HAND OUTS ON ETHICS - regardless of what the majority says or decides,
• Rules are important to social beings. They are meant
to set order. Rules are not meant to restrict your
freedom. They are meant to help you grow in freedom,
to grow in your power to choose and do what is good
for you and for others. Any rule or law that prevents
human persons from doing good and being good
ought to be repealed. They have no reason to exist.
• Ethics – comes from the Greek word “ethos” meaning
“custom” used in the works of Aristotle, while the term
“moral” is the Latin equivalent. Based on the Greek and
Latin etymology of the word “ethics”, ethics deals with
morality.
• or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy which
deals with moral standards, inquiries about the
rightness or wrongness of human behavior or the
goodness or badness of personality, trait, or character
• the study of the morality of human acts and moral
agents, what makes an act obligatory and what makes
the person accountable.
• Morality – is a system of beliefs about what is right
behavior and wrong behavior
– deals with how a person relates with others and with
the world to promote what is good.
• Ethics – both a theory and practice
• One has to know the theories and ethical principles
of knowing what is right and wrong and good and bad
actions. However, one has to translate these theories
into actions. Knowing what is right without changing
the way one behaves morally is a useless knowledge.
Characteristics of Moral Principles or Moral Standards
1. Prescriptivity – refers to the action – guiding nature
of morality.
- the principles should intend to guide and direct
people what to do or should not do.
2. Overridingness – means that moral principles should
tower over all other norms or standards of evaluation.
- should be given primary or ultimate importance.
3. Impracticability – means that moral rule should be
neutral
- should apply to anyone regardless of situation or
status.
4. Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority – moral
standards should be independent, hence be able to
stand on its own
SOMETHING is moral or immoral. An act should be
based on ethical principles and not on what men say.
5. Publicity – since moral standards guide people what
to do, they should be made public. Reason dictates
that rules are made and promulgated to advice as well
as praise or blame actions.
6. Practicability – rules are made for men to follow.
Hence, moral standards exist in which human beings
are capable of doing.
7. Moral standards – are associated with the vocabulary
that depicts emotions or feelings. For example, when
you go against your moral standards you will say you
feel guilty, remorseful, or ashamed.
• When judgment is founded on the rightness or
wrongness of an action, the criteria is based on one’s
moral standards. In addition, moral standards are
norms or prescriptions that serve as the frameworks for
determining what ought to be done or what is the
right or wrong action, what is good or bad character.
e.g. Do not lie., Don’t steal., Don’t kill., Don’t cheat
others.
• Non-moral standards – can be considered as relative
standards by which something is judged as either
good or bad. The rules of non-moral standards vary
because these rules depend on the guidelines agreed
by a particular group.
e..g. Wearing a sleeveless shirt and shorts on a very
formal occasion, Writing a grammatically incorrect
essay.
• It is important to determine what kind of act of which
man is morally accountable and responsible.
There are two acts of man:
1. Act of man – refers to those acts if which man has no
control. Therefore, it is involuntary.
e.g. emotions, circulation of the blood, pumping of the
heart, grinding of the stomach, and breathing.
2. Human act – actions which are within the control of
man like walking, talking, eating, thinking, and biting. It
is deliberate, hence, a voluntary act.
Three Essential Elements of Human Act
1. Knowledge – where the doer is aware of what he/she
is doing. Obviously, one cannot hold a person fully
responsible for something that he or she is not aware
of. But if he does an action with awareness, that is
doing the action knowingly, then the issue of moral
responsibility is inevitable. It is because the action has
been acted upon within the level of person’s
awareness, thus what he does is a human act which
can either be moral or immoral. Without the
knowledge of the doer, the act is ordinarily taken as an
act of man.
2. Freedom – in which the act is not done by force. It is
a state of being unrestricted from the internal impulse
and external pressure. A person is free when he can
exercise control over himself and over his actions, that
is, he can make a wide range of choices whether to do
it or not. A human act is therefore a free act. Without
freedom in the performance of the act, a person can
never be held responsible for his action.
3. Will – of which the doer has given its consent to do
the act. Unless the action is done with consent, no
action can be considered as a human act. The consent
of the doer is critical to make a particular act a human
act. Consent is simple the acquiescence or approval of
the doer for his action. A person may be free to do it
or not but if he does not allow his will to approve or
disapprove an act, his moral responsibility is
diminished, if not extirpated at all.
In other words, for a man to be fully morally
accountable of his/her act, it must be done knowingly,
freely, and willfully. The absence of either one or two of
the elements may lessen the accountability of the doer
or no accountability at all.
Voluntariness is very mush akin to consent. From the
Latin word, “voluntas”, it refers to the act of the will.
Without the action of the will, an act is considered
involuntary, hence the doer in this case cannot be held
liable for his action. Only an act that proceeds from the
command of the will is voluntary. Needless to say, only
a voluntary act is a human act.
Four kinds of voluntariness:
1. Perfect voluntariness – where all elements of human
act are present. Man is fully accountable of the act
committed.
2. Imperfect voluntariness – where knowledge is
absent. A man who is not aware of the act that he has
done may not be answerable of his act or no
accountability at all. A boy giving a box of chocolates
to a lady not knowing it is poisoned is absolved form
liability.
3. Simple voluntariness – is simply doing or not doing
the act since one has/ cannot do anything about it. It is
either positive or negative. A male student whose
house is 10 kilometers from the school will either ride a
jeepney or not. In most cases, he needs to ride
otherwise he will be late.
4. Conditional Voluntariness – when the person is
forced to do an act in which in normal condition it
should not be done. When a female employer is forced
to give her cellphone to the robber pointing a knife to
her chest being afraid of her life.
Morality of an act can either moral, immoral, or amoral.
Moral if it is a good act. Immoral if it is bad. If it is
indifferent or neither good nor bad, then it is amoral.
An amoral act may either become moral or immoral
depending on the motive or intention of the doer.
How do we know the morality of the act? The following
are determinants of morality.
1. The object or act itself – reefers to the act done by
the doer of the action. It is either good or bad. The act
of giving as to the act of killing are examples.
2. Motive or intent – the purpose or reason of doing
the act. Like a daughter gave a bouquet of flowers to
her mother celebrating a birthday. Whereas, due to
revenge, a certain boy stabbed his neighbor.
3. Circumstances – this involves the situations that
surround the commission of the act. They are basically
practical answers to questions.
a. Who – refers to the persons involved in the
act committed, the doer and the receiver or
the recipient of the act. A child who
accidentally pulled a trigger against his/her
playmate thinking a gun is a toy may not be
accountable compared to an adult doing the
same act. A man boxing a woman is greatly
answerable of his act. An educated person is
more answerable than an illiterate one.
b. Why – the reason or motive of doing the
act. Stealing food because of extreme hunger
has lesser accountability as to someone who
stole due to greediness and selfishness.
c. By what means – though the intention is
good but attaining the end is unlawful or illicit,
 then the act is still immoral. “The end does not
justify the means.” A student whose intention
is to pass the final examination in order to
graduate but attaining such through cheating,
then it is still considered immoral.
d. Where – refers to the setting of the action.
An act done in open places like in the market
has greater liability than in quiet places like in
the mountain.
e. When – refers to the time of the commission
of the act. Time element is important and in
most cases vital to assess and judge morally
the human act. Killing a person while he was
sleeping connotes greater accountability
compared to when the person killed was
conscious and still has time to defend himself.
Performing the act in broad daylight has
different liability while doing it during
nighttime.
f. How – raping a woman in front of her
husband is a greater crime, Stabbing a person
many times indicates an extreme hatred.
Whereas, defaming the person through the
use of media is more accountable than doing
it in front of one’s friends.
Generally, circumstances could be aggravating,
justifying, mitigating, or exempting. The act of
self-defense is justifying since the person
doing the act has no intention of killing at all.
It is mitigating when a person is forced to slap
the face of another because he was boxed. A
wife, due to rush emotions, killed her husband
and her paramour catching them having sexual
intercourse falls under exempting.
Man is an organism that does not act in a vacuum. He
responds and reacts to stimulus. Thus, the
accountability of the commission of an act can be
modified. The liability can be greater, great, less, lesser,
or none at all.
The following are the modifiers:
1. Ignorance – is the absence of knowledge. Everyone
should ought to possess and be responsible to have
knowledge.
a. Vincible Ignorance – where the lack of
knowledge can easily be rectified.
b. Invincible Ignorance – is difficult to rectify.
There is no way of knowing. A courier
delivering an item without having knowledge
what is inside the box is a bomb which killed a
lot of people inside the house. When a person
is vincible ignorant and no effort on his/her
part to repair the loss for the reason of
escaping one’s responsibility has a greater
liability. Vincible ignorance becomes affected
ignorance. The same with pretended
ignorance, professing of not knowing when
one really knows in order to flee from being
blamed.
2. Concupiscence or passion – refers to the emotions
whether positive or negative desire. They are neither
moral nor immoral. But, man has to regulate or control
his emotions and must be submitted to the control of
reason. Passions can either be antecedent or
consequent, Antecedent tends to weaken the will
power of the person and so interfere with the freedom
of the will. The consequence is intentionally aroused
and where the does and willfully plays his emotions.
3. Fear – is the disturbance of the mind when a person
is confronted by danger or harm to oneself or loved
ones. It is a form of emotion. Fear is an instinct for self-
preservation. When a child runs upon seeing a mad
dog and fell in a manhole because of fear, then the
child is not accountable for his act.
4. Violence – happens when a physical force is exerted
to a person by another for the purpose of compelling
or forcing the person to act against his will. When an
accused was compelled to be a witness against himself
to stop the bodily torture done against him by the
authority is not accountable of his act. Such confession
is not admissible in court.
5. Habits – are frequently repeated acts. It may be
good or bad. In most cases, habits are becoming
involuntary since they assume the role of a second
nature. It is not easy to overcome or alter habits. It
takes a strong-willed person to correct a bad habit,
Nevertheless, the person is still accountable of one’s
habits since the first time the act was done there is
already awareness of the consequences or effects of
the act.
Moral Dilemmas
Dilemma – is a situation in which a difficult choice has
to be made between two or more alternatives,
especially equally undesirable ones. Thus, when you
find yourself facing a problem but the solutions
available to you will create another problem or worse
create more problems, then you are in a moral
dilemma.

A moral dilemma is a situation where:

1. There agent is required to do each of the two (or
more) actions which are morally unacceptable.
2. The agent can do each of the actions;
3. but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions.

The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no

matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or
fail to do something that she ought to do). This means
that moral dilemmas are situations where two or more
moral values or duties make demands on the decision-
maker, who can only honor one of them, and thus will
violate at least one important moral concern; no
matter what she decides to do.