deserves does not take us very
far. 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?
NATURE OF THEORY
• A theory is a contemplative and rational type of
abstract or generalizing thinking about a
phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The
process of contemplative and rational thinking
often is associated with such processes like
observational study, research.
• Theories may either be scientific or other than
scientific (or scientific to less extent). Depending
on the context, the results might, for example,
include generalized explanations of how nature
works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek,
but in modern use it has taken on several related
meanings.
JOHN RAWLS THEORY
• John Rawls was an American political philosopher
in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as
fairness describes a society of free citizens
holding equal basic rights and cooperating within
an egalitarian economic system. His theory
of political liberalism delineates the legitimate use
of political power in a democracy, and envisions
how civic unity might endure despite the diversity
of worldviews that free institutions allow. His
writings on the law of peoples set out a liberal
foreign policy that aims to create a permanently
peaceful and tolerant international order.
Distributive justice
• Distributive justice is a concept that addresses
the ownership of goods in a society. It
assumes that there is a large amount of
fairness in the distribution of goods. Equal
work should provide individuals with an equal
outcome in terms of goods acquired or the
ability to acquire goods. Distributive justice is
absent when equal work does not produce
equal outcomes or when an individual or a
group acquires a disproportionate amount of
goods.
Egalitarian
• Egalitarianism is a social and political philosophy
promoting the equal status of all people.
Something in line with this principle is described
as egalitarian. Someone who espouses this
principle of equality can be called an egalitarian.
An example of an egalitarian are:
“a person who fights for civil rights”.
“a married couple that equally shares the household

duties, child rearing, and financial responsibilities”.
Capitalist
• The owners of capital goods, natural resources,
and entrepreneurship exercise control through
companies. The individual owns their labor.
The only exception is slavery, where someone
else owns a person's labor.
• A capitalist is someone who owns a business
which they run in order to make a profit for
themselves. For example:
“Most property, for example, is owned by people
or companies, not by the government”.
Socialist
• Socialism is an economic system where everyone in
society equally owns the factors of production. That
ownership is acquired through a democratically elected
government or through a cooperative or a public
corporation in which everyone owns shares.
• Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for
public rather than private ownership or control of
property.
• For example, many opponents claim that President
Barack Obama is a socialist because he takes the
position that the government should be involved in
many aspects of people's lives and because he believes
that people have a shared responsibility to each other.
Activity:
1)Why is fairness important to our life?
2)Since people are all different, should the law
also not be different for all?
Topic 18
Globalization and
its Ethics
Globalization
• Globalization has transformed the world from a
collection of discrete communities interacting
occasionally to an overlapping community of fate.
Thus culturally, politically and economically,
communities across the world now operate in what
is essentially a shared space albeit divided into
artificial political condominiums called nation-
states.
• This artificial division, notwithstanding, the
intensification of transnational relations occasioned by
globalizing forces and processes has opened up novel
forms of social bonds and responsibilities. As nations,
people and communities across the globe become
economically, socially and politically connected, the
distinction between the global and the local becomes
increasingly blurred and events and actions in one
locale carries with it the potential to generate
transnational and transgenerational consequences.
• It is precisely because in a globalized world, events
and actions are capable of giving rise to
transnational consequences, that moral reflection
about our responsibilities and obligations has
become an imperative. (Osimiri 2015)
• As convergence of technologies facilitated people
to connect, people not only communicated but also
started collaborating.
• A flat world that facilitates multiple forms of
collaboration in sharing knowledge and work
among billions of people without regard to
geography, distance or language poses new
challenges and problems for lawmakers and judges.
• When billions of people connect and collaborate
and generate value in goods and services
horizontally rather than vertically, complex issues
are bound to arise. Such disputes emerge in the
shape of challenges, which can be called global.
Now global challenges demand global solutions as
well.
TOPIC 19
BOARD FOR MARINE DECK OFFICERS
CODE OF ETHICS
ARTICLE I
• GENERAL PROVISION
-The Merchant Marine Deck Officer has a moral obligation
and social responsibility to practice his profession according to a
Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Every Merchant Marine Deck Officer shall regard the Code of
Ethics as a way of life which has its foundation in Honesty, Truth,
Justice, Integrity, and Love of the Country, not as a set of rules
which should strictly be observed.
Professionalism is the keystone of every Merchant Marine Deck
Officer in the conduct of his profession and above all upholds the
honor and dignity of every Filipino Merchant Marine Deck Officer.
ARTICLE II
• RELATION TO THE PROFESSION

• a) A deck officer shall strive to elevate, maintain and contribute to
the honor and dignity of the profession.
• b) He shall conduct himself with the traditional decorum of an officer
and a gentleman, restraining himself from all acts contrary to the
established rules of morality and personal discipline.
• c) He shall continually improve his professional competency by
keeping up to date with the latest technological and scientific
knowledge being applied in the marine fields.
• d) It shall be his obligation to keep himself prepared for the next
higher license through reading, diligent studies and keen
observation of the shipboard activities.
• e) He shall make financial gain secondary only to the service that the
entire profession can render to the economic growth of the country.
• f) A deck officer shall not hesitate to consult his fellow deck officers in
matters that will affect the honor and integrity of the deck officer’s
profession.
• g) He shall expose, without fear or favor, to the proper authorities of
the profession; corrupt or dishonest conduct of members of the
profession whose existing practices can degrade the reputation of
other practitioners
• h) Every deck officer should aid in safeguarding the profession against
the admission to its ranks of persons who are unfit or unqualified in
moral character or professional training.
• This Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of Merchant
Marine Deck Officers are hereby adopted pursuant to R.A. 8544
known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998
under Section 40: “The Integrated and Accredited Maritime
Association of Marine Deck Officer shall prescribe a Code of
Ethics for Marine Deck Officer which shall be adopted by the
Board of Marine Deck Officers and approved by the Commission.”
ARTICLE III
• RELATION TO THE STATE
• a) A Deck Officer, in his capacity as a person of high technical potentialities
and delegated with leadership for the discipline of his men, shall recognize
and respect the supreme authority of the State.
• b) A Deck Officer shall strive to become an exemplary citizen by the
devoted or fruitful fulfillment of his civic duties.
• c) He shall perform his professional duties in conformity with the existing
laws.
• d) He shall endeavor to assist and cooperate with proper authorities in the
enforcement of maritime and customs regulations.
• e) He shall offer to the State his full knowledge and experience in the
interest of national security and especially in time of national emergency.
ARTICLE IV
• RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY
• a) Every deck officer shall compose himself as an officer and a
gentleman, and act honorably when dealing with the general public.
• b) He should be concerned foremost with the safety of every man,
woman and child who boards the ship as a passenger by following all
safety measures prescribed for shipboard use.
• c) He shall contribute his professional knowledge for the general public
welfare and comfort of the riding public to gain their respect and
confidence.
• d) He shall, above all, continually consider the preservation of life, health
and poverty, even at the risk of his own life, to enhance the sense of
public interest that is an integral obligation of the profession.
ARTICLE V
• RELATION TO THE SUBORDINATE
• a) A superior officer shall always conduct himself with the proper
decorum in his acts or deeds and thoughts to set an example for his
subordinate befitting his rank or designation.
• b) He should give the necessary training, guidance and opportunities for
the improvement of his subordinate’s competency and especially to
overcome his shortcoming demanded by his license as a deck officer.
• c) He should continually mold the character of his subordinate to impress
the importance of command responsibility.
• d) He should give merits unselfishly when due, to inspire his subordinates
to achieve greater result.
• e) He should not hesitate to listen to the advice of his subordinates
but to exercise discretion before implementation.
• f) He should not hesitate to admit errors in his decision when it is

obvious, but it must be done within the circle of staff.
ARTICLE VII
• RELATION TO HIS FELLOW-PRACTITIONER
• a) Every deck officer should work together in mutual cooperation
and harmonious relationship by sharing individual knowledge for
professional advancement.
• b) He should associate himself with his colleagues in any
reputable and recognized marine society to further broaden his
knowledge.
• c) He should never attempt to issue statements to the general
public concerning the shortcoming of his fellow officer.
d) The following specified acts of a deck officer shall be deemed to be unethical as a
breach of professional ethics, subject to immediate actions:
• 1) Open criticism of a fellow officer without knowledge of the other.
• 2) Spreading false information on the professional competency and ability of other
practitioners.
• 3) Degrading a colleague in order to acquire his position.
• 4) False recommendation on the competency of another officer.
• 5) Maliciously withholding information or knowledge to place others in a controversial
situation.
• 6) Tending to accept a position lower than his highest license to displace another
officer applying for the same.
• 7) Exerting political influence to displace a co-marine officer or engineer.
• 8) Certifying that he can work better or could render service more satisfactorily than
another.
• 9) Openly expressing that he holds exclusive methods of practice or style of service.
ARTICLE VIII
• AMENDMENTS
• The Board of Directors of the Masters and Mates Association of the
Philippines Incorporated by majority vote of all the Directors may amend or
repeal the code or adopt a new Code of Ethics of the Merchant Marine
Deck Officer in the Philippines subject to the review of the Board of Marine
Deck Officer and approval by the Commission.
ARTICLE IX
• PENAL PROVISION
• This Code of Ethics shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Code
or any newspaper of general circulation to have the force and effect of
Law. Copies of the Code shall be distributed every year to all Merchant
Marine Deck Officer during the annual Conference Workshop conducted
by the Integrated and accredited professional Merchant Marine Deck
Officer (Master and Mates Association of the Philippines, Inc.) for proper
information and guidance of all Merchant Marine both in public and
government service and be distributed among all Merchant Marine Deck
Officers immediately following their oath taking.
• It shall be included in the curriculum of all Maritime Institutions as part of the course of
study in ship’s familiarization, ethics and Maritime laws. Violations of any of the provision
of the Code of Ethics shall constitute unethical and unprofessional conduct and therefore
garner sufficient grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of the certificate of
registration and certificate of competency of the offending Merchant Marine Deck Officer
in accordance with the provision of Article IX Section 37 of R.A. 8544 known as the
Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998.
ARTICLE X
• EFFECTIVITY
• This Code shall take effect after approval by the Professional Regulation
Commission and after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation whichever comes first.
THANK YOU 
Lesson 12: Moral Courage
REASON AS BASIS OF MORALITY
Immanuel Kant argued that morality was based on reason alone, and once we
understood this, we would see that acting morally is the same as acting rationally. Kant
argued that morality, by definition, must help us decide what to do. When we are choosing
how to act, we know that our self-interest or happiness influences our choices. However,
happiness can’t be the basis of morality. First, what makes people happy differs. If
morality depended on happiness, then it was right to do would change from one situation
to the next. But, he argues, morality is the same for everyone. Second, sometimes
happiness is morally bad. For instance, if someone enjoys hurting other people, the
happiness they get from this is morally bad. It is bad to hurt someone; it is even worse to
hurt someone and enjoy it. And Kant argues there is – reason. We are able to think about
and reflect on different actions and decide between them. We are not ‘forced’ by our
desires to act this way or that, we have a power of will that is distinct from desire and the
pull of happiness.
Connecting reason and morality
So, what is the connection between reason and morality? First, this capacity to
choose freely is necessary for morality – animals and young children simply act on their
desires, and so we don’t think they are capable of acting morally. Yes, their actions can
have good or bad consequences, but because they don’t make choices in the right sense,
we don’t really praise or blame them in the same way we do adults. Second, says Kant,
reason works in a way that is independent of our desires. The same is true, Kant argues,
for reasoning about what we ought to do.
Morality is independent of what we want. Third, it is rational for everyone to believe

What it is rational to believe is ‘universal’ – the same for everyone. This ‘universality’ is
just a feature of reason; reason doesn’t vary from one person to the next. So, when it
comes to what it is rational to do, this is also the same for everyone. It is only rational to
do what everyone can do. Morality is also the same for everyone This last point leads
Kant to a moral test for our choices. This test of reason is also the test of morality: you
should act only those choices that everyone else could also act on.) WHAT REASON
RECOMMENDS Kant’s theory has two parts: that reason can tell us what to do, and that
reason can motivate us to do it. For example, why should I eat? Because I am hungry – I
want food; or, if I have lost my appetite, because I want to stay alive. The same kind of
considerations apply to moral actions. Why should I not steal? Because I want to avoid
prison, because I do not enjoy other people getting angry with me, because I feel guilty if
I do, or perhaps simply because I care about other people.
FREE WILL AND MORALITY

The existence of morality implies the existence of free will. Moreover, free will is closely
related to two philosophical issues: freedom of action and moral responsibility. I f we
assume that human actions are those actions that result from the rational capacities of
humans, we then see that the possibility of free action depends on the possibility of free
will: to say that an agent acted freely is minimally to say that the agent was successful in
carrying out a free volition or choice. This suggests that freedom is simply the ability to
select a course of action and an agent is free if he is not being prevented by some external
obstacles from completing that course of action.
The second reason to care about free will is that it seems to be required for moral
responsibility. While there are various accounts of what exactly moral responsibility is, it
is widely agreed that moral responsibility is distinct from causal responsibility.
Prominent Theories of what the will is

a. Faculties Model of the Will
What is distinct about free agents, according to this model is their possession of
certain powers or capacities for growth and reproduction. What is unique about free
agents, however, is that they also possess the faculties for intellect and will. It is in virtue
of having these faculties and the interaction between them that agents have free will.
The intellect or the rational faculty is the power of cognition. As a result of its
cognition, the intellect presents various things to the will as good under some description.
Furthermore, all agents that have an intellect also have a will. The will or the volitional
faculty is an appetite for the good; that is, it is naturally drawn to goodness. The will
therefore cannot pursue an option that an intellect presents as good in no way. Thus,
through the interaction between the intellect and will, an agent has free will to pursue
something that it perceives as good.
b. Hierarchical Model of the Will
This account is also sometimes called a "structuralist" or "mesh" account of the will
is free if it has a certain internal structure or mesh among the various levels of desires
and volition. According to this model, agents can have different kinds of desires in infinite
hierarchy.
c. Reasons- Responsive View of the Will
A third treatment of free will takes as its starting point the claim that agency involves
a sensitivity to certain reasons. An agent acts in free will if he is responsive to the
appropriate rational considerations and he does not have free will if he lacks such
responsiveness. Coercion and manipulation undermine free will, on this view, on virtue of
making agents not reasons responsive.
External Links:
The basis of morality
Many philosophers and anthropologists might argue that among the attributes that make
humans unique, it is our ability to reason morally that sets us apart from all other
animals—perhaps in addition to our capacity for spirituality. From Ancient Greece and the
Roman Republic to sixth century China and the European Enlightenment; philosophers
throughout the ages have pondered why humans can feel empathy or behave
altruistically—and, indeed, why they even contemplate it. Only later, in the twentieth
century, did the biological sciences join the quest for understanding by seeking genetic,
neurological, and evolutionary explanations of self-awareness and morality.
The answer has so far been elusive, as biologists have neither been able to find the
‘moral' gene—if such a thing exists—nor to identify a specific cluster of neurons or region
of the brain that takes care of ethical decision making. Yet, some parts of the picture are
emerging, and they reveal a relationship between the complex emotional processes that
enable empathy and altruism and the advanced cognitive abilities, such as mirror self-
recognition (MSR), that emerged with the evolution of the more complex structural and
functional components of the brain. In addition, these studies show that many more
animal species than we had appreciated, including birds, display more or less primitive
versions of these traits.
These findings have led to a proliferation of research into ‘human-like' social behavior in
animals. “Empathy research is really taking off, not only on adult humans in neuroscience
or on children, but also animals,” commented Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal, now at
Emory University in Atlanta, GA, USA, who analyses the behavior of chimpanzees to gain
insight into their emotional and cognitive abilities. “We have collected thousands of
observations of so-called consolation behavior in chimpanzees. As soon as one among
them is distressed, for example losing a fight, falling from a tree, or encountering a snake,
others will come over to provide reassurance. They embrace the distressed chimp or try
to calm him or her with a kiss and grooming. This behavior is typical of chimps and other
apes and is used in research on children as the main behavioral marker of ‘sympathetic
concern',” he explained.
Clues about the cognitive functions and neurological features underlying ‘sympathetic
concern' can be elucidated by correlating the results from studies of children with those
of higher animals that appear capable of feeling empathy and possibly altruism. “In
children, MSR emerges between 18–24 months of age and its onset is concurrent with
the emergence of empathic behavior and other indices of the theory of mind,” commented
Diana Reiss, a specialist in the evolution of intelligence at Hunter College of the City
University of New York, USA. Reiss also pointed out that all species that exhibit MSR
have large, complex brains relative to their body weight, with evidence of a developmental
link between MSR and empathy, as in human children.
THE IMPORTANCE OF MORAL COURAGE
This is an excerpt from Ch 14, “Trust: The Key to Combat Leadership” by Colonel
(Retired) Patrick Sweeney, Ph.D., from the book “Leadership Lessons from West Point”.
The chapter delves into the top ten attributes of a leader who can be trusted in combat
as determined by Sweeney’s research on trust and leadership in an actual combat
environment during Operation Iraqi Freedom in May 2003. Those attributes, in order of
importance, are competent, loyal, honesty/good integrity, leads by example, self-control
(stress management), confident, courageous (physical and moral), shares information,
personal connection with subordinates and strong sense of duty.
The second dimension of leader courage deals with leaders’ moral strength to do the right
thing in all situations. Moral courage entails a leader’s strength of character to be willing
to incur risk in order to act according to his or her values and beliefs and stand up to
authority to protect his or her soldiers’ welfare or defend his or her decisions. Thus, moral
courage enables leaders to live with integrity, act to uphold the loyalty to their
subordinates, and execute their duties with confidence. Subordinates can trust leaders
who have the courage to act in accordance with their values because they know the
directives, they issue will be honest and based on values. Subordinates will not depend
on or trust a leader who possesses good job knowledge, has a good set of values and
beliefs, and has loyalty to subordinates but lacks the moral courage to put these skills,
values, and beliefs into action. Therefore, a leader’s moral courage provides the force of
will do what is right regardless of the situation and the costs the leader must incur. In
combat, this is critical because leaders’ moral courage and integrity define the moral and
ethical boundaries that subordinates must operate within.
Furthermore, soldiers’ responses indicated they would trust combat leaders who were not
afraid to take a stand for what they believed in, the decisions they made, or what is the
proper way to conduct business. Leaders must have the moral courage to handle the
consequences of taking a stand with the chain of command to fight for what they believe
is right. The following statements illustrate qualities of moral courage that lead to the
development of trust:
“[I place a high value on a leader’s] strength when it comes to standing up to the company
commander, so that fire-support team members were used properly and not as machine
gunners.” – Staff sergeant, infantry company fire support noncommissioned office,
Qayyarah West Airbase, northern Iraq
“Courage [is important because] a leader must be able to take risks and not back down
from confrontation.” – Private first class, infantry company forward observer radio
operator, Qayyarah West Airbase, northern Iraq
Moral courage is equally important to leadership in business, nonprofit, political, or any
other type of organization. Group members always expect their leaders to have the moral
courage to act in accordance with their own and the organization’s values. Thus, leaders’
moral courage provides group members with a sense of confidence that leaders will
behave in a moral and ethical manner and take action to promote the best interests of the
organization and its members. This confidence that leaders have the strength to act
morally and ethically leads to the development of trust, which increases group members’
willingness to follow.
Enron’s, Tyco’s, and Adelphi’s senior business leaders lacked the moral courage to act
in accordance with their own and their organization’s values. The consequences of this
leadership failure were devastating to the companies, the employees, retirees, and
shareholders. Employees lost their jobs, retirees lost their pensions and sense of
security, shareholders lost their equity, and the public lost trust in the companies.
Whether these senior leaders actively participated in the fraud or tolerated it by not
coming forward, they all lacked moral courage to do the right thing. Thus, the agency
that comes with moral courage helps ensure group members that leaders do the right
thing by the organization and all people associated with it.
Lesson 13: Frameworks and Principles Behind our Moral Disposition Frameworks
Moral Theories and Mental Frames
Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the
guide to good or right conduct.
Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
What, then, is a moral theory?
A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or
concepts. A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong -- or why we ought
to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine right and wrong conduct.
Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a
reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues.
Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp division between moral
theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics). For instance, in order to
critically evaluate the moral issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt to evaluate
what actions or policies are right (or wrong) independent of what we take to determine
right and wrong conduct. Note, though, that sound moral thinking does not simply involve
going one way -- from theory to applied issue. Sometimes a case may suggest that we
need to change or adjust our thinking about what moral theory we think is the best, or
perhaps it might lead us to think that a preferred theory needs modification.
Another important distinction:

Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive?
In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday
'doings' and 'thinkings,' form a judgement about what is right and wrong, or are we
prescribing how people ought to make these judgments?
Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people do
is left to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality,
want to know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong. There have been
many different proposals. Here is a brief summary.
Common Moral Theories

Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or 'feel')
is right or wrong.
In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any
significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right'
and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some
action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you
cannot object to anyone's behavior (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance
with what they think, or feel is right). This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism --
probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least
some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.
(2) Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot
criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken
about what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility
of moral advancement (which also seems not to be true).
(3) Ethical Egoism

Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act
selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least
some 'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act
so as to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate
pleasures for the sake of achieving some long-term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not
exclude helping others. However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own
interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because they want
to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they think
there will be some personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of
genuine altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the
key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others at the expense of
their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist has
misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning
through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine
altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.
(4) Divine Command Theory

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that,
without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behavior. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate
and guide people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary
connection between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the
commands of God (or the gods). Ý This view of morality is known as Divine Command
Theory. The upshot is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command, we do it,
wrong if God commands, we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does
not command that it is not done.
(5) Virtue Ethics

Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making the good person.
The most widely discussed is Aristotle's account. For Aristotle, the central concern is
"Ethica" = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character
-- i.e., the moral virtues.
Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e.,
modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human
beings truly 'happy'. True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being /
fulfilment / self- actualization). Ý Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are
objective reasons for living in accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage,
justice and temperance). For Aristotle, this comes from a particular account of human
nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is the 'happiest' (most fulfilling) life.
(1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.
(2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance with reason.
(3) Acting in accordance with reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional
virtues.
Aristotle thought that humans had a specific function. This function is to lead a life of true
flourishing as a human, which required abiding by the dictates of rationality and so acting
in accordance with the traditional virtues.
(6) Feminist Ethics

Right and wrong is to be found in women’s' responses to the relationship of caring.
Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male
bias. Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral theories
(they take individualism to be a 'masculine' idea). Rather, feminist ethics suggests that
we need to consider the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So, morality,
according to some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like
love and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases
towards those with whom we have close social relationships.
(7) Utilitarianism
Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of
action.
Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
All action leads to some end. But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end. This
is pleasure or happiness. Also, that there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of
Utility', alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually
characterized as the ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. The GHP implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human welfare We do
this in a particular instance by choosing the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness
and minimizing suffering.
Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not distinguish between kinds
of pleasures. However, Bentham's student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more
sophisticated version of Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower. The
higher pleasures (those obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits), carried greater
weight than the lower pleasures (those obtained through sensation). The upshot is that in
determining what action to perform, both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness
count.
Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only with their own
happiness. Utilitarians are concerned with everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic. In
general, morally right actions are those that produce the best overall consequences / total
amount of pleasure or absence of pain.
Other key points:
For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.
No person's preferences or interests (including your own, your relatives, friends,
neighbors, etc.) carry a greater weight than any other person's.
Usually, we cannot make the required utilitarian calculation before acting. So, in most
situations, following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best consequences.
Democratic and economic principles reflect Utilitarianism.
(8) Kantian Theory

Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal duties.
Kantianism is a non-consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
That there is "the supreme principle of morality". Good and Evil are defined in terms of
Law / Duty / Obligation. Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that acting
morally was quite simple. That is:
- you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).
Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without
qualification. So, actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on
Good Will.
This is called the Categorical Imperative = Principle of Universalizability (something like
The Golden Rule). The basic idea is that we should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e.,
maxims) only those that can be universally accepted.
Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as an end in
themselves.
We can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society What is wrong with
the slave society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to
the slave owner's ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot is that
no person's interests (or rights) can be overridden by another's, or the majority.
(9) Rights-based Theories

We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by being
human.
Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are non-consequentialist. The basic
idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide what
the right requires.
Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is one in which the
corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order
to sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which
the corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will harm
someone.
(10) Contractarianism
The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would
agree upon in forming a social contract.
Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a
hypothetical contract forming procedure. Here is John Rawls's example.
Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up with
universal principles of justice. The basic idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial developing
a social contract of universal principles -- but many find Rawls' novel method very
appealing. The idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of
forming a society and we want to know which principles of justice to ground the society.
However, in this 'original position' we do this without knowing which position we will
occupy in the future society -- we don't know if we will be rich or poor, male or female, old
or young, etc. We then advocate those principles that will be in our self-interest (though
we don't know what 'self' that will be). This forces us to be impartial, and if we are rational,
to propose universal principles. The idea of the thought experiment is not to think that we
actually begin again and construct a society from scratch. Rather, we can use the thought
experiment as a test of actual principles of justice. If a principle is one that would not be
adopted by people in the original position, behind the 'veil of ignorance' (about who they
External Links:
The Nature of Morality and Moral Theories
The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably. However,
it is useful to make the following distinction:
Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the
guide to good or right conduct.
Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
What, then, is a moral theory?

A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or
concepts.Ý A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong -- or why we
ought to act in certain ways.ÝÝ In short, it is a theory of how we determine right and wrong
conduct.Ý Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss
in a reasoned way, and so evaluate, specific moral issues.
Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp divide between moral
theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics). For instance, in order to
critically evaluate the moral issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt to evaluate
what actions or policies are right (or wrong) independent of what we take to determine
right and wrong conduct. You will see, as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without at
least some moral theory.Ý When evaluating the merits of some decision regarding a case,
we will always (or at least ought to always) find ourselves thinking about how right and
wrong is determined in general, and then apply that to the case at hand.Ý Note, though,
that sound moral thinking does not simply involve going one way -- from theory to applied
issue.Ý Sometimes a case may suggest that we need to change or adjust our thinking
about what moral theory we think is the best, or perhaps it might lead us to think that a
preferred theory needs modification.
Another important distinction:

Are moral theories descriptive or prescriptive ?
In presenting a moral theory, are we merely describing how people, in their everyday
'doings' and 'thinkings,' form a judgement about what is right and wrong, or are we
prescribing how people ought to make these judgements?
Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people do
is left to sociologists and anthropologists.Ý Philosophers, then, when they study morality,
want to know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong. There have been
many different proposals.Ý Here is a brief summary.
Theories of Morality
(1) Moral Subjectivism
Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or 'feel')
is right or wrong.
In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any
significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation.Ý In essence,
'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that
some action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism.Ý If you are a moral subjectivist,
you cannot object to anyone's behaviour (assuming people are in fact acting in
accordance with what they think or feel is right).Ý This shows the key flaw in moral
subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral
grounds, to at least some peoples' actions.Ý That is, it is possible to disagree about moral
issues.
Ý
(2) Cultural Relativism
Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism.Ý It implies that we cannot
criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own.Ý And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles.Ý Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken
about what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility
of moral advancement (which also seems not to be true).
Ý
(3) Ethical Egoism
Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest.Ý Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act
selfishly.Ý Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least
some 'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act
so as to maximize our self interest.Ý This may require that we forgo some immediate
pleasures for the sake of achieving some long term goals.Ý Also, ethical egoism does not
exclude helping others.Ý However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own
interests.Ý An ethical egoist will claim that the altruist helps others only because they
want to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they
think there will be some personal advantage in doing so.Ý That is, they deny the possibility
of genuine altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish).Ý This leads us to
the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others at the expense
of their self-interest is actually acting immorally.Ý Many think that the ethical egoist has
misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system of practical reasoning
through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not further it.Ý Also, thatÝ
genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.
Ý
(4) Divine Command Theory
Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that,
without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behaviour.Ý Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate
and guide people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary
connection between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the
commands of God (or the gods).Ý This view of morality is known as Divine Command
Theory.Ý The upshot is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it,
wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not
command that it not be done.
Divine Command Theory is widely held to have several serious flaws.Ý First, it
presupposes that God or gods exist.Ý Second, even if we assume that God does exist, it
presupposes that we can know what God commandsÝ But even if we accept theism, it
looks like even theists should reject the theory.Ý Plato raised the relevant objection 2500
years ago.Ý He asked:
Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right?
If the latter, then right and wrong are independent of the gods' commands -- Divine
Command Theory is false.Ý If the former, then right and wrong are just a matter of the
arbitrary will of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, contradictory
commands).
Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary -- that is, some action is wrong, say, for
a reason.Ý Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because
of this reason, not simply because He arbitrarily commands it.Ý What makes the action
wrong, then, is not God's commanding it, but the reason.Ý Divine Command Theory is
false again.
Ý
(5) Virtue Ethics
Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making the good person.
The most widely discussed is Aristotle's account.Ý For Aristotle, the central concern is
"Ethica" = things to do with character.Ý Of particular concern are excellences of character
-- i.e., the moral virtues.
Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e.,
modern day moral concepts.Ý Rather, they were concerned with what makes human
beings truly 'happy'.Ý True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being /
fulfilment / self- actualization).Ý Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective
reasons for living in accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and
temperance).Ý For Aristotle, this comes from a particular account of human nature -- i.e.,
the virtuous life is the 'happiest' (most fulfilling) life.
(1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.

(2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance with reason.
(3) Acting in accordance with reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional
virtues.
Aristotle thought that humans had a specific function.Ý This function is to lead a life of
true flourishing as a human, which required abiding by the dictates of rationality and so
acting in accordance with the traditional virtues.
Ý
(6) Feminist Ethics
Right and wrong is to be found in womens' responses to the relationship of caring.

Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male
bias.Ý Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral
theories (they take individualism to be a 'masculine' idea).Ý Rather, feminist ethics
suggests that we need to consider the self as at least partly constructed by social
relations.Ý So morality, according to some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground
in 'moral emotions' like love and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring.Ý This allows
legitimate biases towards those with whom we have close social relationships.
Ý
(7) Utilitarianism
Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of
action.
Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
All action leads to some end.Ý But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end.
This is pleasure or happiness.Ý Also, that there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle
of Utility', alternatively called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually
characterized as the ideal of working towards the greatest happiness of the greatest
number.Ý The GHP implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human welfare (though
Bentham thought we should include all sentient animals in his utilitarian calculations).Ý
We do this in a particular instance by choosing the action that maximizes
pleasure/happiness and minimizing suffering.
Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not distinguish between kinds
of pleasures.Ý However, Bentham's student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more
sophisticated version of Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower.Ý The
higher pleasures (those obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits), carried greater
weight than the lower pleasures (those obtained through sensation).Ý The upshot is that
in determining what action to perform, both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness
count.
Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist.Ý Hedonists are concerned only with their own
happiness. Utilitarians are concerned with everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic.Ý In
general, morally right actions are those that produce the best overall consequences / total
amount of pleasure or absence of pain.
Modern versions of Utilitarianism have dropped the idea of maximizing pleasure in favour
of maximizing the satisfaction of all relevant peoples' preferences and interests.Ý Also,
some distinguish between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.Ý Act Utilitarianism is
pretty mush as described above, where we make the utilitarian calculation based on the
evaluation of the consequences of a single isolated act.Ý It is thought by some that this
leads to a number of significant problems -- for instance, that one person may be harmed
if that leads to the greatest good for everyone.Ý To overcome these problems, some
advocate Rule Utilitarianism -- the view that we should adopt only those rules (for
governing society) that produce the greatest good for all.
Other key points:
For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.

No person's preferences or interests (including your own, your relatives, friends,
neighbours, etc.) carry a greater weight than any other person's.
Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian calculation before acting.Ý So, in most
situations, following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best consequences.
Democratic and economic principles reflect Utilitarianism.
Some things to ask about Utilitarianism:
How can we determine accurately what the consequences of an action will be?
Do people have rights that cannot be overridden by the goal of the best consequences
for all?
(8) Kantian Theory
Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal duties.

Kantianism is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
That there is "the supreme principle of morality".Ý Good and Evil are defined in terms of
Law / Duty / Obligation.Ý Rationality and Freedom are also central.Ý Kant thought that
acting morally was quite simple.Ý That is:
- you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).

Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without
qualification.Ý So, actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based
on Good Will.
What establishes Good Will?
- only can be a law of "universal conformity" -- "I should never act except in such a way
that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law".
This is called the Categorical Imperative = Principle of Universalizability (something like
The Golden Rule).Ý The basic idea is that we should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e.,
maxims) only those that can be universally accepted.Ý Consider someone wondering if
they could break a promise if keeping it became inconvenient.Ý We might formulate the
following maxim governing promises:
I can break promises when keeping them becomes inconvenient.
Can this be universalized?Ý Kant says no because making promises then becomes, in
essence, contradictory.Ý The thinking is that a promise is, by definition, something you
keep.Ý The above maxim would lead to a contradiction of will, i.e., "I'll make a promise
(something I keep), but I'll break it if I choose".Ý The more general way to understand the
Principle of Universalizability is to think that we must always ask the following questions:
What if everyone did the action you are proposing?Ý Or, what if I were in the other
person's position?Ý This leads to the basic idea behind the Golden Rule.
Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end.Ý Rather, treat everyone as an end in
themselves.
We can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society.Ý What is wrong
with the slave society, following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means
to the slave owner's ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not as a person.Ý The upshot is
that no person's interests (or rights) can be overridden by another's, or the majority.
Many think that this way of formulating the Categorical Imperative shows that Kantianism
is clearly anti-Utilitarian.
Some things to ask about Kantianism:
Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing that counts morally?
Must we always ignore good consequences?
Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end? (Can we do otherwise?)
(9) Rights-based Theories
We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by being
human.
Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist.Ý The
basic idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide
what the right requires.
Most distinguish between positive and negative rights.Ý A positive right is one in which
the corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in
order to sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc.Ý A negative right is one
in which the corresponding duty merely requires refraining from doing something that will
harm someone.Ý Some claim -- e.g., Libertarians -- that only negative rights count
morally.Ý For instance, the right to life does not require that we give what is needed to
sustain life, rather merely that we refrain from taking any action that would take life. [Note:
others argue that there is really no significant distinction between positive and negative
rights, arguing that a positive right can be understood negatively, and visa versa.Ý Also,
that there is no morally significant difference between, for example, letting someone die
and killing them.Ý Obviously, this is a hotly disputed issue.]
Some things to ask about Rights-based theories:
Where do rights come from?Ý From nature (we have them simply by being human)?Ý
From principles of Justice?Ý Or, from Utilitarian procedures?
How do we decide between competing rights?
(10) Contractarianism
The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would
agree upon in forming a social contract.
Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested.Ý In general, the idea is that the
principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a
hypothetical contract forming procedure.Ý Here is John Rawls's example.
Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up with
universal principles of justice.Ý The basic idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial
developing a social contract ofÝ universal principles -- but many find Rawls' novel method
very appealing.Ý The idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that we are at the
beginning of forming a society and we want to know which principles of justice to ground
the society.Ý However, in this 'original position' we do this without knowing which position
we will occupy in the future society -- we don't know if we will be rich or poor, male or
female, old or young, etc.Ý We then advocate those principles that will be in our self-
interest (though we don't know what 'self' that will be).Ý This forces us to be impartial,
and if we are rational, to propose universal principles.Ý The idea of the thought
experiment is not to think that we actually begin again, and construct a society from
scratch.Ý Rather, we can use the thought experiment as a test of actual principles of
justice.Ý If a principle is one that would not be adopted by people in the original position,
behind the 'veil of ignorance' (about who they will be), then it is unjust and should be
rejected.
[Rawls claims that people in this original position will choose conservatively when
developing principles governing the distribution of benefits and burdens.Ý This
conservatism, Rawls claims, will lead to the choosing two basic principles: (1) that each
member of the society should have as much liberty as possible without infringing on the
liberty of others; and (2) the 'maximin' rule for decisions about economic justice -- namely,
that they will choose those rules that would maximize the minimum they would receive.Ý
In other words, make the society in which the least well off are in the best possible
position.Ý Deviations from equality of distribution of benefits and burdens is justified only
if it advantages the least well off.Ý Rawls thought that some inequalities would be adopted
because rewarding on the grounds of merit and hard work, for example, would lead to a
society in which there was a greater production of social benefits, so the least well of
would be better off than in a society of pure equality.]
Popular Moral Frameworks I

These first three moral frameworks--The Look-In-the-Mirror Principle, The Golden Rule, and The Publicity
Principle--provide fairly simple tests by which to make moral judgments. This simplicity probably contributes to
their popularity. Yet advocates of any one of them also would assert that the moral framework provides a
constructive way of dealing with ethical situations in a way that calls upon widely shared moral feelings.
The "Look-in-the-Mirror" Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act in such a way that you can look
at yourself without losing your sense of self-respect.
Assumption: Maintaining self-respect is one of our most treasured, or fundamental, values.
Explanation: The "Look-in-the-Mirror" Principle personalizes the issue of how to act by putting ourselves to a
challenging, personal test involving self-respect. Instead of being able to shunt aside an action as not especially
important morally or being able to excuse it as necessary because of the demands of "the real world," instead we
must face up to what an action means in terms of how we think about ourselves. And since we want to think highly
of ourselves, that is, to have a strong sense of self-respect or self-esteem, we are not going to engage in any action
that lowers our opinion of ourselves.
Strengths:
• The "Look-in-the-Mirror" Principle broadens the range of our moral judgments in that it forces us to take
others' interests into account in a meaningful way. Yet the broadening does not rely simply on noble or
altruistic appeals regarding the worth of other people. Rather it focuses upon how we think about ourselves
in moral terms.
• In a society where self-respect is a fundamental value, this is an effective way of getting people to act in a
more morally positive way.
Weaknesses:
• The Look-in-the-Mirror Principle will not be very effective in social groups where persons have a low
sense of self-esteem or they are willing to sacrifice their sense of self-respect out of fear for other
consequences. For example, if a person has to choose between maintaining self-respect and being able to
keep a job, fear of losing the job may outweigh a lowering of self-respect.
• Since what satisfies a sense of self-respect will vary from person to person, there will be no uniformity to
actions and no reason to trust what someone else does in terms of self-respect. For example, vain persons
may look into the mirror and be quite happy and satisfied with what they see even though they engage in
actions that disgust others.
• Some persons have such unreasonably high expectations and ideals so that looking into the mirror just
makes them feel guilty and inadequate, whereas others have much lower expectations and ideals so that
they can do just about anything with impunity.
• What persons would like to do when looking at themselves in the mirror may seem unrealistic and
unattainable in the real world--so that, while they may not especially like themselves and may even lose
self-respect in the process, they will violate their own preferred rules in order to survive or to accomplish
their goals.
The Golden Rule

The Principle Stated: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Assumption: We are capable of valuing others as much as we value ourselves.
Explanation: Some people describe this New Testament saying as the basic principle of social morality. In order to
act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to treat others as you want them to treat you. The Golden Rule
personalizes the process of moral judgment by focusing upon our own conception of being treated well (which,
presumably, all of us have) and then by requiring us to treat others according to that conception regarding ourselves.
Consequently, It takes other persons' interests into account in a meaningful way without requiring us to go beyond
our own notion of personal well-being.
Strengths:
• In our dealings with other people, The Golden Rule requires no more of us than our own notion of how we
ourselves deserve to be treated. Yet, at the same time, It manages to confer on other people the same status
we place upon ourselves--thereby achieving a state of equal worth.
• Human beings as a whole would benefit from greater acceptance of The Golden Rule.
Weaknesses:
• Not everyone agrees that we can value others as much as we value ourselves.
• Since persons differ in their expectations of how they want to be treated, there will be no uniformity to
actions and no reason to trust some people's application of The Golden Rule. For example, persons who
have come to accept the abuse they experience as a normal aspect of life will not see anything wrong in
abusing others. Or persons inclined to reject assistance from others or from government will have no reason
to assist others.
• It may not be clear why a person should assign so much worth to others as The Golden Rule requires.
Some people may think, by reason of special abilities or effort, that they deserve to be treated better than
others.
• Those with the view that human beings, including themselves, are aggressive and greedy by nature will
turn The Golden Rule into "Do unto others before they do unto you."
The Publicity Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act in such a way that you would be
willing to have your actions published on the front page of the newspaper the next day.
Assumption: People will guide themselves by the Publicity Principle even when it is unlikely that actions will be
publicly known.
Explanation: The Publicity Principle provides a challenging personal test by requiring you to act only in ways
where you are willing to take a forthright public stand. On the one hand, you need to believe strongly enough in the
moral acceptability of an action that you are willing to make it public. On the other hand, you need to be willing to
face any public scrutiny that publicizing the action produces. So there is a test of both the depth of your commitment
and your willingness to face possible pressure from the public.
Strengths:
• A willingness to take a public stand on an issue is a reliable test of what our real commitments are.
• The Publicity Principle leads to taking other people's interests into account because doing so is more
publicly acceptable.
• A willingness to have other people know about what you are doing makes you think carefully about what
you do. Presumably, you are not likely to want other people to see you as being a selfish, greedy lowlife.
• Fear of what others will think once they know what you are doing is a powerful restriction on what a
person is willing to do.
Weaknesses:
• The principle would not be very effective, in practice, because much of what people do will never come
under public scrutiny and thus most people will not have any great fear about public disclosure. In other
words, the basic assumption here is untenable.
• Since adequately ethical actions may give "the appearance of impropriety" to the public, you would have
to refrain from acceptable ethical actions simply because of the shallowness of the public's judgment.
• What the public would be willing to accept is a poor guide to what is right.
Popular Moral Frameworks II

The moral frameworks for this week--The Principle of Legality, The Lookaround Principle of Goodness and Justice,
and Traditional Christianity--are a bit more complex than the "homier" frameworks from last week; yet they retain
widespread popularity.
Principle of Legality
The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to do nothing that is illegal.
Assumption: Laws are stated clearly enough for citizens to know what is allowed or forbidden.
Explanation: Laws are formalized, public rules that establish what actions are acceptable or unacceptable in a
society. They provide a publicly known, clearly stated basic structure for the society. The Principle of Legality ties
actions to this basic structure. By acting legally, you are acting in a way consistent with the society's acceptable
norms for behavior.
Strengths:
• Laws--as formalized, public rules--establish a common ground for the society, letting all citizens know
what is expected of them morally.
• Legality is a standard of moral acceptability frequently espoused and adhered to. Generally, there is a
tendency for most people to abide by the law and to regard most laws as well-grounded morally.
• The presence of laws makes possible institutionalized enforcement and punishment through the legal
system. Unlike voluntary compliance or most ethical codes where enforcement is nonexistent or spotty, the
Principle of Legality carries with it the power of the legal system to insure that people act in accordance
with legal norms.
Weaknesses:
• The statement of laws often is too general to provide people with clear, straightforward guidelines for
action. So people often do not know what the laws require or they come up with loopholes that are legal,
but not really acceptable morally.
• There can be unjust laws--in which case the laws conflict with morally correct actions.
• A law may exemplify the power of an interest group to enforce its will rather than a sound moral directive.
So people can lose confidence in, or respect for, laws they think represent special interests rather than the
well-being of society as a whole.
• The legal system, especially in the business world, may be ineffective in controlling illegal actions
• There is a widespread view that being moral is more than just a matter of acting legally.
The Lookaround Principle of Goodness and Justice

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to look around to see how other
people are acting and then bring yourself into conformity with what others are doing.
Assumption: If the system as a whole is working properly enough, then what the vast majority of people are doing
must be morally acceptable.
Explanation: For a system to survive--whether it is a company, a society, or anything else--it must be functioning
effectively. Moreover, the system as a whole cannot function effectively without the vast majority of its components
functioning effectively. This effectiveness requirement holds in ethical matters as much as it does in technological
matters.
In the case of a company or some other social group then, its survival indicates that the vast majority of persons
there are functioning reasonably effectively in a moral sense. So, by acting as others do, you will be acting in a
morally acceptable way.
Strengths:
• The explanation makes a lot of sense. Acting morally becomes a type of on-the-job-training just like any
other training you get that requires imitating others' procedures.
• The Lookaround Principle provides a fairly simple, quite common way of deciding the right way to act--
without requiring each individual to agonize over, or to think deeply about, decisions.
• The Lookaround Prinicple offers a good deal of self-protection, because you are not
personally blameable if you just are doing the same as what everyone else is doing.
Weaknesses:
• As they say, "The majority is not always right." So you cannot presume that what everyone else is doing is
always morally acceptable. If you were working in a concentration camp exterminating Jews during World
War II or working at a company where employee theft is widespread, you may well be conforming to what
other people are doing--without the actions really being morally acceptable. Even if what others are doing
is usually a good guide for action, this principle takes no account of unusual situations where doing the
right thing means going against what everybody else is doing.
• Even if the vast majority of persons in a company are functioning in a morally acceptable way so that the
company as a whole is functioning effectively in a moral sense, you can find yourself in a much smaller
unit where imitating co-workers leads to actions contrary to what most other people are doing. For
example, when a company is convicted of "bid-rigging," you usually find these illegal actions confined to
one group of the company's personnel.
• The Lookaround Principle tends to produce the morality of the lowest common denominator, that is, the
smallest number of moral rules or restrictions that everyone can agree on. Instead of trying to do the best
you are capable of, you settle merely for what everyone else is doing, the lowest common denominator.
• The Lookaround Principle promotes taking the easy way out instead of exhibiting the courage and
willingness to make sacrifices that a worthwhile morality sometimes demands.
• Likening imitation of others in moral matters to other types of on-the-job training seems to reduce morality
merely to an amoral technical skill--as if deceiving a customer were no different from running the copy
machine.
• The norms established through the Lookaround Principle are subject to changing fashions without a stable
moral foundation. Maximizing profits, serving consumers first, sexual harassment, health care benefits for
all employees, affirmative action, top-down decision making, bottom-up decision-making, centralizing
operations, decentralizing operations, upsizing, and downsizing become interests of the moment, gaining
general acceptance for a time and then dissipating.
Traditional Christianity
Qualifications: Singling out Christianity rather than some other religion as a moral framework here should not be
interpreted as an endorsement of Christianity as the foremost representative religion. Also, given the number of
Christian sects, the explanation here cannot be interpreted as the official doctrine of Christianity.
The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to place the spiritual values of
Christianity before material values.
Assumptions:
• There is a personal God who laid down moral guidelines for human beings, and there will be a final
judgment whereby God determines whether human beings' immortal souls warrant eternal salvation or
damnation.
• The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, and Charity as a Virtue all exemplify the spiritual
values of Christianity.
• Persons ought to live for all eternity rather than just for material life on earth.
• It is written, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."
(Matthew, 4:4)
• Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew, 19: 23-24)
• "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts. For the
love of money is the root of all evil; which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and
pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (Paul, First Letter to Timothy, 6: 9-10)
Explanation: In so far as Christianity focuses upon spiritual over material values and an immortal soul (as a non-
physical entity) has no use for material goods, there seems to be scant support for a Christian's accumulating
material wealth. Moreover, the warnings in the passages from Scripture quoted above stress the dangers in pursuing
material goods.
Nevertheless, most Christian churches do not condemn the accumulation of wealth and they do not expel the
wealthy from their midst. Instead they stress the more positive message that those fortunate enough to possess
material wealth beyond what they need have a duty to help the less fortunate.
There also are restrictions regarding the means and goals of everyday living that relate to business activities. For
example, the Ten Commandments presumably forbid theft, deceit, pursuit of wealth through envy of one's
neighbors, and putting the accumulation and enjoyment of material goods before service to God. So a practicing
Christian will take care in business dealings such as the treatment of customers, wages, the working out of contracts,
or the degree of profit.
Strengths:
• Christianity promises eternal salvation with God and the satisfaction of a life with moral purpose.
• With a sense of being empowered by God's guidance, Christians can act with the assurance that they are
doing the truly right thing.
• Christianity is a frequently advocated model for moral behavior in Christian parts of the world.
Weaknesses:
• God, an immortal soul, eternal salvation, and human knowledge of the divine are matters subject to doubt.
• No matter how high the ideals of Christianity, they are unrealistic in terms of what goes on in the
contemporary world and persons pursuing these ideals in business are unlikely to prosper. Religion and
business are largely separate realms; so you cannot transfer the rules of one to the other.
• By stressing the values of eternal life, advocates of Christianity hinder the pursuit of valuable human goals
on earth. For exampel, persons who acquire wealth through their own effort ought not to feel guilty about
their accomplishments.
• Since most people in the world are not Christians and the conversion of large numbers of people to
Christianity is not imminent, this moral framework has limited appeal.
Free Market Moral Frameworks

This week's moral frameworks focus upon the free market as a basis for morality. The presentation begins with The
Free Market Principle, a classic statement of how a free market is supposed to work. This framework, or a close
approximation to it, is the theoretical model normally presented in capitalistic economic theory.
The other two moral frameworks, The Survival Principle and The Yuppie Principle, are variations on the classic
interpretation of a free market (unacceptable variations to many free market enthusiasts). The 1980s film Wall
Street aptly captures The Survival Principle in the character of Gordon Gekko and The Yuppie Principle in the
character of Bud Fox.
The Free Market Principle

The Principle Stated: You are entitled to whatever you acquire through your own effort in a free market.
Assumptions:
• Individuals are free, equal, rational persons pursuing their own self-interest. That is, they are free to act
according to their own choices; this freedom is equally available to all participants; and they are using
reason to determine what furthers their self-interest in their perceptions and actions.
• There is fair and open competition. That is, individuals are competing with each other in circumstances
where each has a fair chance to succeed--because no secret deals, preferences, deceptions, or information
available only to a few give some an unfair advantage over others.
• Supply and demand is the primary determinant of price. That is, the price of a product depends upon
whether it is in greater or lesser supply (the greater the supply of the product available, the lower the price)
and whether individuals acting freely want greater or lesser amounts of the product (the greater the demand,
the higher the price).
Explanation: Advocates tout the free market as a way of providing opportunities for all people to get ahead through
their own effort in a system that is basically fair. They see the free market as being consistent with our nature as
human beings--the tendency to be competitive, to seek our own self-interest, to use our reasoning to advance our
interests, to want to decide the direction of our lives for ourselves, and to require financial rewards as a motivation
to enhance effort.
There is no presumption that people are noble or altruistic. Yet the system works to everyone's advantage in the long
run because it encourages people to do their best. They will develop the skills necessary to compete, and the
prospects of financial rewards motivate them to greater effort. This higher level of skills and effort, in turn, leads to
the advancement of knowledge and technology, as well as to better, more efficient production. As a result, the
standard of living rises for people in a society generally. Thus, by "an invisible hand," the pursuit of self-interest
contributes to the greater well-being of all.
Strengths:
• The Free Market Principle is consistent with many people's interpretation of human nature; and they
believe that it produces the best life for most people in the long run in the most efficient possible way.
• The Free Market Principle relies upon the claimed fairness of the exchange process itself to
determine what is a morally acceptable result in business rather than expecting some individual(s) to lay
down for everyone what is acceptable. For example, what a seller freely is willing to sell for and what a
buyer freely is willing to pay determines a fair price for a product, without someone declaring on more
questionable grounds what is a fair price. Similarly, what an employer offers and what an employee is
willing to work for determines a fair wage.
• The fairness of the system gives everyone an equal chance to succeed and also properly rewards personal
effort and the willingness to take risks.
Weaknesses:
• The assumptions underlying the Free Market Principle are questionable--since (1) People are seldom all
free, equal, and rational; (2) People do not always act merely for selfish self-interest; (3) Fair and open
competition is often thwarted through monopoly, conspiracy, deception, advantages of greater wealth and
power, or differences in knowledge; and (4) There are numerous ways to control supply and manipulate
demand to affect prices, such as controlling production or using advertising. To take just one example, an
employee desperate for work to feed a family and competing with other similarly desperate workers is not a
free and equal bargainer with a wealthy employer in determining a fair wage.
• The Free Market Principle makes no allowance for the benefits of nobility or for the dangers of greed; and
it tends to produce disaster and hopelessness (without relief) for the least successful competitors.
• The principle tends to produce "boom-bust" cycles, with all the problems associated with instability--e.g.
insecurity, hard times, distrust of others' intentions, the feeling that one has to make a "killing" while one
can, and social upheavals.
The Survival Principle (A harsher variation on The Free Market Principle)

The Principle Stated: You are entitled to do whatever is useful to survive and succeed in business.
Assumptions:
• The assumptions of The Free Market Principle are unrealistic, although the notion that any person can get
ahead through one's own effort in a competitive world is sound.
• This is a competitive, "dog-eat-dog" world where only the fittest survive.
• Greed and aggression capture the essence of human nature.
Explanation: The Survival Principle dispenses with the elements of fairness that are assumed for the Free Market
Principle to work. Life and the business world are not fair; but they do produce a competition where anybody can
survive and succeed. Everybody is greedy and aggressive by nature; but not everybody is willing to make the extra
effort that it takes to stand out from the crowd. What you need to prosper is a greedy-enough, aggressive-enough
disposition to go a step further than others and to break the rules others are following, when this gives you an
advantage.
You only need to look around for the most successful people in business to find the truth of the Survival Principle.
They do not take prisoners and they do not believe in giving a guy a break. They do what is necessary to get ahead.
Strengths:
• The Survival Principle doesn't require the unrealistic assumptions necessary for The Free Market Principle
to work.
• In so far as only the fittest survive, you achieve the best possible world in the long run.
• The Survival Principle properly rewards superior people who know how to get ahead in life.
Weaknesses:
• The assumptions underlying The Survival Principle are questionable--since this is not really "a dog-eat-
dog" world where greed and aggression capture the essence of human nature. Human actions exhibit far too
many exceptions to these claims for them to be true. For example, there are many acts of kindness, of
sacrifice for others, and of respect for others. And people are quite capable of cooperating with others
without taking advantage of them.
• The consequences from application of The Survival Principle would be disastrous for the greater majority
of human beings--since a relatively small number of people would achieve great success by taking
advantage of everybody else and a pervasive attitude of both distrust and lack of concern for others would
dominate the society.
• Since the principle allows a person to do anything at all in business, it seems amoral instead of descriptive
of what is morally acceptable.
The Yuppie Principle (A mild variation on The Free Market Principle)

The Principle Stated: You are entitled to do whatever everyone else is doing or wants to do in something like a free
market, so long as no one really gets hurt.
Assumptions:
• As long as everyone is making money and no one gets hurt seriously, there is no reason to be concerned
about whether or not free market assumptions hold.
• You do not need to have higher moral standards than the people working around you; and if you don't take
advantage of a situation, someone else will.
Explanation: Central to The Yuppie Principle as a moral framework are the beliefs that (a) you can do very well for
yourself without seriously hurting anyone else, and (b) you do not need to probe deeply into the moral significance
of your actions. You are acquiring more and more of the best of everything--whether it be a better house, better
clothes, a better car, a more exciting vacation--through your own hard work. And if you cut a few corners morally
on the road to success, there is no need for major concern since the people you know are living fairly well and
everybody seems to be cutting moral corners now and then. There is enough money to be made for everyone to do
well through hard work.
Strengths:
• The Yuppie Principle allows a person to pursue goals and get ahead in the business world without having
to agonize over the morality of actions.
• The Yuppie Principle produces the best of everything for people willing to put out strong, personal effort.
Weaknesses:
• The Yuppie Principle lends itself to self-serving interpretations of what it means to hurt others; and the
claim not to hurt others, often enough, is just a comfortable illusion.
• The Yuppie Principle sets up a low standard of morality that is disguised by the shallowness of the
thinking about morality.
• Even when the notion, "If you don't do it then someone else will," is true, that does not make an action
morally acceptable.
Two Basic Philosophical Moral Frameworks

The two moral frameworks this week, The Principle of Utility and Human Dignity and Infinite Worth, exemplify
two basic, contrasting points of view of philosophers. The Principle of Utility expresses the views of the nineteenth
century British philosophers Jeremy Benthan and John Stuart Mill; Human Dignity and Infinite Worth expresses the
views of the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
The Principle of Utility

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to produce the greatest amount of
good (or pleasure) and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people involved in an action.
Assumptions:
• As a basic fact about human nature, we can assert that human beings always act so as to gain pleasure and
to avoid pain.
• Through experience, it is possible to weigh the various ways in which people get pleasure or pain from
actions so that we can determine which actions are more likely to produce the greatest amount of pleasure
and the least amount of pain.
• Human beings are capable of acting for the benefit of everyone involved in action rather than just for their
own selfish interests.
Explanation: Advocates of the Principle of Utility (Utilitarians) propose that we decide how to act by engaging in a
cost-benefit analysis to determine the effects of an action on all the people involved, in terms of pleasure and pain.
We should act in such a way that we maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. Note
that everyone involved has an equal right to have one's interests considered in the analysis. So we cannot give
special preferences to our selfish interests, our own family, our friends, or our local interest groups.
The weighing of pleasures and pains can be a fairly complicated process--not a simple, quick, or crude one. For
example, we may consider (a) long-range pleasures and pains rather than immediate ones, (b) differing intensities of
pleasure and pain, and (c) qualitative differences in pleasures.
In applying the Principle of Utility, you need especially to avoid crude, shortsighted decisions. As an example of
crude Utilitiarianism, someone might argue that a mob lynching a person who committed a heinous murder satisfies
the Principle of Utility since the increase in pleasure of the many people in the mob far outweighs the pain
experienced by the murderer. To be more careful in applying the Principle here though, we need to consider the
long-range consequences of lynching. What are the consequences of allowing mob rule to administer justice? Does a
criminal justice system with prescribed rules carefully followed, with courts, with both defendants' and victims'
rights, and with due deliberation contribute more to the well-being of society as a whole than the highly emotional,
spur-of-the-moment decisions of a mob? Does past experience with lynchings show the likelihood of grievous
mistakes and miscarriages of justice that would put large numbers of innocent people in fear for their lives?
Varieties of Utilitiarianism: Advocates of the Principle of Utility tend to define themselves as either rule-
utilitarians or else act-utilitarians. Rule-utilitarians hold that the Principle of Utility establishes general rules that
serve as guides to action. Act-utilitarians hold that one must apply the Principle of Utility to the particular action at
hand to determine the correct course. What does this difference between them mean? With respect to stealing, a
rule-utilitarian argues that the Principle of Utility establishes a general rule against stealing whereas an act-utilitarian
argues that one must apply the Principle to the specific circumstancs to decide whether or not stealing is wrong. In
the case of a person stealing food from a supermarket to prevent one's family from starving, a rule-utilitarian would
criticize the action as a violation of the rule against stealing, whereas an act-utilitarian would at least consider the
person's special circumstances in judging the action.
Strengths:
• The Principle of Utility offers a sensible way of deciding upon social policy in a society where there are
many competing interests.
• There is an inherent equality in the Principle, since it takes everyone's interests into account. Even though
some persons may get more pleasure than others in the end-result because the greatest good for the whole
favors them, each person gets equal consideration in determining the greatest good.
• As persons become more used to cooperating with others in social groups and become more aware of the
need for cooperation to solve common problems, they become more appreciative of the value of the
Principle of Utility.
Weaknesses:
• The assumptions are questionable because (1) people need not act only in terms of pleasure and pain, and
(2) it is not possible to determine what truly produces the greatest amount of pleasure and least amount of
pain for the greatest number, except in relatively trivial situations.
• The Principle of Utility would lead us to do actions that we know to be wrong, since it requires us to
mistreat individuals for the sake of the common good. Basic moral notions such as the right to privacy, the
right to private property, the right to direct one's life as one sees fit can be overridden by an appeal to the
Principle.
The Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth

The Principle Stated: You ought to act so as to recognize the dignity and infinite worth of every human being.
Translations of the Principle (in the form of a moral law):
• You ought to act so that the rule governing your action can be willed as a universal law for all rational
beings. Thus, you cannot make a lying promise unless you can will it as a universal law that everyone make
lying promises.
• You ought to treat other rational beings as ends-in-themselves rather than as means to serve some other
purpose. In other words, you ought not to exploit other persons. (Note: Meaning of Exploitation - You are
exploiting someone if you use that person to serve your self-interest without proper regard for the person's
own best interest.)
Assumptions:
• Human beings possess a basic dignity and infinite worth, because as rational beings they are able to act
according to the recognition of a moral principle. In other words, their ability to function as moral beings
entails their dignity and infinite worth.
• The preservation of a genuine morality, that is, one that commands all rational beings in the same way
without exception or possibility of error, requires that moral decisions and moral worth depend upon doing
the right action with the right intention rather than upon the consequences of the action.
Explanation: According to the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth, you cannot sacrifice the worth of
human beings for the sake of money, convenience, or others' welfare. Such actions place a finite worth on human
beings. Since each human being possesses infinite worth, no collection of benefits to others can outweigh that worth.
To take advantage of a customer's ignorance or a worker's desperate need for employment are denials of their
infinite worth.
You should decide upon the right course of action through rational consideration of the basic moral law (in either of
the translations given above). Rationally, the moral law specifies a single, correct action that holds for everyone
without change over time. For Immanuel Kant, a lying promise is a contradiction (it is the assertion of a promise that
is not really a promise because the person is lying); and no rational person could will a contradiction as a universal
law for everyone. Likewise, a lying promise exploits one person for the sake of another. Even in the case of food
needed for your survival, you still are exploiting someone else if you acquire the food by promising to pay for it
later, knowing that you will never do so.
Moral decisions and moral worth depend upon acting with the right intention, that is, acting from a sense of duty
toward the moral law. You should do the right thing and not worry about the consequences. In Kant's view, judging
an action by its consequences opens the door to too many different interpretations of the morally correct way to act--
so that we end up with a lot of different opinions rather than a common morality.
Strengths:
• The Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth seems to express our highest, noblest ideal regarding
what human beings are. So we would like to accept it ourselves and have other people accept it as well.
• The Principle sets up a single moral standard for everyone to abide by all of the time, with no exceptions
for special people or special circumstances.
• The Principle is based upon reason rather than whims, inclinations, desires or consequences, all of which
are so changeable as to make a common moral standard impossible to achieve.
Weaknesses:
• Moral situations are too complex to be governed by a single moral law that allows for no exceptions and
no changes because of time or circumstance. There can be situations, for example, where lying is the
morally correct action.
• Moreover, no matter how powerful our reasoning, a single moral law will not always lead to a
single, clearcut course of action. Morality is not reducible to mathematical-like certainty.
• Most people will find the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth to be impractical, no matter how
noble it seems at first glance. They will not bind themselves to the Principle when they see the
overwhelming majority of other people not following it. In addition, inclinations, desires, and consequences
are such fundamental factors in moral considerations that people will not abide by their elimination.
• While human beings possess great worth, it is impractical to assign them infinite worth. Thus, although we
may like to think that money is irrelevant when it comes to saving lives, we often make practical decisions
that place financial costs ahead of saving lives. For example, because of the enormous costs involved, we
not build overpasses at every intersection of a road and railroad tracks in order to prevent all the deaths due
to collisions between vehicles and trains.
Deeper Justifications of the Two Philosophical Moral Frameworks:
An Overview
The presentation of moral frameworks--especially with respect to assumptions, explanations, and listing of strengths
and weaknesses--provides opportunities for evaluation. In presenting a framework however, the originators usually
make a much stronger case in terms of reasoning and evidence than appears here.
To make you more aware of these deeper justifications for moral frameworks, we will examine the Two Basic
Philosophical Moral Frameworks in much more detail. We will see (a) how they present what they take to be strong
evidence for a moral framework, so strong that you have to overcome the evidence to disagree with the framework;
and (b) how they meet potential objections to their frameworks. So there will be Evidential Arguments for a Moral
Framework and Evidential Arguments Rejecting Objections to a Moral Framework.
Once you work through these deeper justifications, you should better understand both how you also may give deeper
justifications for your own moral claims and how moral frameworks can go beyond simple personal opinions.
Bentham's and Mill's Principle of Utility (Detailed Version)

(Note on Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the arguments in support of the Principle of Utility here are based upon
the writings of John Stuart Mill and his Utilitarianism, in particular. Some of the explanations are taken from, or
based upon, my Philosophical Problems: The Good Life.)
Jeremy Bentham describes the Principle of Utility this way:
By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to
promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever; and therefore not only of
every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.
By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit advantage,
pleasure, good, or happiness (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes
again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party
whose interest is considered: if that part be the community in general, then the happiness of the
community; if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual. (from Introduction to
the Principles of Morals and Legislation)
Given any proposed action, the Principle of Utility, often called "The Greatest Happiness Principle," asserts that we
ought to take into account the interests of all those involved in the action--whether it be one person, a small group, or
even the society as a whole--and then that we ought to maximize the happiness or pleasure.
Note well that the interests of all those involved should be considered. Accordingly, we are obligated not to give
preference to our family, our friends, a special interest group to which we belong, our community, or our nation. For
example, in dealing with a pollution problem caused by a local industry, we cannot base our judgment of what to do
solely upon possible consequences for workers at the plant or even for the local community as a whole (if the pollution
causes problems for people outside the local area). Likewise, government or society generally cannot simply ignore
the consequences for workers at the plant. The objective is always to take everyone's interest into consideration and
then to maximize the pleasure or happiness as best we can. Although the Principle of Utility takes everyone's interests
into account, remember that the maximization of happiness for the greatest number does not guarantee a total absence
of pain--since the pain of some may be overridden by the greater pleasure of many others.
(1) Evidential Arguments for the Principle of Utility
Argument (1A) - The Need for a Moral Principle Based upon Pleasure and Pain
It is a fact of human nature that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the fundamental sources of all
motivation in our actions. A careful examination of any action will reveal this role of pleasure and pain. Therefore,
since this desire to get pleasure and avoid pain is so fundamental to our nature as human beings, we must regard the
pursuit of pleasure to be desirable, and thus good. Accordingly, the fundamental principle of morality must include
the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.
Argument (1B) - The Social Feelings Justification for the Principle of Utility
Although human beings by nature have strong selfish feelings, they also possess a "powerful natural sentiment" to
live in unity and harmony with others. That is, they possess strong "social feelings" as part of human nature as well.
As civilization develops, we can expect this role of social feelings to increase. And since these social feelings support
acceptance of the Principle of Utility, we can expect the Principle of Utility to become an increasingly accepted as the
fundamental principle of morality.
Argument (1C) - The Equality Justification for the Principle of Utility
As civilization develops, there is increasing acceptance of equality as the basis for social organization. In other words,
there is increasing recognition that everyone has a right to equal treatment and to have their interests treated equally
with everyone else's. Since the Principle of Utility is the best way of treating everyone equally, the acceptance of
equality promotes, and leads to, acceptance of Utility as the fundamental principle of morality.
Argument (1D) - The Group Identification Justification for the Principle of Utility
When human beings cooperate in groups, they tend increasingly to identify their own interests with the interests of
the group as a whole. That is, they move away from purely personal interests in favor of adopting the group's interests.
Thus, they increasingly take others' interests into account instead of merely their own personal interests. But taking
others' interests into account is basic to the Principle of Utility. Therefore, as civilization develops and human beings
find themselves cooperating in more and more social groups, they will tend to accept more and more Utility as the
fundamental principle of morality.
Argument (1E) - Social Institutions and Support for the Principle of Utility
Social institutions--for example, education, religion, government, and the family--continually promote the rejection
of selfish feelings and the acceptance of social responsibility. Consequently, acceptance of the Principle of Utility has
the weight of social institutions supporting it. As social institutions have greater influence on human actions then,
there will be increasing acceptance of Utility as the fundamental principle of morality.
(2) Evidential Arguments Rejecting Objections to the Principle of Utility
Argument (2A) - The Likelihood of Deciding the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People
Objection: No one is capable of determining what constitutes the greatest amount of good, or pleasure, for the greatest
number of people--because this is a complex matter difficult to deal with in itself and subject to all sorts of different
opinions.
Countering Argument: Since most actions do not involve large numbers of people, the problem of determining the
greatest good is not as complex as it first seems. Even if an issue is complex, the Principle of Utility still is more
workable than any other moral principle, because it provides an experiential test, namely, the evidence of pleasure and
pain as experienced by human beings, as the measure of right and wrong. In the process of living, we gain valuable
experience in successfully gauging pleasures and pains. While our judgments of pleasure and pain may not be
infallible, they are sufficiently successful that the Principle of Utility is workable.
Argument (2B) - The Role of Rules as a Way of Expediting Application of the Principle of Utility
Objection: Given the number of actions they typically engage in, persons do not have the time to weigh each one
carefully in terms of the pleasures and pains involved, as the Principle of Utility requires.
Countering Argument: Human beings have sufficient past experience to establish rules, based upon the Principle of
Utility, which serve as guides for actions without our having to make decisions anew all the time. Thus, for example,
we can establish on Utilitarian grounds the rule that stealing is wrong and can then follow this rule rather than having
to determine the precise pleasure and pain for all persons involved whenever an occasion for stealing arises. Thus, by
making use of rules, we expedite application of the Principle of Utility.
Rules may require improvement with further experience. In that sense, they are not absolute.Yet they generally
provide a reliable guide for action and they are subject to some modification if experience warrants a change.
At times, rules also may require exceptions. John Stuart Mill's position on lying is instructive here:
... it would often be expedient, for the purpose of getting over momentary embarrassment, or
attaining some object immediately useful to ourselves or others, to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the
cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity, is one of the most useful,
and the enfeeblement of that feeling one of the most hurtful, things to which our conduct can be
instrumental; and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth, does that much towards
weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion, which is not only the principal support of all
present social well-being, but the insufficiency of which does more than any one thing that can be
named to keep back civilization, virtue, everything on which human happiness on the largest scale
depends; we feel that the violation, for a present advantage, of a rule of such transcendent
expediency, is not expedient, and that he who, for the sake of a convenience to himself or to some
other individual, does what depends on him to deprive mankind of the good, and inflict upon them
the evil, involved in the greater or less reliance which they can place in each other's word, acts the
part of one of their worst enemies. Yet that even this rule, sacred as it is, admits of possible
exceptions, is acknowledged by all moralists; the chief of which is when the withholding of some
fact (as of information from a malefactor, or of bad news from a person dangerously ill) would save
an individual (especially an individual other than oneself) from great and unmerited evil, and when
the withholding can only be effected by denial. But in order that the exception may not extend
beyond the need, and may have the least possible effect in weakening the reliance on veracity, it
ought to be recognized, and, if possible, its limits defined; and if the principle of utility is good for
anything, it must be good for weighting these conflicting utilities against one another, and marking
out the region within which one or the other preponderates. (from Utilitarianism)
There is a strong rule against lying. Yet exceptions may be made when withholding information might prevent
someone from doing serious harm or might spare someone additional grief when they are least able to cope with it.
Mill insists however that any exceptions must be few enough that they do not destroy the rule against lying.
Argument (2C) - Avoidance of Crude Utilitarianism
Objection: The Principle of Utility would lead to actions that we clearly recognize as being morally wrong. For
example, the Principle would justify (require) humiliating one person if this provides a greater amount of pleasure for
other persons who happen to be present. Yet we know that such humiliation would be wrong.
Countering Argument: This is a very crude interpretation of Utilitarianism. There is no reason to think that the
humiliation would produce a greater amount of pleasure for other persons. Even if they actually enjoyed
someone else's being humiliated now, they would experience the painful anxiety of knowing that they themselves may
be later victims of similar humiliation. Moroever, the long-range consequences of enjoying someone else's humiliation
are likely to be detrimental to themselves and others. For example, their lack of sensitivity to a person's pain here
probably will show itself later in their causing further pain to others and they will suffer themselves for their lack of
sensitivity in terms of the way other people will treat them.Accordingly, we should expect that the Principle of Utility
would forbid the humiliation in the situation presented, once we consider the Principle carefully.
Kant's Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth (Detailed Version)

(Note on Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the arguments here are based upon Immanuel Kant's Foundations of
the Metaphyics of Morals. Some of the explanations are taken from, or based upon, my Philosophical
Problems: The Good Life.)
Immanuel Kant associates a dignity and infinite worth with every human being that requires our obedience to a
moral law.
What is this moral law, or categorical imperative? According to Kant: We should always act so that the rule
governing our action can be willed as a universal law for all rational beings. The following example aptly
illustrates his use of the categorical imperative:
Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He knows that he will not be able to
repay it, but sees also that nothing will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a
definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much conscience as to ask himself:
Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty this way? Suppose, however,
that he resolves to do so, then the maxim of his action would be expressed thus: "When I think
myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it although I know that I never
can do so. Now this principle of self-love or of one's own advantage may perhaps be consistent with
my whole future welfare; but the question now is, Is it right? I change then the suggestion of self-
love into a universal law and state the question thus: How would it be if my maxim were a universal
law? Then I see at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would necessarily
contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal law that everyone when he thinks himself in a
difficulty should be able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping his
promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as the end that one might have in view
in it, since no one would consider that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such
statements as vain pretences. (from Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)
A lying promise cannot be willed as a universal law because it is a contradiction and therefore meaningless. Promising
sets up an obligation to act in a certain way; but the lying negates the obligation. As further examples of using the
categorical imperative, Kant discusses the obligation to develop our talents and to help others in need as well as the
obligation not to commit suicide. He is convinced that this single moral law is sufficient to guide our actions and that
reason assures its unambiguous application in the varied affairs of life.
Kant also offers an alternate statement of the categorical imperative--one that emphasizes the infinite moral worth of
each human being and forbids the exploitation of one human being by another. Always treat rational beings, whether
yourself or others, as ends-in-themselves and never merely as a means to serve some other purpose. This alternate
statement has attracted a good deal of attention in the twentieth century because of the frequent attribution of moral
wrongs to exploitation. We exploit other persons when we use them as means to serve some purpose without
consideration of their best interests. For example, the insurance salesperson who preys upon the fears of the elderly to
sell them unneeded insurance is exploitative. Exploitation is a serious problem; but its meaning requires careful
consideration. Thus actions to mutual advantage, it should be noted, need not be exploitative since they may take into
account the best interests of everyone involved. (Actions to mutual advantage however have questionable moral worth
since Kant regards only actions willed for the sake of duty to have moral worth.) Note also that the alternate statement
of the categorical imperative asserts that it is possible to exploit oneself. Forgoing reason in order to submit to our
inclinations constitutes self-exploitation. For example, committing suicide is forbidden because we thereby deny our
infinite worth in ending our life out of a desire to end our misery. We cannot use ourselves as a means in this way.
The moral worth of acts in accordance with the categorical imperative must be judged entirely with respect to
the motive, or intention of an act and not with respect to its consequences, according to Kant. This stress on intentions
can lead to judgments quite alien to some common ways of thinking. Consider the following example: Someone comes
up to you, gun in hand, and asks, "Where did your brother go?" From Kant's standpoint of the categorical imperative,
you cannot consider the consequences for your brother if you tell the truth. Instead, if the person expects you to tell
the truth, you are morally obligated since no rational person can will lying as a universal law--that is, since lying is
contrary to what we mean by communication, no rational person can willingly communicate a lie and still obey the
categorical imperative. Of course, having settled this first moral question, whether you should lie or not, you then
must turn to a second one--whether or not you should stop this person from killing your brother--and must apply the
categorical imperative again. So you cannot simply tell the truth and then turn away with no further concern.
(1) Evidential Arguments for the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth
Argument (1A) - The Need for a Moral Law
Genuine morality is impossible without a moral law--that is, a principle that commands rational
beings universally (without exception) and necessarily (without the possibility of error). Without a moral law,
different persons judge right and wrong differently according to their particular circumstances--thereby creating a
situation where a discussion of any common morality is impossible because values become relative to anyone's
personal, or subjective, judgment.
Argument (1B) - The Need for Reason in Morality
Morality must be based upon reason because (1) only reason can allow us to act as moral agents in terms of a rational
principle and (2) only reason can enable us to escape our subjective inclinations (personal appetites, desires, and
emotions) so that we can obey a moral law. Regarding (1), lower animals do not have a morality and do not act as
moral agents because they lack the reasoning necessary to grasp, and act in terms of, a moral principle. Regarding (2),
reason can be a common basis for universal, absolutely certain judgments that go beyond our subjective inclinations.
For example, reason can establish that a lying promise is a contradiction, a truth to be recognized by every rational
person.
Argument (1C) - The Need for Intention and Duty to Determine Moral Worth
The only guarantee that an action has genuine moral worth is the assurance of an intention to obey the moral law out
of a sense of duty, out of respect for the law itself. The intention to do one's duty, not the desire for personal gain,
must be the basis a morally worthy action. For example, we should treat others honestly because duty requires this,
and not because we gain some personal advantages by so acting. Thus no moral worth accrues to the business person
who treats customers fairly out of the conviction that such treatment is the best business practice in the long run.
Although this person acts in accordance with the moral law, the person is not acting from a sense of duty but rather is
trying to protect and assure profits.
Argument (1D) - The Irrelevant of Consequences in Determining the Morality of Actions
Moral actions cannot be based upon consequences, because examining experiences to assess consequences makes a
moral law impossible. Only reason, functioning independently of experience, is capable of upholding a moral law,
which must be the basis for morality. Reason, for example, can recognize a contradiction that is evident to all rational
persons; consequences based upon experience, on the other hand, are subject to differing interpretations depending
upon the vagaries of experience or the kinds of consequences (such as short-range or long-range ones) focused upon.
(2) Evidential Arguments Rejecting Objections to the Principle of Human Dignity and
Infinite Worth
Argument (2A) - Reassertion of the Irrelevance of Consequences
Objection: The gun-in-hand example shows why the morality of an action depends upon the consequences. If you
tell the truth to the person with a gun, you are engaging in a grievous moral wrong because it is likely that your
innocent brother will be murdered. Any theory of morality that requires you to ignore the significance of this
consequence is unacceptable.
Countering Argument: Morality requires a rule that is rationally clear and unambiguous, that is, a moral law like the
categorical imperative. Morality based upon experience is variable and therefore subject to all sorts of different
interpretations, exceptions, and self-serving judgments. The fact that the gun-in-hand example would lead to a
potentially harmful consequence, the murdering of your brother, (a potentially harmful consequence because there is
still the possibility of preventing the murder after you answer truthfully) should not distract us from the problems
associated with dependence upon consequences in making moral judgments. As soon as we ask, "Consequences for
whom? and For how long?" we enter into muddy moral waters--a relativity of values and hence a breakdown of
morality because everyone can judge consequences differently. On the other hand, recognizing, on the basis of reason
alone, that lying contradicts the meaning of communication is rationally clear and unambiguous.
Argument (2B) - The Irrelevance of Human Imperfection
Objection: Human beings are incapable of acting solely from a sense of duty, independently of all self-interest; and
they are incapable of forgoing all attention to their personal inclinations and to consequences in making moral
judgments. So Kant presents a theory of morality so unrealistic that it no one can follow it.
Countering Argument: What clearly is necessary for morality is a moral law based upon reason. Whether or not
human beings actually live up to the requirements of morality does not affect that necessity. So human imperfection
is no excuse for changing morality. Human beings must strive to attain actions in accordance with the moral law out
of a sense of duty, even if they never fully succeed.
Argument (2C) - The Rational Clarity of the Categorical Imperative
Objection: What the categorical imperative requires is not always clear, since more than one course of action can be
consistent with it. For example, in deciding about the morality of abortion, the judgment would depend upon whether
or not a fetus possesses dignity and infinite worth, and there is no clearcut way of deciding this in terms of the
categorical imperative. Different persons would decide differently, each giving a carefully rational explanation.
Countering Reply: Given that morality is based upon reason, there is a conclusive way of settling every moral
problem in terms of the categorical imperative. Yet, in practice, there is no guarantee that persons always will have
the experience to know when to apply it or will have sufficient reasoning ability to recognize a conclusive answer. All
we can do, in practice, is make the best effort we can to apply it correctly.
Further Moral Frameworks I

This week's moral frameworks build upon the previous ones. The Avoidance Principle combines prohibitions from
several previous frameworks, while the Community Principle is a variation on the Principle of Utility.
The Avoidance Principle (A Negative Approach)

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to avoid illegality, greed, and
exploitation.
Assumption: Avoiding these three immoral conditions is enough to produce morally acceptable behavior.
Explanation: If we examine the ways people are victimized by others, particularly in business-related matters, we
are very likely to find illegality, greed, and/or exploitation to be crucial elements in producing the victimization. (As
a simple test, you may want to consider some actions you consider reprehensible in business to find out how much
merit attaches to this claim.) It follows that avoidance of these three conditions eliminates victimization thereby
producing morally acceptable actions.
According to the Random House Dictionary, greed is "an excessive or rapacious (predatory) desire, especially for
wealth or possessions." The greedy person never has enough and often takes unscrupulous measures to gain
more. Often we interpret greed in terms of paradigm cases of greedy persons--for example, Scrooge in A Christmas
Carol or Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life or Gordon Gekko in the film, Wall Street--that is, really extreme cases of
greed. But greed can become a problem whenever worthwhile values are sacrificed for the sake of acquiring more
wealth or affluence. So greed can be more pervasive than people are inclined to grant, especially with respect to
themselves.
"We exploit other persons when we use them as means to serve some purpose without consideration of their best
interests. For example, the insurance salesperson who preys upon the fears of the elderly to sell them unneeded
insurance is exploitative. Exploitation is a serious problem; but its meaning requires careful consideration. Thus
actions to mutual advantage, it should be noted, need not be exploitative since they may take into account the best
interests of everyone involved" (from Ron Yezzi, Philosophical Problems: The Good Life).
Strengths:
• The Avoidance Principle provides goals to strive for in terms of actions generally regarded to be morally
unacceptable.
• Instead of getting into the complicated question of deciding all the positive goals to be achieved, the
Avoidance Principle focuses upon the worst actions to be avoided and thereby produces real moral
progress.
Weaknesses:
• Although extreme greed and exploitation are considered morally unacceptable, a certain amount of greed
and exploitation is so characteristic of the human nature that we cannot expect to ban them completely; but
then we find it difficult to decide where to draw lines that establish when greed and exploitation become
unacceptable.
• There are too many self-serving ways by which to interpret "avoidance of illegality, greed, and
exploitation" so that the Principle becomes ineffective. Thus, people find loopholes or excuses to evade the
laws; they seldom admit to being greedy themselves (although they may accuse others of the vice), and
they will interpret exploitative situations as being mutually advantageous to all parties.
The Community Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act so as to preserve and enhance
the well-being of the community.
Assumptions:
• A society is not merely an artificial aggregate of individuals; rather it is a natural entity, a relatively self-
sufficient community arising to better provide the basic necessities of life and continuing for the sake of a
good life, common to all its members (from Aristotle).
• For the most part, human beings develop through the social conditions under which they live; and, given
supportive social conditions, people can act in cooperative harmony instead of being selfish and
competitive.
Explanation: The Community Principle can be interpreted as a variation on the Principle of Utility. Whereas the
Principle of Utility serves the common good viewed as a collection of individual interests however, the Community
Principle serves the common good viewed as a unified, harmonious whole. There is a stress on communal
cooperation (in contrast with the competition of free market principles). Trust, friendship, loyalty, good will,
compassion, and mutual sensitivity to everyone's needs become the model for social interaction.
Strengths:
• Cooperation, trust, friendship, loyalty, good will, compassion, and mutual sensitivity are extremely
worthwhile human values.
• The Community Principle takes one away from the "winners-losers" phenomeon of a competitive free
market.
• The most well off must act to benefit the least well off, thereby helping the disadvantaged and those in
need and promoting greater allegiance to the well-being of the society as a whole.
Weaknesses:
• The utopian dream of a happy, harmonious community is misleading because it ignores the value of
struggle and risk in life. Moreover, the Community Principle tends to be unrealistic in terms of the way
people generally act in some areas of life, particularly in business.
• Competition with the hope of winning and the threat of losing is necessary to motivate people to
accomplish more and to prevent stagnation. Moreover, it is not clear why the most well off (the "winners"
in a competitive environment) are obligated to benefit losers and the least well off.
• Application of the Community Principle encourages creation of governmental bureaucracies that are
ineffective and merely perpetuate themselves and their special interests under the guise of serving the
common good.
Further Moral Frameworks II

The final two moral frameworks, The PSR Principle and The Moral Person Principle, are positions constructed by
your instructor (the first from his Practical Ethics, and the second from his Philosophical Problems: The Good Life).
The PSR Principle

The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to act so as to maximize the totality of
power, satisfaction, and reality.
Assumptions:
• Power is the capacity to control oneself and/or the external environment. Satisfaction is the experience
of fulfilment (most often realized as pleasure). It may occur as the fulfilment of a desire, the completion of
an intended activity, or the exhibition of a natural or acquired skill. Reality is the awareness of the way
things are.
• Power, satisfaction, and reality are the ultimate human values and are derivable from human nature itself.
Explanation: Given any human action, we can analyze it in terms of power, satisfaction, and reality as the ultimate
values a person strives to realize. That is, we can examine how each of these value factors leads the person to act
one way rather than another. Moreover, in striving to realize these values, a person is trying to maximize them as a
totality.
To take a simplified example, suppose that you are contemplating a surprise party for a friend. Why might you go
ahead with the party? In terms of power, you are aware of the power you have to bring about the party and the
power to delight your friend this way. In terms of satisfaction, you are aware of the pleasure to be experienced by
you in bringing about the party and being there, the pleasure your friend will experience, and the pleasure of the
other persons at the party. In terms of reality, you need to produce all the conditions necessary for a surprise party
(such as invitations, a place, the method of surprise, refreshments, etc.), and you are aware that most people like
surprise parties. Accordingly, you may go ahead, with the party as a maximization of power, satisfaction, and
reality. On the other hand, if you know (as a matter of reality) that your friend has an extreme dislike for surprise
parties and does not enjoy them at all or that the party will keep the people attending from prior, more important
commitments, then you have reason to deny that going ahead with the surprise party maximizes the totality of
power, satisfaction, and reality.
Analyzing actions in terms of the attempt to maximize the totality of power, satisfaction and reality provides a
means for understanding why actions occur and for testing them to determine whether or not there is a successful
maximization. Accordingly, moral decisions are subject to a factual quest rather than being unexaminable. The quest
may be difficult, especially in complex situations; yet it provides a promising way of evaluating judgments.
When applying the PSR Principle in complex situations, one has to give special attention to the requirements of
reality--especially as a way of avoiding too selfish an interpretation of the Principle. Frequently, it is reality that
leads to our seeing the need to go beyond selfish interests.
Strengths:
• The PSR Principle incorporates (subsumes) within it many values human beings regard to be worthwhile.
• Since any human action expressing a moral value can be understood in terms of the attempt to maximize
power, satisfaction, and reality, some objective measure of a person's action becomes possible because you
can test the factual correctness of the attempted maximization.
Weaknesses:
• Frequently, the PSR Principle is too general and situations are too ambiguous to determine what
maximizes the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality.
• Fixing upon power, satisfaction, and reality as the ultimate values is questionable since there are other
equally worthy candidates for ultimate values, such as love and compassion.
• The PSR Principle tends to breed selfishness--since individuals look to power, satisfaction, and reality
primarily as it affects themselves.
Application of the PSR Principle requires consideration of a number of ways that power, satisfaction, and reality can
enter into a situation. For some sample applications that exhibit the usefulness and complexity of analyses in terms
of the PSR Principle, click on the link below:
Sample Applications of the PSR Principle

Below you will find two sample applications of the PSR Principle, taken from Ron Yezzi, Practical
Ethics (Mankato: G. Bruno & Co., 1993). The samples here should help you in approaching application of the PSR
Principle to any assigned scenarios Both sample applications deal with filing tax returns where the filer can pay or
save $1000. in taxes--depending upon whether one files an honest or a dishonest return, respectively. In each case,
the filer would be applying the PSR Principle to justify the decision. Your instructor maintains that the honest return
applies the PSR Principle more adequately here. For the purposes of understanding the PSR Principle however, both
applications show some of the usefulness and complexity of judging a situation in terms of an attempt to maximize
the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality. In the tables that follow, the dishonest return analysis appears first.
A Dishonest Return
Power Satisfaction Reality
(1) $1000 additional income (1) Greater buying power increases (1) Government probably would not
increases buying power. satisfaction. discover my cheating.
(2) Although government needs tax
revenues and uses money for
(2) If I get away with it, then (2) It feels great to "put something
worthwhile purposes,
government has less control over me. over" on the government.
considerable amounsts of money are
spent on projects I disapprove of.
(3) Compared with the total taxes I
pay, the $1000 is proportionately less
(3) I am showing that I can "get (30 This is a nice way of "getting
than the proportion of government
away" with something. back" at the government.
revenues wasted on projects I
disapprove of.
(4) I enjoy being able to keep more of (4) I earned the money, not the
what I earned. government.
(5) Although considerable revenue
(5) I enjoy paying the government would be lost if everyone shorted the
what it actually deserves of my government by $1000 or more, I know
earnings. that everyone will not do so and thus
my $1000 is insignificant.
(6) It is nice to know that I am not
(6) I pay quite a bit of money in taxes
being overly scrupulous when facing
even without the $1000.
the hard realities of life.
(7) If the cheating is discovered, I can
always claim that an unintended
oversight occurred, and thus any
penalty will be a minor one.
(8) The tax laws are basically
inequitable with all sorts of loopholes
for wealthy people able to afford
expensive tax lawyers.
(9) My not paying the $1000 is, in
effect, a type of taxpayers' revolt.
(10) Temperamentally, I am not suited
to making a public effort to change
inequitable tax laws; and there is not
much likelihood of success anyway.
(11) In the past, I probably paid more
in taxes than I should because of
ignorance of legitimate deductions.
(12) The government does not really
expect a completely honest return and
sets rates accordingly.
(13) I am appraising the power and
satisfaction involved here.
You should be able to see from the table above how the filer is using the various elements related to power,
satisfaction, and reality to justify filing the dishonest return.
Now check out the analysis for an honest return:

An Honest Return
Power Satisfaction Reality
(1) Filing an honest return is an (1) There is satisfaction in being able (1) I am aware of the analysis for the
exhibition of self-control. to exhibit self-control. dishonest return.
(2) $1000 increases the power of
(2) There is satisfaction in the (2) Government probably will not
government to accomplish worthy
awareness of having obeyed the law. discover my cheating.
goals.
(3) I cannot determine my
(3) There is satisfaction in knowing
earnings apart from social conditions,
that many government expenditures
including those made possible through
serve worthy purposes.
governmental action.
(4) To expect government to function
(4) I can take pride in giving a correct
perfectly, without wasting money, sets
financial accounting to the
too high a standard and overlooks the
government.
hard realities of life.
(5) There is satisfaction in the (5) Since government depends upon
awareness of not compromising my tax revenues to carry on its social
integrity for a relatively insignificant functions, failure to pay taxes is an
amount of money. attack on the basic structure of society.
(6) If government wastes money or
spends it on harmful projects, I can
most effectively benefit myself and
society by agitating for change--by
lobbying or even civil disobedience or
revolution under some circumstances.
(7) If disrespect for the tax system
rather than elimination of inequities
prevails, then wealthy persons have the
most enhanced opportunies to reap
windfalls at the expense of society
generally.
(8) Big cheaters and the powerful
thrive on the temperamental
disposition to be publicly uninvolved
with social concerns.
(9) I cannot expect to enjoy benefits
from government without accepting
responsibilities in return--including
paying taxes.
(10) I cannot expect government to
increase spending for worthy goals
while, at the same time, approving the
filing of dishonest tax returns.
(11) Cheating on tax returns is more
personal dishonesty for the purpose of
personal gain than a taxpayers' revolt.
(12) Even if everyone does not cheat
by $1000, the total losses due to
cheating (including that of the big
cheaters) can be a considerable sum.
(13) Cheating on tax returns
demoralizes persons submitting honest
returns, thereby lowering communal
confidence and allegiance in the
society.
(14) I am appraising the power and
satisfaction involved here.
Widespread agreement that the honest return analysis applies the PSR Principle more adequately than the dishonest
return analysis may require more discussion than presentation of the tables themselves.
The Moral Person Principle

The Principle Stated: You ought to act so as to be a moral person--that is, one exhibiting sensitivity, knowledge,
character, and cooperativeness.
Assumptions:
• Sensitivity is emotional appreciation (empathic understanding) of the experiences of oneself and others.
Knowledge is intellectual awareness of the requirements of moral action. Character is the determination to
act in accordance with the dictates of sensitivity and knowledge. Cooperativeness is the willingness to work
with others constructively in the pursuit of worthwhile goals.
• Human beings are capable of cultivating these four qualities.
Explanation: The Moral Person Principle rests more on cultivating favorable moral qualities, or virtues, in human
beings rather on laying out the rules of correct action. Rather than saying that you should not cheat your neighbor,
this Principle relies on the notion you will not cheat your neighbor if you possess the qualities of sensitivity,
knowledge, character, and cooperativeness.
In considering future actions, a person should strive to bring the four qualities to bear in the situation. Likewise, in
reviewing past actions, a person can consider whether or not there was a lack of sensitivity, knowledge, character,
or cooperativenes. And in judging others actions, we can examine to what degree the four qualities were present or
absent.
Strengths:
• The Moral Person Principle focuses on desirable traits crucial in making ethical decisions without
confining yourself to any specific course of action.
• By functioning according to the Principle, you probably will make the right sorts of ethical decisions.
Weaknesses:
• The Moral Person Principle is so vague as a rule that people will not know how to act or will apply the
Principle in a self-serving way.
• Since people vary in the degree to which they possess these traits and are not likely to admit to, or work
on, deficiencies with respect to them, the Moral Person Principle will be ineffective in bringing about more
moral actions.
Moral Theories (Normative Theories of Ethics)
Filed under: ethics,philosophy — JW Gray @ 7:24 am
Tags: aristotelianism, moral theory, normative theory, stoicism, virtue ethics
Normative theories of ethics or “moral theories” are meant to help us figure out what
actions are right and wrong. Popular normative theories include utilitarianism, the
categorical imperative, Aristotelian virtue ethics, Stoic virtue ethics, and W. D. Ross’s
intuitionism. I will discuss each of these theories and explain how to apply them in various
situations.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a very simple view that matches common sense – right and wrong can
be determined by a cost-benefit analysis. We must consider all the good and bad
consequences when deciding if an action is right. Utilitarians disagree about what counts
as “good” or “bad.” Some think that fulfilling desires is good and thwarting desires is bad,
classic utilitarians think that happiness is good and suffering is bad, and pluralists believe
that there are multiple “intrinsic goods” that are worth promoting. An action will then be
said to be “right” as long as it satisfactorily causes good consequences compared to
alternative actions, and it will be “wrong” if it doesn’t.
Utilitarianism doesn’t discriminate or encourage egoism. It is wrong to harm others to

benefit yourself because everyone counts.
What counts as “satisfactory” will not be agreed upon by all philosophers. Originally some
philosophers suggested that only the “best” action we could possibly perform is “right,”
but this is an extreme, impractical, and oppressive view. Why? Whenever you are taking
a shower or spending time with friends it would probably be better to be doing something
else, such as helping the needy, but it is absurd to say that you are always doing wrong
whenever you are taking a shower or spending time with friends. Additionally, it isn’t clear
that there is a “best” course of action always available to us. There might be an unlimited
number of actions we can perform and at least one of them could be better than what we
choose to do.
It should be pointed out that right actions and right moral decisions are two different
things. An action is right when it produces good results even if it was made for the wrong
reasons. For example, I could decide not to go to my job one day when doing so would
just happen to cause a car crash. There is no way to expect a car crash to occur that day,
but my action would be right insofar would cause positive results. People might then say,
“You got lucky and ended up doing the right thing.”
To make the right moral decision for a utilitarian means to make a decision that is most
likely going to actually be right (lead to good results) based on the available information I
have. Choosing to go to work is usually the right decision to make despite the fact that
there is a negligible chance that I will get in a car wreck. Such a decision can’t take far-
fetched possibilities into consideration.
Utilitarianism is not necessarily meant to be used as a “decision procedure” to decide

what to do. If we can clearly know that a course of action will produce highly good results
and negligible bad results, then that action is rational. However, we aren’t always good at
knowing what actions will produce good results and we can often be overconfident in our
ability to do so. It is often wrong to choose to do something we believe will probably have
good results if that behavior is risky and has a chance of hurting people. For example, a
jury shouldn’t find someone guilty when someone has been proven innocent in the hopes
that it will prevent a riot in the streets because people can’t know for sure that such a
decision will produce the desired results, and they do know that the guilty verdict will
destroy someone’s life.
To conclude, in order to know if something is morally preferable for a utilitarian, we must

ask, “Will it lead to more benefits and less harms than the alternatives?” If the answer is,
Yes, then it is morally preferable.
Applying Utilitarianism
Killing people – Killing people is usually wrong either because people have value (and
they might not exist after dying), because everyone has a desire to stay alive, or because
killing people makes other people unhappy.
Stealing – Stealing is usually wrong because it makes people unhappy to lose their
possessions, they might need their possessions to accomplish certain important goals,
and because the right to property makes it possible for us to make long term goals
involving our possessions.
Courage – Courage is essential for morality because people must be willing to do what
they believe will be right even at a personal cost. Sometimes doing the right thing requires
altruism, such as when a whistle blower must tell the American public about corruption at
the work place (despite the fact that they might be killed for doing so).
Education – Education is good because it helps us know how to be a productive member
of society, it helps us know empirical facts that are relevant to knowing which actions are
likely to benefit or cause harm (e.g. better parenting techniques or healthy eating), and it
helps us think rationally to make better decisions.
Promising – It is wrong to break a promise because doing so would make other people
upset and waste their time. People depend on the honesty of others in order to take
business risks, plan on their retirement, and so on.
Polluting – It is wrong to pollute if the pollution will harm others. It is preferable to refuse
to pollute if too many people doing so could also harm others, but we are not necessarily
personally responsible for the harms caused by an entire civilization.
Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior does not automatically cause harm and it
is something many people find pleasurable and part of living a happy life. Therefore, it is
not always wrong. Homosexuality can cause someone harm from discrimination, but to
blame homosexuality for the harms of discrimination is a form of blaming the victim just
like blaming a woman who gets raped for being too weak.
Atheism –Atheism does not necessarily cause people harm other than through
discrimination, but blaming atheists for discrimination is also a form of blaming the victim.
Additionally, atheism is often a position one believes in because of good arguments, and
it is appropriate for people to have beliefs based on good arguments. Being “reasonable”
is “right” because it tends to have good results.
Objections
Consequences might not be enough. – Utilitarianism requires us to do whatever promotes

the good the most, but that could require us to be disrespectful or even harm certain
people. For example, if we kill someone to donate their organs and save five lives, then
it seems like our action maximized the good and wasn’t wrong. This result is
counterintitive and it’s suggests that utilitarianism is incomplete because we might have
rights that must not be violated, even to maximize the good.
Utilitarians aren’t sensitive to heroic acts. – Utilitarians think we ought to maximize the
good. If this is a duty, then it seems much too demanding. In that case we would probably
be doing something morally wrong almost every second of the day, and we would rightly
be blamed and punished for it. But it doesn’t seem wrong for me to do a handstand or
spend time with friends just because I could be doing something better with my time.
Additionally, heroic acts like jumping into a fire to save a child seems like they are beyond
the call of duty rather than obligations. If it’s not a duty to maximize the good, then
utilitarians will have to explain when we have duties and when we don’t. It’s not obvious
that we can draw this line using utilitarianism.
The categorical imperative asks us to act in a way that we can will to be a universal law.
In other words, it asks us to behave in a rational way that would be rational for anyone. If
it is right for me to defend myself when attacked, then it is right for everyone to defend
themselves in self defense.
Robert Johnson describes the categorical imperative as a method to find out if an action
is permissible using four steps:
First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second,
recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as
holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these
circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world
governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or
could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action
is morally permissible.1
I will describe each of these stages in more detail:
First we formulate the “maxim” or motivational principle that guides our action. For
example, I might plan on eating food because I’m hungry or decide to break a promise to
pay a friend back because I would rather keep the money.
Second, let’s transform the action into a universal law of nature. Everyone must act for
the same reason that I will act on. Everyone will eat food when they’re hungry and break
their promises to friends when they would rather keep their money.
Third, let’s consider if such a maxim could even be a universal law of nature. Could
everyone eat food when they’re hungry? Yes. Could everyone refuse to pay their debts
when they’d rather keep their money? No, because that would undermine the whole point
of having debts to be paid. No one would loan money out in that world. At this point we
can already rule out the maxim of refusing to pay our debts out of convenience, so it’s an
irrational and impermissible maxim and we have a duty not to act from that motive.
Fourth, if the maxim passes the third step, could we rationally will the maxim to be
followed by everyone in our circumstances? Perhaps I can will that people eat when they
are hungry, but not necessarily in every circumstance, such as when there’s limited food
that needs to be shared with others who are also hungry.
Johnson adds that we have a “perfect duty” to refrain from doing something that violates
the third step in the sense that there are no exceptions. Whenever we are in the relevant
situation, we must refrain from doing the act as much as possible. Since refusing to pay
one’s debts when we prefer to keep our money doesn’t pass the third step, we have a
perfect duty not to refuse to pay our debts for that reason. Kant also thinks we have a
prefect duty not to commit suicide when we want to avoid suffering.
If we have a maxim that doesn’t pass the fourth step, then it’s an imperfect duty to refrain
from doing it, which means we must refrain from doing it at least some of the time. Kant
thinks we can’t always refrain from helping others, so we have a duty to help others at
least some of the time.
I suspect that the categorical imperative is compatible with all other moral theories. For
example, a utilitarian will have to believe that it is only rational to behave in a way likely
to promote positive values, and such moral rationality applies to everyone.
Of course, the categorical imperative doesn’t require us to be utilitarians. There might be

some actions that are right for reasons other than the likelihood of producing positive
results.
The categorical imperative is often related to hypocrisy, the golden rule, and the question,
“What if everyone did that?” First, our morality must not be hypocritical—what is right for
me is right for everyone. Second, we can demand that someone treat others how she
wants to be treated as long as she “wants” to be treated in a way that rationality permits.
Third, we can demand that people don’t behave in a way that is wrong for others. If
“everyone defended themselves from attack,” then people would be behaving
appropriately. However, “if everyone steals to benefit themselves,” then they will be doing
something wrong. When we ask, “What if everyone did that?” we are not asking, “Would
there be bad consequences if everyone did X?” The categorical imperative does not
necessarily concern itself with consequences and it doesn’t claim that something is wrong
just because too many people doing something could become destructive.
In order to know if an action is morally acceptable based on the categorical imperative we
must ask, “Is the action rationally appropriate for everyone else in the same situation?” If
the answer is, Yes, then the action is morally acceptable.
Applying the categorical imperative
Killing people – Killing people is wrong whenever it would be inappropriate for someone
to kill us, and we need to consider the motivational reason for killing someone. It would
be wrong for people to kill us out of greed just to take our money, so it is wrong for
everyone to kill out of green to take other people’s money. However, it would be right for
someone to kill us if necessary to defend themselves from attack out of self-respect, so it
is right for everyone else as well.
Stealing – Stealing is wrong whenever it would be inappropriate for someone to steal from
us, such as when they want something without paying for it. However, if stealing is
necessary to survive because no one is willing to share food, then it might be necessary
to steal out of self-respect.
Courage – Courage is rationally necessary for us to be willing to do the right thing when
the right thing is done at personal risk to oneself. Emotions must be disregarded if they
conflict with the demands of moral reason.
Education – Education is a rational requirement insofar as ignorance puts others at risk.

If we can rationally demand others to become educated because of the dangers of
ignorance, then we are also rationally required to become educated.
Promising – Keeping a promise is a rational requirement insofar as we can rationally

demand that other people keep their promises (out of respect for our humanity). It might
be that breaking a promise is necessary from time to time (to respect our humanity), but
only when it would be wrong for anyone in that situation to break the promise. For
example, a enraged friend who asks for his gun you are borrowing should be denied the
weapon. It is perfectly respectful to deny someone out of their mind a weapon because
they will appreciate it later once they regain their reason. (Kant actually had something
different to say about this issue.)
Polluting – Although “everyone polluting by driving cars” causes harm, it isn’t clear that
polluting is always wrong. “Everyone committing their life to medicine” would end up
causing harm, but we don’t want to say that someone is doing something wrong for
committing her life to medicine. However, it might be wrong to cause pollution whenever
we know that it will cause harm. If we can rationally demand a business to pollute less,
then others can make the same demand on us.
Homosexual behavior – If having sex for pleasure can be rational for heterosexuals, then
having sex for pleasure can be rational for homosexuals. Doing something to attain
pleasure is not irrational as long as there’s no overriding reason to find it problematic.
Atheism – Someone can rationally believe in atheism if it is found to be a sufficiently

reasonable belief just like all other beliefs. If it is rational to believe in theism if it is found
to be sufficiently reasonable, and it can be rational to believe in atheism for the same
reason.
Objections
The categorical imperative isn’t meant to be a complete decision procedure. – Kant

discusses the categorical imperative in the context of moral concepts rather than moral
reality. Even if the categorical imperative exists, it’s not always clear how to use it to
decide what we ought to do in each unique situation we find ourselves in. Many people
disagree about how the categorical imperative applies in each situation.
We don’t know that categorical imperatives can help us. – Kant’s theory requires that
people can be motivated by categorical imperatives, but it’s not clear that we can. The
problem is that we don’t know how we are motivated in each situation and we often
deceive ourselves. If we can’t be motivated by categorical imperatives, then we need to
know how practical they are. Will they help us be moral in any important sense?
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Aristotelian virtue ethics has two parts. First, Aristotle argues that our personal happiness
(or “flourishing”) is the ultimate goal that we should promote. Second, he argues that we
should learn to have habits and behave in ways that lead to our personal happiness. (To
have the right habits and feelings is to be virtuous.) We can learn what behaviors cause
happiness through our past behavior and we can learn to be sensitive to particularities in
each situation. For example, we know not to attack people in most situations, but it might
be necessary to attack people in self defense.
In order to know if something is morally acceptable for an Aristotelian we must ask, “Is
the action based on a sensitivity to the situation? And does the action lead to personal
happiness?” If the answer to these questions is, Yes, then the action is morally virtuous.
Two clarifications still need to be made.
First, Aristotle’s idea of “happiness” is distinct from pleasure and means something more
like “good life” or “flourishing. Additionally, some of our goals could be morally justified for
Aristotle as long as they don’t conflict with happiness. Pleasure, knowledge, and virtue in
particular seem like worthwhile goals in general, even if they don’t cause happiness.
Second, Aristotle argues that virtue is the greatest form of happiness. Happiness is the
ultimate goal or “ultimate and most final end,” but there can be other worthy goals or “final
ends.” (Final ends are goals that are worth pursuing and desiring for their own sake.)
Aristotle thought that becoming the best kind of person by developing our uniquely human
capacities was the best way to be happy. In particular, we’re rational and political animals,
so we need to develop our ability to be rational and our ability to get along with others.
Being a political animal is manifested in how we care for others in general and desire to
help others.
Aristotle, like most virtue ethicists, is skeptical about using rules to make moral decisions.
It seems impractical to use rules and philosophical arguments to make decisions every
second of the day, even if morality is ultimately grounded in rules. Instead of having rules,
we need to learn to have an intuitive understanding of morality and develop “virtuous”
character traits that cause appropriate behavior without a great deal of thought usually
being required. A person who has an intuitive understanding of morality and has virtuous
character traits has practical wisdom (the ability to achieve worthy goals) but not
necessarily theoretical wisdom (the ability to know about the world through generalization
and deduction).
Although Aristotle doesn’t think ethics is best understood in terms of rules, he finds that
wisdom tends to be based on avoiding extremes and finding a moderate middle ground—
the golden mean. A person with cowardice is afraid, even when she should not be afraid.
A person with foolhardiness isn’t afraid, even when she should be. A virtuous person with
courage will only be afraid when it’s appropriate to be.
Some people define courage as an ability to act despite fear. Perhaps there are times
when we should endanger ourselves, even when it’s appropriate to feel fear. For example,
it could be courageous to jump in a burning building to save a child, even though it might
make sense to feel fear insofar as our own well being would be threatened. Aristotle
argues that even the ultimate self-sacrifice isn’t necessarily incompatible with our
personal happiness, but that is a very controversial point. However, even if it can be
appropriate to feel fear and act despite our fear, courage is merely more complex than
Aristotle stated because the fact that we feel fear doesn’t guarantee inaction.
Aristotle’s idea of finding the golden mean is a general rule, and we can use it make many
other general rules. Virtues like courage, moderation, justice, and wisdom could be taken
to imply various general rules of avoiding certain extremes. We shouldn’t eat too much
food, we should eat, desire, and enjoy food when it’s appropriate, but not when it’s
inappropriate, and so on.
Applying Aristotle’s virtue ethics
Killing people – It might be necessary to kill people in self defense because living is
necessary to be happy (and we must promote goods that are necessary for our personal
happiness), but killing people makes us unhappy because we are social animals and we
care about people. We don’t like horrible things to happen to others.
Stealing – Stealing is necessary if it is necessary for our personal happiness, but stealing
makes us unhappy insofar as we care about people.
Courage – Courage is necessary for us to take the risks needed to live a fully happy life.
Courage is our habit to be afraid when it is necessary for our happiness and not afraid
when it is necessary for our happiness.
Education – Education is necessary for our personal happiness not only to know how to
best be happy, but also because the most intellectual forms of contemplation are the most
positive experiences we can have. A “contemplative life” is the happiest sort of life we can
live.
Promising – Keeping a promise is virtuous as long as we consider the situation at hand

and keep the promise because it is likely to promote our happiness. In other words,
keeping the promise might not be personally beneficial because we can also keep a
promise out of respect (care) for the other person. We can’t be happy while hurting others.
Polluting – Polluting is wrong insofar as it hurts people and we care about people.
Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior is wrong when done immoderately (in an

overly-dangerous way likely to lead to unhappiness), but it is right when done in a way
that leads to one’s personal fulfillment.
Atheism – Atheism is right as long as the belief is not under our control or as long as the
belief does not lead to our unhappiness. Atheists often can’t control their atheism just like
they can’t believe in many other things that they find implausible (ghosts, ESP, bigfoot,
etc.).
Objections
It’s not just our personal happiness that matters. – First, it’s not obvious that happiness is
the ultimate good. Perhaps our existence is more important. Second, it’s not obvious that
we should only be concerned with our personal good or happiness. It seems plausible to
think that everyone’s happiness should be taken into consideration.
Caring for others isn’t always good for our happiness. – Aristotle thinks we care for others
by our very nature, so we should take other people’s good into consideration. However,
we don’t always care about strangers and it’s not obvious that we should nurture our
empathy for stranger given Aristotle’s assumption that our personal happiness is the
ultimate good. It can be painful to care for others because their suffering can cause us
suffering, and we might have some control over how much we care for others and
strangers in particular.
Stoic Virtue Ethics
Simply put, Stoic virtue ethics is a theory that true moral beliefs and thoughts tend to lead
to appropriate emotions and actions. However, Stoic virtue ethics traditionally has five
parts:
It argues that virtue is the ultimate value that overrides all other values.
It defines virtue in terms of having true evaluative beliefs, emotions based on those
evaluative beliefs, and behaving according to those evaluative beliefs. (Evaluative beliefs
are value judgments, such as “pleasure is preferable.”)
It states that true (or well reasoned) evaluative beliefs and thoughts tend to give us
appropriate emotions and actions. Positive evaluative beliefs lead to positive emotional
responses and negative evaluative beliefs lead to negative emotional responses.
It states that we can know what is “preferable” from our instincts, which was given to us
from God (Universal Reason). In particular, we have an impulse to care for others both
emotionally and through action, which indicates the fact that “caring for others is
preferable.”
It states that everything that happens is for the best because it was preordained by God
(Universal Reason) and therefore there is no reason for us to have a negative emotional
response.
The first three of these parts sounds reasonable, but the last two require us to accept the
existence of the Stoic divinity, which is something contemporary philosophers find to be
much too ambitious. What we need is a way to determine is truths about preferences. I
have two different suggestions for finding them without referring to a divinity:
We can prefer whatever is necessary to be virtuous. No matter what we value, we can’t

promote the value unless we value life, consciousness, and freedom from pain.
We can experience some values for ourselves, such as the value of pleasure and disvalue
of pain.
I discuss these solutions in much more detail in my Master’s Thesis, Two New Kinds of
Stoicism. My theories are known as “Neo-Aristonianism” and “Common Sense Stoicism.”
In order to determine if something is morally acceptable for a Stoic philosopher we need

to ask, “What emotions are being felt and what beliefs are held? If the emotions are
caused by rational beliefs, then it is morally acceptable.
Applying Stoic virtue ethics
Killing people – It is wrong to kill people insofar as killing people is motivated by

inappropriate beliefs and thoughts, such as, “This person committed atrocities and
deserves to die.” Such a belief could motivate rage and we could lose rational control of
ourselves. Instead, we should dispassionately consider why killing could be appropriate
based on rational preferences. For example, it might be appropriate to kill in self defense
if necessary for our preference for survival despite the fact that we ought to care about all
people and prefer for good things to happen to others.
Stealing – It is wrong to steal insofar as it is motivated by inappropriate beliefs and

thoughts, such as, “I need to have more money.” It might be necessary to steal to act on
sufficiently important rational preference, such as a preference to survive when stealing
is needed to survive; but pleasure would not be an important enough preference worth
promoting to warrant theft. For one thing we care for others and don’t like others to suffer
theft, and the expectation of pleasure would not override the importance of helping rather
than harming others.
Courage – The ancient Stoics believed that courage was a lack of fear. We can be
cautious and prefer to live well without fearing death or losing our external goods. The
Stoics believed that the fear of death was based on an inappropriate belief that death is
an evil (despite the fact that it is dis-preferable).
Education – First, education can help us attain good reasoning, which helps us form better
(well justified and accurate) beliefs. Second, well justified and accurate beliefs help lead
to appropriate emotions and actions.
Promising – Keeping a promise is virtuous as long as we do so based upon justified

preferences. We should not break a promise just because we are compelled to do
something more pleasurable because that would overemphasize the importance of
pleasure and de-emphasize the value of the person that would be disrespected or
harmed.
Polluting – To pollute to the extent of harming others is often based on inappropriate

selfishness, greed, and an inappropriate lack of care for others. The virtuous person will
care for others and won’t want to harm them for money. It might be worth driving a car in
a society where cars help live a better life despite the fact that the pollution ends up
harming some people.
Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior insofar as it is based on a preference for

pleasure is appropriate as long as it is compatible with our care for others. An
inappropriate love of pleasure could cause inappropriate lust that would cloud our
judgment whether we are talking about homosexual or heterosexual sex.
Atheism – Atheism is appropriate insofar as the belief is probably true based on the
information available to us. For the Stoic philosopher, true beliefs are of primary
importance. We should have a belief because it is true, not because it is pleasurable or
because of our emotions.
Objections
Does Universal Reason exist? – The Stoics require us to believe in Universal Reason,
but not everyone believes in universal reason and it’s not obvious that Universal Reason
really exists.
The Stoic virtue ethics can dull our emotions. – It’s not entirely clear what emotions are
appropriate for the Stoics, but some people think they would dismiss many appropriate
emotions that enrich our lives. Grief, passionate love, and anger were often said to be
inappropriate emotions by the Stoics, but many people aren’t convinced that they are
inappropriate after all.
Ross’s Intuitionism
W. D. Ross‘s theoretical understanding of morality explained in The Right and the Good
was not meant to be comprehensive and determine right and wrong in every situation,
but he doesn’t think it is ever going to be possible to do so. He denies that there is one
single overarching moral principle or rule. Instead, he thinks we can make moral progress
one step at a time by learning more and more about our moral duties, and do our best at
balancing conflicting obligations and values.
Ross proposes that (a) we have self-evident prima facie moral duties, and (b) some things
have intrinsic value.
Prima facie duties
We have various prima facie duties, such as the duty of non-injury (the duty to not harm
people) and the duty of beneficence (to help people). These duties are “prima facie”
because they can be overriden. Duties can determine what we ought to do “nothing else
considered” but they don’t determine what we ought to do all things considered. Whatever
we ought to do all things considered will override any other conflicting duties. For
example, the promise to kill someone would give us a prima facie duty to fulfill our
promise, but it would be overridden by our duty not to injure others.
Ross argues that we have (at the very least) the following duties:
Duty of fidelity – The duty to keep our promises.

Duty of reparation – The duty to try to pay for the harm we do to others.
Duty of gratitude – The duty to return favors and services given to us by others.
Duty of beneficence – The duty to maximize the good (things of intrinsic value).
Duty of noninjury – The duty to refuse to harm others.
Is this list complete? That is not obvious. We might have a duty to respect people beyond
these duties, and we might have a duty to justice, equality, and/or fairness to praise,
blame, reward, punish, and distribute goods according to merit. For example, it’s unfair
and disrespectful to blame innocent people because they don’t merit blame—they weren’t
responsible for the immoral act.
Self-evidence and intuition
Ross thinks we can know moral facts through intuition. What does it mean for these duties
to be self-evident? It means that we can contemplate the duties and know they are true
based on that contemplation—but only if we contemplate them in the right way. Ross
compares moral self-evidence to the self-evidence of mathematical axioms. A
mathematical axiom that seems to fit the bill is the law of non-contradiction—We know
that something can’t be true and false at the same time.
Intuition is the way contemplation can lead to knowledge of self-evidence. We often use
the word “intuition” to refer to things we consider “common sense” or things we know that
are difficult to prove using argumentation. Ross thinks we can know things without arguing
for them, and he thinks that anything “truly intuitive” is self-evident. Keep in mind that
intuition doesn’t necessarily let us know that something is self-evident immediately nor
that intuitive contemplation is infallible. Consider that “123+321=444” could be self-
evident. We might need to reach a certain maturity to know that this mathematical
statement is true, and recognition of its truth is not necessarily immediate. It requires
familiarity with addition and some people will need to spend more time contemplating than
others.
Intrinsic value
Many utilitarians agree with Ross that pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is intrinsically
bad. Pleasure is “good just for existing” and is worthy of being a goal. The decision to eat
candy to attain pleasure “makes sense” if it has intrinsic value, and we all seem to think
that eating candy to attain pleasure is at least sometimes a good enough reason to justify
such an act. We have prima facie duties not to harm people at least to the extent that it
causes something intrinsically bad (pain) and to help people at least to the extent that it
produces something intrinsically good, like pleasure.
What’s intrinsically good? Ross suggests that justice, knowledge, virtue, and “innocent
pleasure” are all intrinsically good. However, minds, human life, and certain animal life
could also have intrinsic value.
How do we use Ross’s intuitionism?
First, we need to determine our duties and what has intrinsic value. Second, we need to
determine if any of these duties or values conflict in our current situation. If so, we need
to find a way to decide which duty is overriding. For example, I can decide to go to the
dentist and get a cavity removed and this will cause me pain, but it is likely that it will help
me avoid even more pain in the future. Therefore, it seems clear that I ought to get the
cavity removed. However, if I have two friends who both want to borrow my car at the
same time and I won’t be needing it for a while, I might have to choose between them
and decide which friend needs the car the most or randomly decide between them if that’s
impossible.
Applying Ross’s Intuitionism
Killing people – It is generally wrong to kill people because it (a) causes people pain, (b)
prevents them from feeling future pleasure, and (c) destroys their knowledge. If and when
killing people isn’t wrong, we will need an overriding reason to do it. Perhaps it can be
right to kill someone if it’s necessary to save many other lives.
Stealing – It is wrong to steal insofar as it causes people pain, but it might be morally
preferable to steal than to die. Our duties to our children could also justify stealing when
it’s the only option to feed them.
Courage – Virtue has intrinsic value, and courage is one specific kind of virtue. Courage
is our ability to be motivated to do whatever it is we ought to do all things considered,
even when we might risk our own well being in the process.
Education – Knowledge has intrinsic value, so we have a prima facie duty to educate
people and seek education for ourselves.
Promising – Keeping a promise is already a prima facie duty, but it can be easily overriden
when more important duties conflict with it. For example, you could promise to meet a
friend for lunch, but your prima facie duty to help others might override your promise when
a stranger is injured and you can help out.
Polluting – Polluting violates people’s prima facie duty to noninjury, but polluting might be
necessary for people to attain certain goods they need to live. In that case pollution could
be appropriate.
Homosexual behavior – Homosexual behavior can be justified because it can help people
attain pleasure, but we also have a prima facie duty to try not to endanger our own life or
the life of others, so it’s better to take certain precautions rather than have homosexual
sex indiscriminately. This is no different than the morality of heterosexual sex.
Atheism – Being an atheist doesn’t violate any of our prima facie duties, so it’s not wrong.
Telling one’s parents that one is an atheist could cause momentary pain, but one’s prima
facie duties to be open and honest seems to override that concern in most situations.
Additionally, being open and honest in public about one’s atheism could risk one’s own
well being, but it could also help create acceptance for atheists in general and help other
atheists as a consequence.
Objections
It’s not clear that intuitions are reliable. – I’ve mentioned before that both intuition and
self-evidence has been questioned by philosophers. Many people have differing intuitions
and argue different beliefs qualify as being “self-evident.”
It’s not clear how we resolve conflicts in duties. – Many philosophers don’t think we can
have duties that conflict. For example, utilitarians think we should maximize the good and
no moral consideration that conflicts with that principle will count for anything. If our duties
can conflict, then it’s not obvious how we can decide which duty is overridden by the
other.
Conclusion
Philosophers have found ethical theories useful because they help us decide why various
actions are right and wrong. If it is generally wrong to punch someone then it is wrong to
kick them for the same reason. We can then generalize that it is wrong to “harm” people
to help understand why punching and kicking tend to both be wrong, which helps us
decide whether or not various other actions and institutions are wrong, such as capital
punishment, abortion, homosexuality, atheism, and so forth.
All of the ethical theories above have various strengths and it is possible that more than
one of them is true (or at least accurate). Not all moral theories are necessarily
incompatible. Imagine that utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, and Stoic virtue
ethics are all true. In that case true evaluative beliefs (e.g. human life is preferable) would
tell us which values to promote (e.g. human life), and we would be more likely to have an
emotional response that would motivate us to actually promote the value. We would feel
more satisfied about human life being promoted (e.g. through a cure to cancer) and
dissatisfied about human life being destroyed (e.g. through war). Finally, what is right for
one person would be right for everyone else in a sufficiently similar situation because the
same reasons will justify the same actions.
Lesson 14: Virtue Ethics
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics
Aristotle defines virtue as the average or mean between excess and deficiency. basically,
he says the idea of virtue is " all things in moderation". Human s should enjoy existence
but not be selfish. They should avoid pain and displeasure but not expect a life completely
void of them.
Virtue ethics- takes the notion of virtue (often conceived as excellence) as
fundamental. Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character that are essential
to human flourishing, not with the enumeration of duties. It falls somewhat outside the
traditional dichotomy between deontological ethics and consequentialism: It agrees with
consequentialism that the criterion of an action’s being morally right or wrong lies in its
relation to an end that has intrinsic value, but more closely resembles deontological ethics
in its view that morally right actions are constitutive of the end itself and not mere
instrumental means to the end
Deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis
on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. The term deontology
is derived from the Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.”
In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some
characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good.
Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of
their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions
as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the
heavens fall.”
Teleological ethics, (teleological from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”), theory
of morality that derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as an end
to be achieved. Also known as consequentialist ethics consequentialism. It upholds that
the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the
rightness or wrongness of the conduct. Thus from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally
right action is one that will produce a good outcome
VIRTUE AS A HABIT
According to Aristotle, virtue is a habit. He believed that virtue as a habit requires
an intentional choice when you begin. The habit of virtue is not yet developed, but over
time one becomes used to behaving virtuously and after a while one acts virtuously
without needing to use volition
HAPPINESS AS VIRTUE
Happiness is not pleasure nor is it virtue. It is the exercise of virtue. Since man is
a rational animal, human happiness depends on acquiring a moral character where one
displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice, friendship and citizenship in one's life.

The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law that govern the behavior
of beings possessing reason and free will. ... Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a
natural law theory of morality: what is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from
the rational nature of human beings.
St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that
which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the
first principle of human acts"
Ethical theory
Within Aquinas’ frame, ethical philosophy is about deciding the best way to live one’s life.
This is continuous with wider ancient and Medieval approaches. Modern theorists tend to
assume that people have a vast field of options which morality pares down. In contrast,
Aquinas believes people need to identify meaningful goals before they can act. As such,
moral theory is a way to facilitate action, rather than to limit it.
Although Aquinas believes in religious faith and the revealed truths of the Christian
tradition, his philosophy is not on, the whole, grounded in either. In other words, most of
Aquinas’ arguments do not require that the reader take the Bible as true in order to accept
its premises and conclusions. Rather, Aquinas seemed to think that some truths could be
demonstrated in secular ways, which Christianity simply repeated or made clearer. He
also thought that reasoning could be used to figure out specific things that Christian
doctrine did not make clear. For instance, unlike Islam and Judaism, Christianity never
had its own tradition of law. This opens space for philosophers to provide what religious
doctrine did not. Aquinas’ approach, valuing empirical knowledge, entails a partial
rejection of the Christian denigration of the body. For Aquinas, the body is not the prison
of the soul, but a means for its expression.
Aquinas’s ethical theory involves both principles – rules about how to act – and virtues –
personality traits which are taken to be good or moral to have. The relative importance of
the two aspects is debated. Modern thinkers tend to work more with principles, whereas
ancient thinkers work with virtues, so this question decides which way the reader positions
Aquinas. People trying to make Aquinas relevant to analytical philosophy emphasise his
principles, and their basis in reasoning. People trying to use Aquinas to develop a virtue
ethics, which challenges the legalistic thinking of analytical philosophy, play up the virtues
instead.
Both sets of attributes have an underlying goal. The purpose of principles and virtues is
to direct people towards the goal of human fulfilment, or living a worthwhile life. This is
both an individual and a collective goal. Modern moral theories are mostly outwardly
directed – actions are deemed right or wrong based on their effects on others. Aquinas,
in contrast, believes that moral thought is mainly about bringing moral order to one’s own
action and will. It is only secondarily about bringing order to the world. The most significant
effects of a moral action are on the actor.
This is very different from modern approaches. It seems strange from a modern
perspective to think, for instance, that the main thing that is wrong with murder is that it
disrupts the flourishing of the murderer. But it only seems strange because a modern
reader is assuming that people have narrow self-interest. If people’s true flourishing is
defined in a way which includes compassion for others, and people are nodes or hubs in
a networked cosmic order, then, of course, a murderer is first of all rupturing this proper
relationship, and harming another person only as an effect of this rupture. In many ways,
this inner focus of older traditions of theory has a humanising, qualitative-focused
influence on moral thought. This focus can also be somewhat circular, in that the pursuit
of social goods reflects back as the achievement of inner goods, and vice-versa.
Aristotle thinks that each type of thing or being must have a distinct function or role which
it is specially suited to or designed for. Humans are directed towards eudaemonia
(happiness or living well), achieved through reason. Aquinas does not seem to agree with
this view, although he thinks that particular faculties (speech, sex and so on) have a
“natural” function (the function which most advances fulfilment). If people have a distinct
function or optimal good (equivalent to Aristotle’s eudaemonia), it is what Aquinas calls
beatitudo or felicitas – roughly, communion with God – and it can only be achieved in the
afterlife. This function does not play a foundational role in his moral thought. However,
Aquinas shares Aristotle’s view that everything is created with an essence or nature. He
also suggests that particular virtues are ultimately paths to beatitude.
There’s some debate over whether Aquinas – like Aristotle – deduces “ought” from “is”.
The debate is basically about whether Aquinas believes that certain things are observably
natural, in a biological or cosmic sense, and therefore right, or whether he attaches the
label “natural” to those things that he believes aid human flourishing (as deduced using
reason). There are certainly instances of the latter; because Aquinas defines some things
he recognises as socially learnt – such as moral virtue and political life – as natural.
Either way, Aquinas makes a false, essentialist claim. He maintains that everyone who
possesses the capacity to reason and understanding of the terms will agree with him that
certain things are right and wrong. These include very contentious claims – for example,
that sex outside marriage (including sex outside heteronormativity) is always wrong. It is
not difficult to show that these claims are socially constructed, and not self-evident effects
of reason.
Aquinas also establishes an ordering of spheres of life. Moral thought is about fulfilment
in human life as a whole, as distinct from the specific goals of particular practices or arts.
He treats it as transcendent, so that other passions and reasons should be seen as
subordinate and suppressed if they clash with it.
The field of ethical theory is also limited. Moral choice applies only to freely-willed actions,
which are not subject to outer or inner compulsion. Without free choice, there cannot be
responsibility. Aquinas is thus refreshingly dismissive of the extended forms of
responsibility often found in contemporary thought. He is far more reasonable than most
modern people about how many of a person’s acts can be morally judged.
From Aquinas’ point of view, the motive of an action is also crucial, and two apparently
identical acts may be right and wrong because of their motives. For example, deliberately
killing someone in self-defence because of hatred towards them is wrong, whereas killing
someone as a side-effect of fighting off their attack is justified. It follows from this that
morality is fundamentally an inner question, operating mainly in the field of the qualitative,
and not primarily a question of social norms or legal prohibitions. This emphasis on the
meaning of an act to the actor resonates with approaches in qualitative sociology such
as labelling theory. It is an important counterbalance to the authoritarian emphasis on
“behaviour” as classified by an observer.
Context and relations are crucial to ethical thought. In contrast with consequentialist
thought, Aquinas maintains that good and bad are different in kind. A good act is good in
its motive, appropriateness to context, and object; it is bad if any of these is wrong.
Aquinas’s ethical principles
The first principle of Aquinas’s moral thought is that good should be done or pursued, and
evil (or badness) avoided. Without this principle, other moral rules would have no force.
The maxim “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is also quite
fundamental, and sometimes interpreted as a rephrasing of the first principle. Others have
interpreted it as an orientation to the fulfilment of everyone, now and in the future.
Personally, I find “do unto others” unsatisfactory as an ethical principle. I feel it ignores
difference, and it can lead to absurdities when acting towards others who are different in
some way. If someone happens to like eating roast pork, and they “do unto others”, they
should serve pork to their vegetarian and Muslim friends. If someone likes toy trains, then
they should buy all their friends toy trains as gifts, whether they like them or not, because
they would like others to buy them toy trains. If someone enjoys being tortured for sexual
pleasure, they should torture other people, and so on.
These conclusions are absurd, and show the underlying assumption of sameness on
which the principle is based. On the other hand, the basic idea of valuing the flourishing
of others makes sense as a way of humanising social life. I do not feel that the flourishing
of the self is necessarily a good guide to the flourishing of the other, but I’m attracted to
the view that one should value everyone’s flourishing in the same way as one’s own, since
we are all emanations of the same flow of becoming and difference-production. Of course,
this also requires that one has some kind of experience of flourishing from which to begin.
Aquinas’ basic principle is unpacked into a range of specific imperatives based partly on
knowledge of human life. Moral thought should aim towards six basic human goods: life,
knowledge, fellowship or friendship, marriage and child-raising, religion, and practical
reason (These are surprisingly concrete compared to modern lists of primary goods, such
as Rawls’s: income and wealth, state-recognised rights, and social bases of self-respect).
The use of a list of basic goods sidesteps utilitarian maximising dynamics, instead
focusing on concrete beings with diverse needs. It is easy to see how the latter move
towards abstract views of human goods as aggregate utility or welfare are effects of the
commodity fetish, with its conflation of diverse needs, products and types of labour into a
single economic calculus.
Aquinas’ approach is politically positive in aiming for the full development or flourishing of
qualitative people, rather than quantitative criteria such as maximising Gross Domestic
Product or economic efficiency. However, the way he defines human people is sometimes
essentialist and repressive. Flourishing (or free becoming) can turn into moulding (or the
repression of free becoming) when false assumptions are made about what human
flourishing entails.
Hence, Aquinas’ arguments for the state and marriage deploy a functionalist kind of
argument in which the supposed social benefit of an institution justifies whatever is
necessary to sustain the institution. Specific moral norms are ways of specifying the
meaning of the primary maxim in such a way as to satisfy all these six primary goods.
Some norms are derived simply from the basic goods. For instance, murder clearly
removes the good of life. Other norms, such as those against theft and usury, require
more complex derivations.
The case of killing is complex, because Aquinas allows both incidental killing in self-
defence (provided the intent is not to kill), and exceptions for statist practices such as war
and the death penalty. Later interpreters have generally found the latter exceptions
arbitrary, and argued that military and police killings are only justifiable on similar terms
to self-defence. In other words, it’s OK to kill as a side-effect of some other goal (such as
winning a battle), but not as a deliberate goal. I’d argue, however, that there’s an inherent
danger in trying to allow some social forces to use violence while prohibiting it to others.
This type of discourse contributes to concentrations of power, which necessarily lead to
domination and injustice.
In another of Aquinas’s arguments, lying is wrong, either because it violates the basic
purpose of the tongue or speech, or because it creates a dissonance between the real
self and the socially-presented self. Critics suggest that situations involving an unjust
adversary might override this prohibition. However, it would also seem to apply to other
kinds of false social performance, including self-branding, image management, public
relations, and possibly the entire field of the external persona. In other words, the basic
dynamic of semiocapitalism is here condemned.
As with many Christian thinkers, Aquinas’s views on marriage and the family are typically
reactionary. Marriage has two goals or ends: giving birth to and raising children (to pursue
their own fulfilment), and fides (meaning faithfulness, love, life-partnership, and
interpersonal unification). Sex is allowed as a means to these ends, but not otherwise.
Not only is sex with someone other than a husband or wife prohibited, but so is sex with
a husband or wife which lacks fides. For Aquinas, these are wrong because they go
against the “good” of marriage, which is one of the primary goods.
The entire derivation is rather arbitrary. It is only because Aquinas has included marriage
as a primary good – and not, for instance, sexual enjoyment or the performance of one’s
sexuality – that the argument works. The connection of fides (which can also exist in
same-sex and polyamorous relationships) to biological procreation is also more-or-less
arbitrary. Ultimately, Aquinas’s mistakes on this question show how the specification of a
human essence (here, the six primary goods) interferes with the process of flourishing in
virtue ethics. While virtue ethicists usually value flourishing, they define the kind of being
which flourishes and the paths to its flourishing in predetermined ways, which fail to
capture the complexity of human life, and oppress those who fall outside the definition of
the human. Clearly the arrangement Aquinas favours does not aid the flourishing of
people who are gay, lesbian or bisexual, or those with fides for multiple partners, or people
who enjoy sex but do not wish to procreate.
Aquinas’s moral psychology

Aquinas sees these ethical principles as effects of natural moral knowledge. Everyone
has an innate knowledge of the natural law, known as synderesis. This is actualised in
particular situations as conscience. Although innate, this natural law appears only in
reason, and not inclinations. Inclinations obey the natural law only if they are ruled by
reason. Any natural good can be pursued in inappropriate ways if it is not ruled by reason.
Conscience is a kind of operative practical intelligence which reminds people of their
principles when they are relevant to real choices. Aquinas believes that we should always
follow our conscience, even when it is wrong or causes great harm. Since we have no
way of knowing whether our consciences are wrong, they are the best guide we have as
to what is the moral thing to do. To go against one’s conscience is to go against the values
of truth and reason. This position differs from modern theories, which usually prioritise
social norms of laws over conscience. I feel Aquinas’s view makes more sense, because
conscience is a better guide to the right thing to do than external social norms (which
most often reflect dominant social power-relations).
There are four main virtues according to Aquinas:
Prudentia – the act of bringing moral reasoning into all decisions, and putting it before
irrational desires and ego-promotion. Reason, rather than passion, is at the heart of moral
decisions.
Justice – a disposition to give others what they are entitled to, or have a right to.
Courage (fortitude) – a disposition to restrain fears so as to act rightly.
Temperantia – the moderation of desires, especially sexual desire, in line with their
“proper role”. This does not require a lack of passion, but something more like a golden
mean.
Aquinas does not have a theory of human rights, but his idea of justice – in which
everyone has a right to what they are justly given – comes very close to developing such
an idea (Another Medieval Catholic scholar, Bartolomé de las Casas, arguably invented
human rights in his dialogues on the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
Las Casas was also an assimilationist and a supporter of slavery).
Economics: Is Aquinas an Anti-Capitalist?
Aquinas approaches economics with a view of reciprocity or people’s “due” which is
basically anti-capitalist (though pro-property). Whether in compensation, law or trading,
like should always be exchanged with like to avoid imbalance and maintain equality in the
relationship. In addition, money has a nature or purpose as a medium of exchange. It
should not have other functions beyond this, accruing value by itself.
Usury, or lending money and charging interest, is deemed unjust because it violates this
kind of equality – a person is lent (say) £100 and pays back £120, a greater amount.
Except in certain special cases (such as risk-sharing), this is exploitative. Similarly, it is
wrong to take advantage of conditions to buy below or sell above something’s real value.
Historically, it should be noted that Aquinas was writing about 50-100 years before
banking became widespread in Europe (with church connivance). Christian objections to
usury ultimately fell foul of the political usefulness of ready cash to fund royal and papal
wars.
This argument also applies to wider dynamics of capitalism, particularly the mechanism
of capital accumulation whereby capital increases in value (Marx’s M-C-M’ dynamic). This
similarly produces a greater sum from a lesser sum, and so upsets reciprocity. Aquinas’
view of economics provides means to keep capitalist tendencies to indefinite
accumulation in check, maintaining a kind of balance and functionality in economic
relations.
Other aspects of Aquinas’s economics are also egalitarian. People have a duty to relieve
poverty, grounded both in love and justice. Nature is held in common, so there is no
natural basis for ownership. Aquinas allows property rights to promote economic
development, but makes these rights conditional on the social redistribution of any surplus
over one’s own accustomed consumption level. (This position basically prohibits capital
accumulation). Each person should be able to have some property. And property which
is not used can be expropriated (a view similar to Proudhon’s; squatting might be a
practical example).
Aquinas’s arguments against capitalism have influenced the Catholic Worker tendency.
This group is also inspired by Aquinas’s list of the Works of Mercy, which include such
things as forgiveness, instruction of the ignorant, feeding the hungry, ransoming
hostages, and harbouring the harbourless. The Catholic Worker movement interprets
these duties as literal commands to be followed. Their implications are pretty radical in
fields such as homelessness and immigration/asylum.
Lesson 15: Kant and Rights

Kant's Moral Theory - Categorical Imperative
Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories,

the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on
whether they fulfill our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality,
and he referred to it as The Categorical Imperative.
Kant's Idea of Goodwill

Kant argues that no consequence can have fundamental moral worth; the only thing
that is good in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely chooses t do its moral
duty. That duty in turn is dictated solely by reason. The goodwill thus consists of a
# Treat everyone as an end and never as a means
# Only act upon that maxim which you can at the same time, will that it should be a
universal law
#Actions that fuel the good will are done for the sake of duty
# If you are inclined to do something, your actions have no moral worth.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL RIGHTS

LEGAL RIGHTS- these are rights laid down in law and because they can be defended in
a natural court of law they are the most solid of all rights.
Characteristics of legal rights:
Created: upheld or altered by government or legislation
Unequal: there are situations in which distribution of legal rights is unequal
Alienable: can be taken away with or without consent
Local: They can vary based on jurisdiction.
MORAL RIGHTS- these arise out of a general principle of fairness and justice. A moral
right may or may not be enforced and supported by the law of the land but which ought
to be respected.
Characteristics of Moral Law:
Natural: an entitlement that exists simply from being human
Equal: no injustice in how rights are distributed
Inalienable: moral rights cannot be taken without consent
Universal: the same regardless of your location
Lesson 16: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism in normative ethics, is a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-
century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that
an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the
reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that
of everyone affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person
should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical
theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently of their
consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or
wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the
Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive. (Encyclopaedia
Britannica)
Workplace Example of Utilitarianism Ethics
The core idea of utilitarianism is that an action is right if it results in the happiness of the
greatest number of people in a society or a group. In the workplace, the idea of this
concept is if you conduct yourself properly at work, then you will be able to achieve
professional happiness. By making morally correct decisions, your happiness will
increase. However, if you choose to do something morally wrong, even though it may be
legal, your happiness will decrease.
Utilitarianism creates a black and white of what is morally correct. In the world of someone
who uses utilitarian ethics, there are no shades of gray, either something is wrong or
something is right. At work, utilitarianism is displayed by working to make sure the
workplace is a positive environment for your co-workers to be in, and then make it so for
yourself.
Types of Workplace Utilitarianism
There are two types of utilitarian ethics practiced on the job, rule utilitarianism and act
utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is put in place to benefit the most people by using the
fairest methods possible. Act utilitarianism makes the most ethical actions possible for
the benefit of the people.
Examples of Utilitarian Ethics

One example of utilitarianism in business is the practice of having tiered pricing for a
product or service to different types of customers. For example, the airline industry offers
first class, business class and economy class seats on many of their airplanes.
Customers who fly in first or business class pay a much higher rate than those in economy
seats, but they also get more amenities. However, the higher prices paid for business or
first class seats help to ease the airline’s financial burden created by making room for
economy class seats. This would be an example of rule utilitarianism.
An example of act utilitarianism is a pharmaceutical company releasing a drug that has

been governmentally approved with known side effects because the drug is able to help
more people than are bothered by the minor side effects. Act utilitarianism often shows
“the end justifies the means” mentality.
The main limitation to utilitarian ethics is that it is difficult to achieve in the workplace.
People are taught to focus on self before others, making it difficult to practice
utilitarianism. However, with hard work and perseverance, you can create the type of work
atmosphere that you desire for yourself and those around you.
utilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-
century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
according to which an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or
pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—not just for the performer
of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. Utilitarianism is a species of
consequentialism, the general doctrine in ethics that actions (or types of action) should
be evaluated on the basis of their consequences. Utilitarianism and other consequentialist
theories are in opposition to egoism, the view that each person should pursue his or her
own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards
some actions (or types of action) as right or wrong independently of their consequences
(see deontological ethics). Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the
rightness or wrongness of an action dependent upon the motive of the agent—for,
according to the utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive.
Utilitarians may, however, distinguish the aptness of praising or blaming an agent from
whether the action was right.
The nature of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a
person to do?” The answer is that a person ought to act so as to maximize happiness or
pleasure and to minimize unhappiness or pain.
Basic concepts
In the notion of consequences the utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced
by the action, whether arising after the action has been performed or during its
performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative actions is not great,
some utilitarians would not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According
to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of
such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely
persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.
In assessing the consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of

intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences,
and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic
good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e, they analyzed
happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are
of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the
intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have
better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible.
A moralist, he maintained, could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for
everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance
as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement
as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the
utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects of
alternative courses of action.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.

Subscribe Now
Methodologies
As a normative system providing a standard by which an individual ought to act and by
which the existing practices of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated
and improved, utilitarianism cannot be verified or confirmed in the way in which a
descriptive theory can, but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply arbitrary. Bentham
believed that only in terms of a utilitarian interpretation do words such as “ought,” “right,”
and “wrong” have meaning and that, whenever people attempt to combat the principle of
utility, they do so with reasons drawn from the principle itself. Bentham and Mill both
believed that human actions are motivated entirely by pleasure and pain, and Mill saw
that motivation as a basis for the argument that, since happiness is the sole end of human
action, the promotion of happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct.
One of the leading utilitarians of the late 19th century, the Cambridge philosopher Henry
Sidgwick, rejected such theories of motivation as well as Bentham’s theory of the meaning
of moral terms and sought to support utilitarianism by showing that it follows from
systematic reflection on the morality of “common sense.” Most of the requirements of
commonsense morality, he argued, could be based upon utilitarian considerations. In
addition, he reasoned that utilitarianism could solve the difficulties and perplexities that
arise from the vagueness and inconsistencies of commonsense doctrines.
Most opponents of utilitarianism have held that it has implications contrary to their moral
intuitions—that considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes sanction the
breaking of a promise. Much of the defense of utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering
these objections, either by showing that utilitarianism does not have the implications that
its opponents claim it has or by arguing against the opponents’ moral intuitions. Some
utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the utilitarian theory to accommodate the
objections.
Criticisms
One such criticism is that, although the widespread practice of lying and stealing would
have bad consequences, resulting in a loss of trustworthiness and security, it is not certain
that an occasional lie to avoid embarrassment or an occasional theft from a rich person
would not have good consequences and thus be permissible or even required by
utilitarianism. But the utilitarian readily answers that the widespread practice of such acts
would result in a loss of trustworthiness and security. To meet the objection to not
permitting an occasional lie or theft, some philosophers have defended a modification
labelled “rule” utilitarianism. It permits a particular act on a particular occasion to be
adjudged right or wrong according to whether it is in keeping with or in violation of a useful
rule, and a rule is judged useful or not by the consequences of its general practice. Mill
has sometimes been interpreted as a “rule” utilitarian, whereas Bentham and Sidgwick
were “act” utilitarians.
Another objection, often posed against the hedonistic value theory held by Bentham,
holds that the value of life is more than a balance of pleasure over pain. Mill, in contrast
to Bentham, discerned differences in the quality of pleasures that make some intrinsically
preferable to others independently of intensity and duration (the quantitative dimensions
recognized by Bentham). Some philosophers in the utilitarian tradition have recognized
certain wholly nonhedonistic values without losing their utilitarian credentials. Thus, the
English philosopher G.E. Moore, one of the founders of contemporary analytic
philosophy, regarded many kinds of consciousness—including friendship, knowledge,
and the experience of beauty—as intrinsically valuable independently of pleasure, a
position labelled “ideal” utilitarianism. Even in limiting the recognition of intrinsic value and
disvalue to happiness and unhappiness, some philosophers have argued that those
feelings cannot adequately be further broken down into terms of pleasure and pain and
have thus preferred to defend the theory in terms of maximizing happiness and minimizing
unhappiness. It is important to note, however, that, even for the hedonistic utilitarians,
pleasure and pain are not thought of in purely sensual terms; pleasure and pain for them
can be components of experiences of all sorts. Their claim is that, if an experience is
neither pleasurable nor painful, then it is a matter of indifference and has no intrinsic
value.
Another objection to utilitarianism is that the prevention or elimination of suffering should

take precedence over any alternative act that would only increase the happiness of
someone already happy. Some modern utilitarians have modified their theory to require
this focus or even to limit moral obligation to the prevention or elimination of suffering—a
view labelled “negative” utilitarianism.
Lesson 17: Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Good

In the context of conflict, the terms 'justice' and 'fairness' are often used interchangeably.
Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact,
no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality
than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher
Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every
major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality.
Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms,
giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are
often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct
understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a
standard of rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge
without reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to
the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific
to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to
both justice and fairness.
When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be
made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people,
questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, 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.
But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us
very far. 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?
Lesson 18: Globalization and Its Ethical Challenges

Globalization has transformed the world from a collection of discrete communities
interacting occasionally to an overlapping community of fate. Thus culturally, politically
and economically, communities across the world now operate in what is essentially a
shared space albeit divided into artificial political condominiums called nation-states. This
artificial division, notwithstanding, the intensification of transnational relations occasioned
by globalizing forces and processes has opened up novel forms of social bonds and
responsibilities. As nations, peoples and communities across the globe become
economically, socially and politically connected, the distinction between the global and
the local becomes increasingly blurred and events and actions in one locale carries with
it the potential to generate transnational and transgenerational consequences. It is
precisely because in a globalized world, events and actions are capable of giving rise to
transnational consequences, that moral reflection about our responsibilities and
obligations has become an imperative. (Osimiri, 2015)
As convergence of technologies facilitated people to connect, people not only

communicated but also started collaborating. A flat world that facilitates multiple forms of
collaboration in sharing knowledge and work among billions of people without regard to
geography, distance or language poses new challenges and problems for lawmakers and
judges. When billions of people connect and collaborate and generate value in goods and
services horizontally rather than vertically, complex issues are bound to arise. Such
disputes emerge in the shape of challenges, which can be called global. Now global
challenges demand global solutions as well. (Singh, 2015)
Lesson 19: Code of Ethics of Filipino Seafarers
A code of ethics can be seen as a guide, a system, a set of regulations or laws, which
governs the conduct of a profession.
The Merchant Marine Deck Officer has a moral obligation and social responsibility to
practice his profession according to a Code of Ethics and Conduct. Every Merchant
Marine Deck Officer shall regard the Code of Ethics as a way of life which has its
foundation in Honesty, Truth, Justice, Integrity, and Love of the Country, not as a set of
rules which should strictly be observed. Professionalism is the keystone of every
Merchant Marine Deck Officer in the conduct of his profession and above all upholds
the honor and dignity of every Filipino Merchant Marine Deck Officer.
Board for Marine Deck Officers Code of Ethics of the Philippines (We Filipino Seafarer
should know)
Board for Marine Deck Officers Code of Ethics
Article I
GENERAL PROVISION
The Merchant Marine Deck Officer has a moral obligation and social responsibility to practice his
profession according to a Code of Ethics and Conduct. Every Merchant Marine Deck Officer shall
regard the Code of Ethics as a way of life which has its foundation in Honesty, Truth, Justice,
Integrity, and Love of the Country, not as a set of rules which should strictly be observed.
Professionalism is the keystone of every Merchant Marine Deck Officer in the conduct of his
profession and above all upholds the honor and dignity of every Filipino Merchant Marine Deck
Officer.
Article II
RELATION TO THE PROFESSION
a) A deck officer shall strive to elevate, maintain and contribute to the honor and dignity of the
profession.
b) He shall conduct himself with the traditional decorum of an officer and a gentleman,
restraining himself from all acts contrary to the established rules of morality and personal
discipline.
c) He shall continually improve his professional competency by keeping up to date with the
latest technological and scientific knowledge being applied in the marine fields.
d) It shall be his obligation to keep himself prepared for the next higher license through reading,
diligent studies and keen observation of the shipboard activities.
e) He shall make financial gain secondary only to the service that the entire profession can
render to the economic growth of the country.
f) A deck officer shall not hesitate to consult his fellow deck officers in matters that will affect the
honor and integrity of the deck officer’s profession.
g) He shall expose, without fear or favor, to the proper authorities of the profession; corrupt or
dishonest conduct of members of the profession whose existing practices can degrade the
reputation of other practitioners.
h) Every deck officer should aid in safeguarding the profession against the admission to its
ranks of
persons who are unfit or unqualified in moral character or professional training.
This Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of Merchant Marine Deck Officers are hereby
adopted pursuant to R.A. 8544 known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998
under Section 40: “The Integrated and Accredited Maritime Association of Marine Deck Officer
shall prescribe a Code of Ethics for Marine Deck Officer which shall be adopted by the Board of
Marine Deck Officers and approved by the Commission.”
Article III
RELATION TO THE STATE
a) A Deck Officer, in his capacity as a person of high technical potentialities and delegated with
leadership for the discipline of his men, shall recognize and respect the supreme authority of
the State.
b) A Deck Officer shall strive to become an exemplary citizen by the devoted or fruitful fulfillment
of his civic duties.
c) He shall perform his professional duties in conformity with the existing laws.
d) He shall endeavor to assist and cooperate with proper authorities in the enforcement of
maritime and customs regulations.
e) He shall offer to the State his full knowledge and experience in the interest of national
security and especially in time of national emergency.
Article IV
RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY
a) Every deck officer shall compose himself as an officer and a gentleman, and act honorably
when dealing with the general public.
b) He should be concerned foremost with the safety of every man, woman and child who boards
the ship as a passenger by following all safety measures prescribed for shipboard use.
c) He shall contribute his professional knowledge for the general public welfare and comfort of
the riding public to gain their respect and confidence.
d) He shall, above all, continually consider the preservation of life, health and poverty, even at
the risk of his own life, to enhance the sense of public interest that is an integral obligation of the
profession.
Article V
DUTY TO A SUPERIOR
a) Marine officers in a subordinate capacity shall always render the traditional respect to a superior
officer.
b) Subordinate shall render the necessary assistance, if possible above and beyond the call of
duty, so that their superior, or the entire organization, can be assured of a successful operation
of his assigned duties.
c) subordinate shall strive to gain the confidence and respect of his superior through a prompt
and efficient performance of his assigned duties.
d) A marine officer shall promptly and efficiently follow and obey all lawful orders of his superior
without questioning his integrity.
e) A subordinate must always remember that he can only give recommendation to his superior
and that final decision must be left to his superior's discretion.
f) A subordinate must always remember the command responsibility of a superior and must give
the proper assistance within or beyond his specific duties.
g) A subordinate should never openly criticize the actuation of his superior with other subordinate
officer, more particularly with unlicensed personnel.
h) In the event of inquiries he should only state actual facts but never his opinion as to whether
his superior is right or wrong.
Article VI
RELATION TO THE SUBORDINATE
a) A superior officer shall always conduct himself with the proper decorum in his acts or deeds
and thoughts to set an example for his subordinate befitting his rank or designation.
b) He should give the necessary training, guidance and opportunities for the improvement of his
subordinate’s competency and especially to overcome his shortcoming demanded by his
license as a deck officer.
c) He should continually mold the character of his subordinate to impress the importance of
command responsibility.
d) He should give merits unselfishly when due, to inspire his subordinates to achieve greater
result.
e) He should not hesitate to listen to the advice of his subordinates but to exercise discretion
before implementation.
f) He should not hesitate to admit errors in his decision when it is obvious, but it must be done
within the circle of staff.
Article VII
RELATION TO HIS FELLOW-PRACTITIONER
a) Every deck officer should work together in mutual cooperation and harmonious relationship
by sharing individual knowledge for professional advancement.
b) He should associate himself with his colleagues in any reputable and recognized marine
society to further broaden his knowledge.
c) He should never attempt to issue statements to the general public concerning the
shortcoming of his fellow officer.
d) The following specified acts of a deck officer shall be deemed to be unethical as a breach of
professional ethics, subject to immediate actions:
1) Open criticism of a fellow officer without knowledge of the other.
2) Spreading false information on the professional competency and ability of other practitioners.
3) Degrading a colleague in order to acquire his position.
4) False recommendation on the competency of another officer.
5) Maliciously withholding information or knowledge to place others in a controversial situation.
6) Tending to accept a position lower than his highest license to displace another officer
applying for the same.
7) Exerting political influence to displace a co-marine officer or engineer.
8) Certifying that he can work better or could render service more satisfactorily than another.
9) Openly expressing that he holds exclusive methods of practice or style of service.
Article VIII
AMENDMENTS
The Board of Directors of the Masters and Mates Association of the Philippines Incorporated by
majority vote of all the Directors may amend or repeal the code or adopt a new Code of Ethics
of the Merchant Marine Deck Officer in the Philippines subject to the review of the Board of
Marine Deck Officer and approval by the Commission.
Article IX
PENAL PROVISION
This Code of Ethics shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Code or any newspaper of
general circulation to have the force and effect of Law. Copies of the Code shall be distributed
every year to all Merchant Marine Deck Officer during the annual Conference Workshop
conducted by the Integrated and accredited professional Merchant Marine Deck Officer (Master
and Mates Association of the Philippines, Inc.) for proper information and guidance of all
Merchant Marine both in public and government service and be distributed among all Merchant
Marine Deck Officers immediately following their oath taking. It shall be included in the
curriculum of all Maritime Institutions as part of the course of study in ship’s familiarization,
ethics and Maritime laws. Violations of any of the provision of the Code of Ethics shall constitute
unethical and unprofessional conduct and therefore garner sufficient grounds for reprimand,
suspension or revocation of the certificate of registration and certificate of competency of the
offending Merchant Marine Deck Officer in accordance with the provision of Article IX Section
37 of R.A. 8544 known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998.
Article X
EFFECTIVITY
This Code shall take effect after approval by the Professional Regulation Commission and after
fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general
circulation whichever comes first.
Lesson 12
REASON AS BASIS OF
MORALITY
According to Immanuel Kant morality was
based on reason alone, and once we
understood this, we would see that acting
morally is the same as acting rationally. Kant
argued that morality, by definition, must help
us decide what to do. When we are choosing
how to act, we know that our self-interest or
happiness influences our choices. However,
happiness can’t be the basis of morality.
First, what makes people happy
differs. If morality depended on happiness,
then it was right to do would change from
one situation to the next. But, he argues,
morality is the same for everyone.
Second, sometimes happiness is
morally bad. For instance, if someone
enjoys hurting other people, the happiness
they get from this is morally bad.
It is bad to hurt someone; it is even
worse to hurt someone and enjoy it. And
Kant argues there is – reason. We are able
to think about and reflect on different
actions, and decide between them. We are
not ‘forced’ by our desires to act this way
or that, we have a power of will that is
distinct from desire and the pull of
happiness.
Connecting reason and morality
What is the connection between reason and

morality?
First, this capacity to choose freely is
necessary for morality – animals and young
children simply act on their desires, and so we
don’t think they are capable of acting morally.
Yes, their actions can have good or bad
consequences, but because they don’t make
choices in the right sense, we don’t really praise
or blame them in the same way we do adults.
Second, according to Kant,
reason works in a way that is
independent of our desires. The
same is true, Kant argues, for
reasoning about what we ought to
do. Morality is independent of
what we want.
Third, it is rational for everyone to
believe What it is rational to believe is
‘universal’ – the same for everyone. This
‘universality’ is just a feature of reason; reason
doesn’t vary from one person to the next. So
when it comes to what it is rational to do, this is
also the same for everyone. It is only rational to
do what everyone can do. Morality is also the
same for everyone This last point leads Kant to a
moral test for our choices.
This test of reason is also the test
of morality: you should act only those
choices that everyone else could also
act on. WHAT REASON RECOMMENDS
Kant’s theory has two parts: that
reason can tell us what to do, and that
reason can motivate us to do it.
Example 1:
Why should I eat? Because I am hungry – I
want food; or, if I have lost my appetite, because
I want to stay alive. The same kind of
considerations apply to moral actions.
Example 2:
Why should I not steal? Because I want to avoid
prison, because I do not enjoy other people
getting angry with me, because I feel guilty if I
do, or perhaps simply because I care about
other people.
FREE WILL AND MORALITY
The existence of morality implies the

existence of free will. Moreover, free will is closely
related to two philosophical issues: a) freedom of
action and b) moral responsibility.
A) Freedom of human actions
- are actions that result from the rational
capacities of humans, we then see that the
possibility of free action depends on the possibility
of free will: to say that an agent acted freely is
minimally to say that the agent was successful in
carrying out a free volition or choice.
This suggests that freedom is
simply the ability to select a course
of action and an agent is free if he
is not being prevented by some
external obstacles from completing
that course of action.
b) Moral responsibility
-is distinct from causal
responsibility.
Prominent Theories of what the will is are the ff.
a. Faculties Model of the Will
What is distinct about free agents,
according to this model is their possession of
certain powers or capacities for growth and
reproduction. What is unique about free agents
however, is that they also possess the faculties
for intellect and will. It is in virtue of having
these faculties and the interaction between
them that agents have free will.
The intellect or the rational faculty is the
power of cognition. As a result of its cognition,
the intellect presents various things to the will
as good under some description. Furthermore,
all agents that have an intellect also have a will.
The will or the volitional faculty is an appetite
for the good; that is it is naturally drawn to
goodness. The will therefore cannot pursue an
option that an intellect presents as good in no
way. Thus through the interaction between the
intellect and will, an agent has free will to
pursue something that it perceives as good.
b. Hierarchical Model of the Will
This account is also sometimes called
a "structuralist" or "mesh" account of the
will is free if it has a certain internal
structure or mesh among the various levels
of desires and volition. According to this
model, agents can have different kinds
of desires in infinite hierarchy.
c. Reasons- Responsive View of the Will
A third treatment of free will takes as
its starting point the claim that agency
involves a sensitivity to certain reasons. An
agent acts in free will if he is responsive to
the appropriate rational considerations and
he does not have free will if he such
responsiveness. Coercion and
manipulation undermine free will, on this
view, on virtue of making agents not
reasons-responsive.
Lesson 13
Moral Theories and Mental

Frames
What is a Moral Theory?
Theory
- is a structured set of statements used to
explain (or predict) a set of facts or
concepts.
Moral theory
- is a theory of how we determine the right
and wrong conduct in a certain actions.
It is clear that we cannot draw a sharp
division between moral theory and applied
ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics). For
instance, in order to critically evaluate the moral
issue of affirmative action, we must not attempt
to evaluate what actions or policies are right (or
wrong) independent of what we take to
determine right and wrong conduct.
• Note, though, that sound moral thinking does
not simply involve going one way -- from
theory to applied issue. Sometimes a case may
suggest that we need to change or adjust our
thinking about what moral theory we think is
the best, or perhaps it might lead us to think
that a preferred theory needs modification.
Moral Theories:
a) Descriptive
what people are doing in their
every days life
b) prescriptive
thinking how to judge them in what they
are doing if it is right or wrong
Common Moral
Theories
- Morality is not dependent on society but
only on the individual.
- it is the amounts to the denial of moral
principles of any significant kind, and the
possibility of moral criticism and argumentation.
In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their
meaning because so long as someone thinks or
feels that some action is 'right', there are no
grounds for criticism.
• If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot
object to anyone's behavior (assuming people
are in fact acting in accordance with what they
think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw
in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly
everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object,
on moral grounds, to at least some peoples'
actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about
moral issues.
2. Cultural Relativism
-right and wrong is determined by the
particular set of principles or rules the relevant
• Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral
Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot
criticize the actions of those in cultures other
than our own. And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles. Also, it
implies that a culture cannot be mistaken
about what is right and wrong (which also
seems not to be true).
3. Ethical Egoism
- right and wrong is determined by what is in
your self- interest.
- it is immoral to act contrary to your self-
interest.
- based upon Psychological Egoism by
nature and act of selfishly.
- does not imply hedonism or that we
ought to aim for at least some 'higher' goods (e.g.,
wisdom, political success), but rather that we will
(ideally) act so as to maximize our self interest.
This may require that we forgo some
immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving
some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does
not exclude helping others. However, egoists will
help others only if this will further their own
interests. An ethical egoist will claim that the
altruist helps others only because they want to
(perhaps because they derive pleasure out of
helping others) or because they think there will
be some personal advantage in doing so. That is,
they deny the possibility of genuine altruism
(because they think we are all by nature selfish).
This leads us to the key implausibility
of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who
helps others at the expense of their self-
interest is actually acting immorally. Many
think that the ethical egoist has
misunderstood the concept of morality --
i.e., morality is the system of practical
reasoning through which we are guided to
constrain our self-interest, not further it.
Also, that genuine altruism is indeed
possible, and relatively commonly
exhibited.
4. Divine Command Theory
Many claim that there is a necessary connection

between morality and religion, such that, without religion
(in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality,
i.e., no right and wrong behavior. Although there are
related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and
guide people to behave in morally good way, most take
the claim of the necessary connection between morality
and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the
commands of God (or the gods). This view of morality is
known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that an
action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it,
wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and
morally permissible if God does not command that it not
be done.
5. Virtue Ethics
- right and wrong are characterized in terms of
acting in accordance with the traditional virtues –
making the good person.
For Aristotle, the central concern is "Ethica" =

things to do with character. Of particular concern
are excellences of character -- i.e., the moral virtues.
• Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had

nothing to say about moral duty, i.e., modern day
moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with
what makes human beings truly 'happy'. True
'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well-
being / fulfilment / self- actualization).
5. Virtue Ethics
Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that
there are objective reasons for living in
accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom,
courage, justice and temperance). For Aristotle,
this comes from a particular account of human
nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is the 'happiest'
(most fulfilling) life.
(1) The ultimate end of human action is
happiness.
(2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance
with reason.
(3) Acting in accordance with reason is the
distinguishing feature of all the traditional virtues.
Aristotle thought that humans had a specific

function. This function is to lead a life of true
flourishing as a human, which required abiding by
the dictates of rationality and so acting in
accordance with the traditional virtues.
6. Feminist Ethics
-right and wrong is to be found in womens'
responses to the relationship of caring.
Comes out of the criticism that all other moral
theories are 'masculine' -- display a male bias. Specifically,
feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other
moral theories (they take individualism to be a 'masculine'
idea). Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we need to
consider the self as at least partly constructed by social
relations. So morality, according to some feminist moral
philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love
and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This
allows legitimate biases towards those with whom we
have close social relationships.
7. Utilitarianism
- right and wrong is determined by the overall
goodness (utility) of the consequences of action.
- is a Consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
All action leads to some end. But there is
a summumbonum -- the highest good/end. This is
pleasure or happiness. Also, that there is a First
Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility', alternatively
called 'The Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually
characterized as the ideal of working towards the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. The GHP
implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human
welfare We do this in a particular instance by choosing
the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and
minimizing suffering.
• Jeremy Bentham -- the first to formulate Utilitarianism -- did not
distinguish between kinds of pleasures. However, Bentham's
student, John Stuart Mill, produced a more sophisticated version of
Utilitarianism in which pleasures may be higher or lower. The higher
pleasures (those obtained, e.g., through intellectual pursuits),
carried greater weight than the lower pleasures (those obtained
through sensation). The upshot is that in determining what action
to perform, both quality and quantity of pleasure/happiness count.
• Note: Utilitarians are not a Hedonist. Hedonists are concerned only
with their own happiness. Utilitarians are concerned with
everyone's happiness, so it is Altruistic. In general, morally right
actions are those that produce the best overall consequences /
total amount of pleasure or absence of pain.
• Other key points:
– For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or
wrong.
– No person's preferences or interests (including your
own, your relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.) carry a
greater weight than any other person's.
– Usually we cannot make the required utilitarian
calculation before acting. So, in most situations,
following 'rules of thumb' will produce the best
consequences.
– Democratic and economic principles reflect
Utilitarianism.
8. Kantian Theory
- right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving
universal duties.
- is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.
Basic ideas:
- That there is "the supreme principle of morality".
Good and Evil are defined in terms of Law / Duty / Obligation.
Rationality and Freedom are also central. Kant thought that
acting morally was quite simple. That is:
- you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your
duty).
- Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only
thing that is good without qualification. So, actions are truly
moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good
Will.
• This is called the Categorical Imperative =
Principle of Universalizability (something like
The Golden Rule). The basic idea is that we
should adopt as action guiding rules (i.e.,
maxims) only those that can be universally
accepted.
• Kant had another way of formulating the
Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
• Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end.
Rather, treat everyone as an end in themselves.
• We can understand this by noting an example,
i.e., the slave society What is wrong with the
slave society, following the above principle, is
that a slave is treated as a means to the slave
owner's ends, i.e., as an instrument or tool, not
as a person. The upshot is that no person's
interests (or rights) can be overridden by
another's, or the majority.
- it is an act in accordance with a set of

moral rights, which we possess simply by being
human.
- it is the basic idea that if someone has a
right, then others have a corresponding duty to
provide what the right requires.
Most distinguish between positive and
negative rights.
a) Positive right is one in which the
corresponding duty requires a positive action,
Example: giving a charitable donation in order to
sustain someone's right to life, shelter,
education
b) Negative right is one in which the
corresponding duty merely requires refraining
from doing something that will harm someone.
10. Contractarianism
- the principles of right and wrong (or
Justice) are those which everyone in society
would agree upon in forming a social contract.
is the principles or rules that determine
right and wrong in society are determined by a
hypothetical contract forming procedure.
John Rawls's example:
developed a way of getting people to come
up with universal principles of justice. The basic
idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial developing
a social contract of universal principles -- but
many find Rawls' novel method very appealing.
The idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that
we are at the beginning of forming a society and we want
to know which principles of justice to ground the society.
However, in this 'original position' we do this without
knowing which position we will occupy in the future
society -- we don't know if we will be rich or poor, male
or female, old or young, etc. We then advocate those
principles that will be in our self-interest (though we
don't know what 'self' that will be). This forces us to be
impartial, and if we are rational, to propose universal
principles. The idea of the thought experiment is not to
think that we actually begin again, and construct a society
from scratch. Rather, we can use the thought experiment
as a test of actual principles of justice. If a principle is one
that would not be adopted by people in the original
position, behind the 'veil of ignorance' (about who they
TOPIC 14 :VIRTUE
ETHICS
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
1. Articulated what virtue ethics is
2. Differentiated the concept of virtue ethics from
deontology and consequentialism
3. Explained the major tenet of the natural law
• Aristotle (c. 384 B.C. to 322 B.C.) was an
Ancient Greek philosopher and scientist
who is still considered one of the greatest
thinkers in politics, psychology and ethics.
In 335, Aristotle founded his own school,
the Lyceum, in Athens, where he spent
most of the rest of his life studying,
teaching and writing.
• Aristotle defines virtue as the average or
mean between excess and deficiency.
basically, he says the idea of virtue is " all
things in moderation". Human s should
enjoy existence but not be selfish. They
should avoid pain and displeasure but not
expect a life completely void of them.
VIRTUE ETHICS
• Virtue ethics takes the notion of virtue (often conceived as
excellence) as fundamental.
• Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character
that are essential to human flourishing, not with the
enumeration of duties.
VIRTUE ETHICS
• It falls somewhat outside the
traditional dichotomy between deontological
ethics and consequentialism: It agrees with consequentialism
that the criterion of an action’s being morally right or wrong
lies in its relation to an end that has intrinsic value, but more
closely resembles deontological ethics in its view that morally
right actions are constitutive of the end itself and not mere
instrumental means to the end.
• Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to
distinguish right from wrong. Deontological ethics,
in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis
on the relationship between duty and the morality of
human actions. The term deontology is derived from the
Greek deon, “duty,” and logos, “science.” It is only about
following the rules and does not require weighing the cost
and benefits of the situation.
• In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good
because of some characteristic of the action itself, not
because the product of the action is good. Deontological
ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory
regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty
for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and
“Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
EXAMPLE
• Do Not Kill - We all see killing or murdering
as the wrongest human deed because we
are taught since our childhood that killing
anybody including an animal is a wrong act.
For instance, if we found a killer in our
society, we all will hate him and consider him
wrong because he/she has killed somebody.
But we dont know the detail behind the
situation. Maybe that person has killed
another one in self-defense.
EXAMPLE
• Do Not Steal - Stealing is also considered as a legal crime.
We are taught not to steal anything or take anybody’s thing
without asking them.
• Religious Belief - Every person of the particular religion
has to follow the rules and regulation of his religion. For
example, If you’re a Hindu you might believe that it’s wrong
to eat beef; this rule would be part of our deontology
because we think it is wrong to eat beef.
EXAMPLE
• Keeping Promises - If you have made a promise, you
must keep it. For example, you might borrow money on
the promise to pay it back, but you don’t intend to pay it
back. So, making false promises is considered wrong.
• Respect The Elders - Elders have to be respected.
Respecting them is considered Right. If someone is found
disrespecting them, (may have a genuine reason behind
the disrespect) is considered as a bad person.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Teleological Ethics, (teleological from Greek telos,
“end”; logos, “science”), theory of morality that derives
duty or moral obligation from what is good or desirable as
an end to be achieved. Also known as
consequentialist ethics or consequentialism.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• It upholds that the consequences of one's conduct are the
ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or
wrongness of the conduct. Thus from a consequentialist
standpoint, a morally right action is one that will produce
a good outcome. Consequentialism is primarily non-
prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is
determined by its potential consequence, not by whether
it follows a set of written edicts or laws.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Consequentialism is controversial because many people
believe that certain things, such as justice, truth, selflessness,
or obedience to God, embody the highest good. Most
consequentialists would not say that any of these principles
should automatically be upheld in every situation, unless they
believe in a kind of consequentialism where that principle is
the end that justifies all means.
TELEOLOGICAL ETHICS
• Consequentialism is a kind of rationalism. In order to

determine the best course of action according to
consequentialism, you have to add up the total negative
and positive consequences and subtract one from the
other. For example, you need to consider not only the
degree of happiness caused by an action, but also the
number of people affected and for how long.
EXAMPLE
• Suppose that by killing X, an entirely innocent person, we
can save the lives of 10 other innocent people. A
consequentialist would say that killing X is justified
because it would result in only 1 person dying, rather than
10 people dying. A non-consequentialist would say it is
inherently wrong to murder people and refuse to kill X,
even though not killing X leads to the death of 9 more
people than killing X.
EXAMPLE
• For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But
if telling a lie would help save a person’s life. Entail lying under
the threat of government punishment to save an innocent
person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath.
• Child labor – imagine you run a factory in a very poor country
and a child comes to your door and ask for a job. If turning
the child away means that she would starve or turn into
something worse then it would be ethical to give her the job.
VIRTUE AS A HABIT
• According to Aristotle, virtue is a habit. He believed that
virtue as a habit requires an intentional choice when you
begin. The habit of virtue is not yet developed, but over
time one becomes used to behaving virtuously and after a
while one acts virtuously without needing to use volition.
HAPPINESS AS VIRTUE
• Happiness is not pleasure nor is it virtue. It is the exercise
of virtue. Since man is a rational animal, human
happiness depends on acquiring a moral character where
one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice,
friendship and citizenship in one's life.
• Thomas Aquinas was an Italian
Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic
priest, and Doctor of the Church. An
immensely influential philosopher,
theologian, and jurist in the tradition
of scholasticism, he is also known
within the latter as the Doctor
Angelicus and the Doctor Communis.
• St. Thomas Aquinas, for example,

identifies the rational nature of
human beings as that which defines
moral law: "the rule and measure of
human acts is the reason, which is
the first principle of human acts"
NATURAL LAW
• A principle or body of laws considered as derived from

nature, right reasons or religion and as ethically binding in
human society.
NATURAL LAW
• The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the
eternal law that govern the behavior of beings possessing
reason and free will. Here it is worth noting
that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what
is good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the
rational nature of human beings.
KANT
AND
RIGHTS THEORIST
Kant’s Theory
■ Represent deontological ethics

■ For him, a right action consists solely in an action that is
ruled and justified by a rule or principle
■ It was the rational and autonomous conformity of one’s
will to see right the universal moral law
■ Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals, explains the
philosophical foundation of morality and moral actions
GOODWILL,
MORAL WORTH
AND DUTY
Kant’s Idea of Goodwill
■ Kant's Idea of Goodwill

fundamental moral worth; the only thing that is good in
and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses t do its moral duty. That duty in turn is dictated
solely by reason. The goodwill thus consists of a
Highlights of Kantian ethics
■ Treat everyone as an end and never as a means

■ Good Will is the only good thing in itself
■ Only act upon that maxim which you can at the same
time, will that it should be a universal law
■ Actions that fuel the good will are done for the sake of
duty
■ If you are inclined to do something, your actions have
no moral worth.
fundamental moral worth; the only thing that is good
in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses to do its moral duty. That duty, in turn, is
dictated solely by reason. The Good Will thus consists
of a person’s free will motivated purely by reason.
Because the dictates of reason allow for no
exceptions, moral duty is absolute.
■ Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the

thought that the only thing good without qualification is a
“good will”. While the phrases “he’s good hearted”, “she’s
good natured” and “she means well” are common, “the
good will” as Kant thinks of it is not the same as any of
these ordinary notions. The idea of a good will is closer to
the idea of a “good person”, or, more archaically, a “person
of good will”. This use of the term “will” early on in analyzing
ordinary moral thought prefigures later and more technical
discussions concerning the nature of rational agency.
■ Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important
commonsense touchstone to which Kant returns
throughout his works. The basic idea, as Kant describes it
in the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person
good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way
“determined” by, or makes its decisions on the basis of,
the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be
the idea of one who is committed only to make decisions
that she holds to be morally worthy and who takes moral
considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for
guiding her behavior. This sort of disposition or character
is something we all highly value, Kant thought. He
believes we value it without limitation or qualification.
■ In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are
wholly determined by moral demands or, as he often
refers to this, by the Moral Law. Human beings
inevitably feel this Law as a constraint on their natural
desires, which is why such Laws, as applied to human
beings, are imperatives and duties. A human will in
which the Moral Law is decisive is motivated by the
thought of duty. A holy or divine will, if it exists, though
good, would not be good because it is motivated by
thoughts of duty because such a will does not have
natural inclinations and so necessarily fulfills moral
requirements without feeling constrained to do so.
■ It is the presence of desires that could operate

independently of moral demands that makes goodness in
human beings a constraint, an essential element of the idea
of “duty.” So in analyzing unqualified goodness as it occurs
in imperfectly rational creatures such as ourselves, we are
investigating the idea of being motivated by the thought that
we are constrained to act in certain ways that we might not
want to simply from the thought that we are morally
required to do so
GOODWILL
■ Only thing that is good without qualification

■ Other goods like intelligence and health can be
qualified. Good Will is good by virtue because it is the
will to follow the Moral Laws.
CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral
theory–according to these theories, the rightness or
wrongness of actions does not depend on their
consequences but on whether they fulfill our
duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle
of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical
Imperative.
■ Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century
German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical
philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute
for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not
depend on any ulterior motive or end. “Thou shalt not
steal,” for example, is categorical as distinct from
the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire,
such as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.” For
Kant there was only one such categorical imperative,
which he formulated in various ways.
■ “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at

the same time will that it should become a universal
law” is a purely formal or logical statement and
expresses the condition of the rationality of conduct
rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in
another Kantian formula: “So act as to treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in another, always as an
end, and never as only a means.”
1st Formulation of Categorical Imperative
■ “Act as if the maxim of your actions were to

secure through your will a universal law of
nature.”
■ Meaning act as if in your will you were defining
a maximum rule for all to follow.
2nd Formulation of Categorical Imperative
■ “Act so that you treat humanity , whether in your own
person or that of another, always as an end and never
as a mean.”
■ See if your actions are using others or affecting others,
in the meaning of never using them as a mean to
achieve but always as an end.
MORAL AND LEGAL
RIGHTS
LEGAL
RIGHTS
■ These are rights laid down in law and because they can
be defended in a natural court of law they are the most
solid of all rights.
■ In simple words, the court of law can enforce legal rights

against persons and also against the government. A
legal right is an interest accepted and protected by law.
Also, any debasement of any legal right is punishable by
law. Legal rights affect every citizen. Legal rights are
equally available to all the citizens without the
discrimination of caste, creed & sex.
Characteristics of Legal Rights
■ Created: upheld or altered by government or legislation

■ Unequal: there are situations in which distribution of
legal rights is unequal
■ Alienable: can be taken away with or without consent
■ Local: They can vary based on jurisdiction.
Kinds of
Legal Rights
Perfect & Imperfect Rights
■ The Perfect Rights has the following features:
■ It is recognized by law. It is enforceable by law.

■ So, in the case of breach of this right, a person may go
to court for enforcing this right.
■ Thus, all fundamental rights, viz. Right to equality, right
to religion, etc. are perfect rights as these are
enforceable by law.
■ The Imperfect Right has the following features:
■ It is recognized by law.
■ It is not enforceable by law. This means that a person
cannot go to court for the breach of imperfect right.
■ All the time-bound claims or debts come under the
category of imperfect rights.
Positive and Negative Rights
■ The basis of distinguishing right as positive or

negative is the nature of correlative duty it carries
with it.
■ Under Positive Rights, the person has to perform
some positive duty to fulfill this right.
■ Negative Rights prevent a person to do some act,

that is it corresponds to a negative duty.
■ Example: Right to life under article 21 of the Indian
constitution is a negative right because it prevents a
person to kill another person.
Real & Personal Rights
■ Real Right - rem corresponds to the duty imposed upon
the people in general. It is available against the whole
world in general. Example: Tort or crime is a real right.
■ Personal right - persona is available against a particular

person & it corresponds to duty the duty imposed upon
a particular person. Therefore, the personal right
generally arises out of contractual obligation. Example:
breach of contract is a personal right.
Proprietary & Personal Rights
■ A Proprietary Right is available with respect to a
property that is it relates to the owner & his assets. The
assets must have some monetary value. Example: the
right to ownership of property, Right to patent, Right to
goodwill, etc.
■ A Personal Right is related to a person’s life i.e. his

reputation or standing in the society. These rights
promote a person’s well being in society & have no
economic value. Example: Right to life.
Public & Private Rights
■ The rights which are vested in a person by state or govt.

or constitution is called Public Rights. Example: Right to
vote, Right to use public parks, etc.
■ Private rights are connected with private individuals or

persons. Example: A contract entered into by two people
gives rise to private rights to them.
Inheritable & Uninheritable Rights
■ Inheritable Rights can be passed from one generation to

another, i.e. this right survives even after the death of
its owner. Example: A son is a legal heir to the property
of his father after his death.
■ Uninheritable Rights die with the death of its owner.

Example: All personal rights are uninheritable rights.
Right in Repropria & Right in Realiena
■ A person possesses Right in Repropria with respect to
his own property. He can use, dispose of, destroy,
modify or exclude others from his property. Thus, this
right gives a person, absolute ownership over the
property.
■ Right in Realiena is the right in the property of another

person. Example: Right of way over the neighbor’s field.
So, it is not an absolute right.
Moral
Rights
Characteristics of Moral Rights
■ Natural: an entitlement that exists simply from being
human
■ Equal: no injustice in how rights are distributed
■ Inalienable: moral rights cannot be taken without
consent
■ Universal : the same regardless of your location
■ These arise out of a general principle of fairness and
justice. A moral right may or may not be enforced and
supported by the law of the land but which ought to be
respected.
■ There are legal obligations to attribute creators and
treat their work with respect. These creators’ rights are
known as ‘moral rights’.
■ They mean you must: attribute (give credit to) the
creator not say a person is a creator of a work when
they’re not do something with a work (such as change
or add to it) that would have a negative impact on the
creator’s reputation
■ These obligations do not apply if you have the
creator’s consent, or if you act reasonably (as set
out in the legislation; industry practice can be
relevant).
■ Creators have moral rights even if they do not own

copyright in their work. They cannot sell or
completely waive their rights, but they can give
consent for certain things that may otherwise breach
their moral rights.
■ Moral rights are a provision within copyright law
intended to codify and protect the author's association
with the creative work by preserving the integrity of the
work and intent behind the work. Moral rights can be
divided into two overarching categories: rights of
attribution and association and rights of integrity.
■ Attribution rights refer to the author's ability to name

himself or herself as the author of the work publicly, and
to have their name appear in any relevant authorship
sections of the work (i.e., credits of a film, signature of
the artist on a painting, name of an author on a literary
work, etc.). Rights of attribution also entitle the author
to remain anonymous, if they so choose.
■ The right of association or being able to choose in what
contexts and in association with which works or causes
the creative work is shown and/or used is also an
important author's right in copyright law. An author may
be able to claim moral rights infringement and seek a
remedy if use of their original work directly threatens an
author's good name or reputation (i.e., a painting being
showcased in a hunting exhibition that was created by
an animal rights advocate who makes works about
animal rights).
Lesson 15: Kant and Rights
Course Outline
Kant and Right Theorists
1. Kant
a. Categorical Imperative
b. Good Will
2. Different Kinds of Rights

a. Legal
b. Moral
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
1. Explained the essence of Kant’s theory on

morality
2. Differentiated legal from moral right
3. made a case analysis using rights theory
Categorical
Imperative
Kant's Moral Theory -
Kant's theory is an example of a

deontological moral theory–according
to these theories, the rightness or
wrongness of actions does not depend
on their consequences but on whether
they fulfill our duty. Kant believed that
there was a supreme principle of
morality, and he referred to it as The
Categorical Imperative.
Kant's Idea
of Goodwil
Kant's Idea of Goodwil
Kant argues that no consequence can

have fundamental moral worth; the
only thing that is good in and of itself
is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses t do its moral duty. That duty
in turn is dictated solely by reason.
The goodwill thus consists of a
person's free will motivated purely by
reason.
# Treat everyone as an end and never as a
means
# Only act upon that maxim which you can at
the same time, will that it should be a universal
law
#Actions that fuel the good will are done for the
sake of duty
# If you are inclined to do something, your
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MORAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL RIGHTS
LEGAL RIGHTS
- these are rights laid down

in law and because they
can be defended in a
natural court of law they
are the most solid of all
rights.
Characteristics of Legal rights:
• Created: upheld or altered by government or legislation
• Unequal:there are situations in which distribution oflegal rights is unequal
• Alienable: can be taken away with or without consent
• Local: They can vary based on jurisdiction.

MORAL RIGHTS
- these arise out of a general
principle of fairness and
justice. A moral right may or
may not be enforced and
supported by the law of the
land but which ought to be
respected.
Characteristics of Moral Rights:
• Natural: an entitlement that exists simply from being human
• Equal: no injustice in how rights are distributed
• Inalienable: moral rights cannot be taken without consent
• Universal: the same regardless of your location

Therefore,
Moral rights are rights accorded under

some system of ethics. ... Legal rights are
rights that people have under some legal
system, granted by a duly authorized legal
authority or government. For example, where
I live, kids have a legal right to an education
THANK YOU
GAMES
QUESTION:
Give one highlight of

Kantian Ethics and
explain.
QUESTION:
What is Categorical
Imperative and who
formulated it?
QUESTION:
Differentiate Legal Rights

from Moral Rights and give
one example.
ACTIVITY
QUESTIONS:
1. Explain the essence of Kant’s theory on morality
2. Differentiate legal rights from moral rights
Topic 17: Justice and
Fairness: Promoting
the Common Good
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, the students
must have:
1.articulated what justice and fairness are;

2.critiqued justice and fairness; and
3.made use of the rights theory.
Introduction:
• In the context of conflict, the terms 'justice' and
'fairness' are often used interchangeably.
• Arguments about justice or fairness have a long
tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea
in Western civilization has been more
consistently linked to ethics and morality than
the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by
the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A
Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard
philosopher John Rawls, every major work on
ethics has held that justice is part of the central
core of morality.
• Justice means giving each person what he or she
deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each
person his or her due. Justice and fairness are
closely related terms that are often today used
interchangeably. There have, however, also been
more distinct understandings of the two terms.
While justice usually has been used with reference
to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been
used with regard to an ability to judge without
reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness
has also been used to refer to the ability to make
judgments that are not overly general but that are
concrete and specific to a particular case. In any
case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is
crucial to both justice and fairness.
• When people differ over what they believe
should be given, or when decisions have to be
made about how benefits and burdens should be
distributed among a group of people, questions
of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, 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.
• But saying that justice is giving each person
what he or she deserves does not take us very
far. 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?
NATURE OF THEORY
• A theory is a contemplative and rational type of
abstract or generalizing thinking about a
phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The
process of contemplative and rational thinking
often is associated with such processes like
observational study, research.
• Theories may either be scientific or other than
scientific (or scientific to less extent). Depending
on the context, the results might, for example,
include generalized explanations of how nature
works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek,
but in modern use it has taken on several related
meanings.
JOHN RAWLS THEORY
• John Rawls was an American political philosopher
in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as
fairness describes a society of free citizens
holding equal basic rights and cooperating within
an egalitarian economic system. His theory
of political liberalism delineates the legitimate use
of political power in a democracy, and envisions
how civic unity might endure despite the diversity
of worldviews that free institutions allow. His
writings on the law of peoples set out a liberal
foreign policy that aims to create a permanently
peaceful and tolerant international order.
Distributive justice
• Distributive justice is a concept that addresses
the ownership of goods in a society. It
assumes that there is a large amount of
fairness in the distribution of goods. Equal
work should provide individuals with an equal
outcome in terms of goods acquired or the
ability to acquire goods. Distributive justice is
absent when equal work does not produce
equal outcomes or when an individual or a
group acquires a disproportionate amount of
goods.
Egalitarian
• Egalitarianism is a social and political philosophy
promoting the equal status of all people.
Something in line with this principle is described
as egalitarian. Someone who espouses this
principle of equality can be called an egalitarian.
An example of an egalitarian are:
“a person who fights for civil rights”.
“a married couple that equally shares the household

duties, child rearing, and financial responsibilities”.
Capitalist
• The owners of capital goods, natural
resources, and entrepreneurship exercise
control through companies. The individual
owns their labor. The only exception is slavery,
where someone else owns a person's labor.
• A capitalist is someone who owns a business
which they run in order to make a profit for
themselves. For example:
“Most property, for example, is owned by people
or companies, not by the government”.
Socialist
• Socialism is an economic system where everyone in
society equally owns the factors of production. That
ownership is acquired through a democratically elected
government or through a cooperative or a public
corporation in which everyone owns shares.
• Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for
public rather than private ownership or control of
property.
• For example, many opponents claim that President
Barack Obama is a socialist because he takes the
position that the government should be involved in
many aspects of people's lives and because he believes
that people have a shared responsibility to each other.
Activity:
1)Why is fairness important to our life?
2)Since people are all different, should the law

also not be different for all?
Topic 18
Globalization and
its Ethics
Globalization
• Globalization has transformed the world from a
collection of discrete communities interacting
occasionally to an overlapping community of fate.
Thus culturally, politically and economically,
communities across the world now operate in what
is essentially a shared space albeit divided into
artificial political condominiums called nation-
states.
• This artificial division, notwithstanding, the
intensification of transnational relations occasioned by
globalizing forces and processes has opened up novel
forms of social bonds and responsibilities. As nations,
people and communities across the globe become
economically, socially and politically connected, the
distinction between the global and the local becomes
increasingly blurred and events and actions in one
locale carries with it the potential to generate
transnational and transgenerational consequences.
• It is precisely because in a globalized world, events
and actions are capable of giving rise to
transnational consequences, that moral reflection
about our responsibilities and obligations has
become an imperative. (Osimiri 2015)
• As convergence of technologies facilitated people
to connect, people not only communicated but also
started collaborating.
• A flat world that facilitates multiple forms of
collaboration in sharing knowledge and work
among billions of people without regard to
geography, distance or language poses new
challenges and problems for lawmakers and judges.
• When billions of people connect and collaborate
and generate value in goods and services
horizontally rather than vertically, complex issues
are bound to arise. Such disputes emerge in the
shape of challenges, which can be called global.
Now global challenges demand global solutions as
well.
TOPIC 19
BOARD FOR MARINE DECK OFFICERS
CODE OF ETHICS
ARTICLE I
• GENERAL PROVISION
-The Merchant Marine Deck Officer has a moral obligation
and social responsibility to practice his profession according to a
Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Every Merchant Marine Deck Officer shall regard the Code of
Ethics as a way of life which has its foundation in Honesty, Truth,
Justice, Integrity, and Love of the Country, not as a set of rules
which should strictly be observed.
Professionalism is the keystone of every Merchant Marine Deck
Officer in the conduct of his profession and above all upholds the
honor and dignity of every Filipino Merchant Marine Deck Officer.
ARTICLE II
• RELATION TO THE PROFESSION

• a) A deck officer shall strive to elevate, maintain and contribute to
the honor and dignity of the profession.
• b) He shall conduct himself with the traditional decorum of an officer
and a gentleman, restraining himself from all acts contrary to the
established rules of morality and personal discipline.
• c) He shall continually improve his professional competency by
keeping up to date with the latest technological and scientific
knowledge being applied in the marine fields.
• d) It shall be his obligation to keep himself prepared for the next
higher license through reading, diligent studies and keen
observation of the shipboard activities.
• e) He shall make financial gain secondary only to the service that the
entire profession can render to the economic growth of the country.
• f) A deck officer shall not hesitate to consult his fellow deck officers in
matters that will affect the honor and integrity of the deck officer’s
profession.
• g) He shall expose, without fear or favor, to the proper authorities of
the profession; corrupt or dishonest conduct of members of the
profession whose existing practices can degrade the reputation of
other practitioners
• h) Every deck officer should aid in safeguarding the profession against
the admission to its ranks of persons who are unfit or unqualified in
moral character or professional training.
• This Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of Merchant
Marine Deck Officers are hereby adopted pursuant to R.A. 8544
known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998
under Section 40: “The Integrated and Accredited Maritime
Association of Marine Deck Officer shall prescribe a Code of
Ethics for Marine Deck Officer which shall be adopted by the
Board of Marine Deck Officers and approved by the Commission.”
ARTICLE III
• RELATION TO THE STATE
• a) A Deck Officer, in his capacity as a person of high technical
potentialities and delegated with leadership for the discipline of his men,
shall recognize and respect the supreme authority of the State.
• b) A Deck Officer shall strive to become an exemplary citizen by the
devoted or fruitful fulfillment of his civic duties.
• c) He shall perform his professional duties in conformity with the existing
laws.
• d) He shall endeavor to assist and cooperate with proper authorities in the
enforcement of maritime and customs regulations.
• e) He shall offer to the State his full knowledge and experience in the
interest of national security and especially in time of national emergency.
ARTICLE IV
• RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY
• a) Every deck officer shall compose himself as an officer and a
gentleman, and act honorably when dealing with the general public.
• b) He should be concerned foremost with the safety of every man,
woman and child who boards the ship as a passenger by following all
safety measures prescribed for shipboard use.
• c) He shall contribute his professional knowledge for the general public
welfare and comfort of the riding public to gain their respect and
confidence.
• d) He shall, above all, continually consider the preservation of life, health
and poverty, even at the risk of his own life, to enhance the sense of
public interest that is an integral obligation of the profession.
ARTICLE V
• RELATION TO THE SUBORDINATE
• a) A superior officer shall always conduct himself with the proper
decorum in his acts or deeds and thoughts to set an example for his
subordinate befitting his rank or designation.
• b) He should give the necessary training, guidance and opportunities for
the improvement of his subordinate’s competency and especially to
overcome his shortcoming demanded by his license as a deck officer.
• c) He should continually mold the character of his subordinate to impress
the importance of command responsibility.
• d) He should give merits unselfishly when due, to inspire his
subordinates to achieve greater result.
• e) He should not hesitate to listen to the advice of his subordinates
but to exercise discretion before implementation.
• f) He should not hesitate to admit errors in his decision when it is

obvious, but it must be done within the circle of staff.
ARTICLE VII
• RELATION TO HIS FELLOW-PRACTITIONER
• a) Every deck officer should work together in mutual cooperation
and harmonious relationship by sharing individual knowledge for
professional advancement.
• b) He should associate himself with his colleagues in any
reputable and recognized marine society to further broaden his
knowledge.
• c) He should never attempt to issue statements to the general
public concerning the shortcoming of his fellow officer.
d) The following specified acts of a deck officer shall be deemed to be unethical as a
breach of professional ethics, subject to immediate actions:
• 1) Open criticism of a fellow officer without knowledge of the other.
• 2) Spreading false information on the professional competency and ability of other
practitioners.
• 3) Degrading a colleague in order to acquire his position.
• 4) False recommendation on the competency of another officer.
• 5) Maliciously withholding information or knowledge to place others in a controversial
situation.
• 6) Tending to accept a position lower than his highest license to displace another
officer applying for the same.
• 7) Exerting political influence to displace a co-marine officer or engineer.
• 8) Certifying that he can work better or could render service more satisfactorily than
another.
• 9) Openly expressing that he holds exclusive methods of practice or style of service.
ARTICLE VIII
• AMENDMENTS
• The Board of Directors of the Masters and Mates Association of the
Philippines Incorporated by majority vote of all the Directors may amend or
repeal the code or adopt a new Code of Ethics of the Merchant Marine
Deck Officer in the Philippines subject to the review of the Board of Marine
Deck Officer and approval by the Commission.
ARTICLE IX
• PENAL PROVISION
• This Code of Ethics shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Code
or any newspaper of general circulation to have the force and effect of
Law. Copies of the Code shall be distributed every year to all Merchant
Marine Deck Officer during the annual Conference Workshop conducted
by the Integrated and accredited professional Merchant Marine Deck
Officer (Master and Mates Association of the Philippines, Inc.) for proper
information and guidance of all Merchant Marine both in public and
government service and be distributed among all Merchant Marine Deck
Officers immediately following their oath taking.
• It shall be included in the curriculum of all Maritime Institutions as part of the course of
study in ship’s familiarization, ethics and Maritime laws. Violations of any of the provision
of the Code of Ethics shall constitute unethical and unprofessional conduct and therefore
garner sufficient grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of the certificate of
registration and certificate of competency of the offending Merchant Marine Deck Officer
in accordance with the provision of Article IX Section 37 of R.A. 8544 known as the
Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998.
ARTICLE X
• EFFECTIVITY
• This Code shall take effect after approval by the Professional Regulation
Commission and after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation whichever comes first.
THANK YOU ☺
Board for Marine Deck Officers
Code of Ethics
Article I
GENERAL PROVISION
The Merchant Marine Deck Officer has a moral obligation and social responsibility to practice his
profession according to a Code of Ethics and Conduct. Every Merchant Marine Deck Officer shall regard the
Code of Ethics as a way of life which has its foundation in Honesty, Truth, Justice, Integrity, and Love of the
Country, not as a set of rules which should strictly be observed. Professionalism is the keystone of every
Merchant Marine Deck Officer in the conduct of his profession and above all upholds the honor and dignity of
every Filipino Merchant Marine Deck Officer.
Article II
RELATION TO THE PROFESSION
a) A deck officer shall strive to elevate, maintain and contribute to the honor and dignity of the profession.
b) He shall conduct himself with the traditional decorum of an officer and a gentleman, restraining himself
from all acts contrary to the established rules of morality and personal discipline.
c) He shall continually improve his professional competency by keeping up to date with the latest
technological and scientific knowledge being applied in the marine fields.
d) It shall be his obligation to keep himself prepared for the next higher license through reading, diligent
studies and keen observation of the shipboard activities.
e) He shall make financial gain secondary only to the service that the entire profession can render to the
economic growth of the country.
f) A deck officer shall not hesitate to consult his fellow deck officers in matters that will affect the honor
and integrity of the deck officer’s profession.
g) He shall expose, without fear or favor, to the proper authorities of the profession; corrupt or dishonest
conduct of members of the profession whose existing practices can degrade the reputation of other
practitioners.
h) Every deck officer should aid in safeguarding the profession against the admission to its ranks of
persons who are unfit or unqualified in moral character or professional training.
This Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of Merchant Marine Deck Officers are hereby adopted
pursuant to R.A. 8544 known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998 under Section 40: “The
Integrated and Accredited Maritime Association of Marine Deck Officer shall prescribe a Code of Ethics for
Marine Deck Officer which shall be adopted by the Board of Marine Deck Officers and approved by the
Commission.”
Article III
RELATION TO THE STATE
a) A Deck Officer, in his capacity as a person of high technical potentialities and delegated with leadership
for the discipline of his men, shall recognize and respect the supreme authority of the State.
b) A Deck Officer shall strive to become an exemplary citizen by the devoted or fruitful fulfillment of his
civic duties.
c) He shall perform his professional duties in conformity with the existing laws.
d) He shall endeavor to assist and cooperate with proper authorities in the enforcement of maritime and
customs regulations.
e) He shall offer to the State his full knowledge and experience in the interest of national security and
especially in time of national emergency.
Article IV
RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY
a) Every deck officer shall compose himself as an officer and a gentleman, and act honorably when
dealing with the general public.
b) He should be concerned foremost with the safety of every man, woman and child who boards the ship
as a passenger by following all safety measures prescribed for shipboard use.
c) He shall contribute his professional knowledge for the general public welfare and comfort of the riding
public to gain their respect and confidence.
d) He shall, above all, continually consider the preservation of life, health and poverty, even at the risk of
his own life, to enhance the sense of public interest that is an integral obligation of the profession.
Article V
RELATION TO THE SUBORDINATE
a) A superior officer shall always conduct himself with the proper decorum in his acts or deeds and
thoughts to set an example for his subordinate befitting his rank or designation.
b) He should give the necessary training, guidance and opportunities for the improvement of his
subordinate’s competency and especially to overcome his shortcoming demanded by his license as a
deck officer.
c) He should continually mold the character of his subordinate to impress the importance of command
responsibility.
d) He should give merits unselfishly when due, to inspire his subordinates to achieve greater result.
e) He should not hesitate to listen to the advice of his subordinates but to exercise discretion before
implementation.
f) He should not hesitate to admit errors in his decision when it is obvious, but it must be done within the
circle of staff.
Article VII
RELATION TO HIS FELLOW-PRACTITIONER
a) Every deck officer should work together in mutual cooperation and harmonious relationship by sharing
individual knowledge for professional advancement.
b) He should associate himself with his colleagues in any reputable and recognized marine society to
further broaden his knowledge.
c) He should never attempt to issue statements to the general public concerning the shortcoming of his
fellow officer.
d) The following specified acts of a deck officer shall be deemed to be unethical as a breach of
professional ethics, subject to immediate actions:
1) Open criticism of a fellow officer without knowledge of the other.
2) Spreading false information on the professional competency and ability of other practitioners.
3) Degrading a colleague in order to acquire his position.
4) False recommendation on the competency of another officer.
5) Maliciously withholding information or knowledge to place others in a controversial situation.
6) Tending to accept a position lower than his highest license to displace another officer applying
for the same.
7) Exerting political influence to displace a co-marine officer or engineer.
8) Certifying that he can work better or could render service more satisfactorily than another.
9) Openly expressing that he holds exclusive methods of practice or style of service.
10)
Article VIII
AMENDMENTS
The Board of Directors of the Masters and Mates Association of the Philippines Incorporated by
majority vote of all the Directors may amend or repeal the code or adopt a new Code of Ethics of the Merchant
Marine Deck Officer in the Philippines subject to the review of the Board of Marine Deck Officer and approval by
the Commission.
Article IX
PENAL PROVISION
This Code of Ethics shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Code or any newspaper of general
circulation to have the force and effect of Law. Copies of the Code shall be distributed every year to all
Merchant Marine Deck Officer during the annual Conference Workshop conducted by the Integrated and
accredited professional Merchant Marine Deck Officer (Master and Mates Association of the Philippines, Inc.)
for proper information and guidance of all Merchant Marine both in public and government service and be
distributed among all Merchant Marine Deck Officers immediately following their oath taking. It shall be included
in the curriculum of all Maritime Institutions as part of the course of study in ship’s familiarization, ethics and
Maritime laws. Violations of any of the provision of the Code of Ethics shall constitute unethical and
unprofessional conduct and therefore garner sufficient grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of the
certificate of registration and certificate of competency of the offending Merchant Marine Deck Officer in
accordance with the provision of Article IX Section 37 of R.A. 8544 known as the Philippine Merchant Marine
Officers Act of 1998.
Article X
EFFECTIVITY
This Code shall take effect after approval by the Professional Regulation Commission and after fifteen
(15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation whichever
comes first.
Adopted in the City of Manila this ______day of November 1999.
Board of Marine Deck Officers
CAPT. MARIO K. ALFELOR

Chairman
CAPT. ERNESTO C. BONDOC CAPT. VICTOR DEL PRADO

Member Member
CAPT. HERNANDO EUSEBIO CAPT. SIMEON BALITA

Member Member
Approved:
HERMOGENES P. POBRE
Commission Chairman

NGEC 8 Merged

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NGEC 8 Merged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NGEC 8 - QUIZZES

3. He is an advocate of Virtue Ethics.

5. Aristotle equates this concept with “excellence of character”

1. Jeremy Betham states that morality is to produce a more sophisticated version of

3. The Right-based Theories are connected to Kantianism and are Non-Consequentialist.

1. Virtue defines as the average between excess and deficiency by Aristotle.

2. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, virtue is a habit.

1. Aristotle is a Greek philosopher and not a scientist.

4. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, virtue is a habit.

5. Happiness is a pleasure and a virtue.

7. Human happiness does not depend on acquiring a moral character.

1. Which one is not included in highlights of Kantian ethics?

4. A socialist is a person who fight for civil rights.

6. Distributive justice is absent when equal work produces an equal outcome.

5. The following specified acts of a a deck officer shall be deemed to be unethical as a

6. The moral reflection about obligation and responsibilities became imperative in a

• At the end of the lesson, the students must have:

• Aristotle defines virtue as the average or

• Virtue ethics takes the notion of virtue (often conceived as

• Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to

• Teleological Ethics, (teleological from Greek telos,

• Consequentialism is a kind of rationalism. In order to

• According to Aristotle, virtue is a habit. He believed that

• Happiness is not pleasure nor is it virtue. It is the exercise

• St. Thomas Aquinas, for example,

• A principle or body of laws considered as derived from

■ Represent deontological ethics

■ Kant's Idea of Goodwill

■ Treat everyone as an end and never as a means

■ Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the

■ It is the presence of desires that could operate

■ Only thing that is good without qualification

■ “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at

■ “Act as if the maxim of your actions were to

■ In simple words, the court of law can enforce legal rights

■ Created: upheld or altered by government or legislation

■ It is recognized by law. It is enforceable by law.

■ The basis of distinguishing right as positive or

■ Negative Rights prevent a person to do some act,

■ Personal right - persona is available against a particular

■ A Personal Right is related to a person’s life i.e. his

■ The rights which are vested in a person by state or govt.

■ Private rights are connected with private individuals or

■ Inheritable Rights can be passed from one generation to

■ Uninheritable Rights die with the death of its owner.

■ Right in Realiena is the right in the property of another

■ Creators have moral rights even if they do not own

■ Attribution rights refer to the author's ability to name

1. Explained the essence of Kant’s theory on

Kant's theory is an example of a

Kant argues that no consequence can

- these are rights laid down

• Unequal:there are situations in which distribution oflegal rights is unequal

• Alienable: can be taken away with or without consent

• Local: They can vary based on jurisdiction.

- these arise out of a general

• Equal: no injustice in how rights are distributed

• Inalienable: moral rights cannot be taken without consent

• Universal: the same regardless of your location

Give one highlight

1.articulated what justice and fairness are;

“a person who fights for civil rights”.

“a married couple that equally shares the household

• RELATION TO THE PROFESSION