concrete and practical conduct and
behavior.
Lesson 1: ETHICS: Meaning, Nature, and
Scope
Ethics
● Greek word = “ethos” meaning
customary behavior
● Ethics = word/Theory
● Ethics outlines theories of right and
wrong and good or bad actions
● Ethics is the systematic study of the
rightness and wrongness of human
actions
● The science of “morals”
● Principle and way of life
○ Early as childhood to be taught
with what is right and wrong
● Used by humanity to survive
● Idea of what is proper and improper
● *Philosophically, Ethics is defined as the
practical science of the morality of
human act or conduct and of the good
life.
● As a science, Ethics is a body of
knowledge systematically arranged and
presented in such a manner that it
arrives at its conclusions coherently and
logically.
Morality
● Latin Word = “mos” or “mores”
meaning customary behavior
● Morality = flesh/action
● Morality is the doing or practice of
ethics.
● Morality is the rightness or wrongness of
human actions.
● Morality is the practice of ethics.
● Action and application
ETHICS: A PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION
● The learning of ethics does not actually
guarantee morality in the person’s
● Ethics and morality truly need and
complement each other.
ETHICS: A PRACTICAL DISCIPLINE
● Ethics should be taken not just as an
academic study, but as fundamentally, a
“way of life.”
● Knowing what is right without actually
changing the way we behave morally is
nothing but useless knowledge.
ETHICS: IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING
ETHICS
● It is said, “without moral perception, man
is only an animal. Without morality, man
as a rational [and free] being is a failure”
(Agapay 1991:3).
● If one does NOT have a sense of
morality, of what is right and wrong in
relation to their conduct and behavior,
people and society, in general, would
naturally and expectedly deteriorate and
collapsed.
● In every corporation and organization
there is always that code of ethics.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHICS AND
LAW
● Legality is not identical to morality. What
is legal is not always moral and also,
what is moral is not always legal.
● Laws are only concerned with “public”
actions.
● Ethics goes beyond the concern and
parameters of the law, for it includes
private actions and the human
motivations and intentions of its actions
● Laws, more often than not, are decided
by a majority vote.
● Morality is not all about how many
people say that something is good or
bad, right or wrong. It is much deeper
than that.
Arellano, R.│ 1
 ● What is right is right even though no one
is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if
everybody is doing it.
● Ethics serves as the very foundation of
our laws.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHICS AND
RELIGION
● Ethics as a philosophical discipline, as
mentioned, solely relies on natural
reason, logic, and experience,
especially in the justification and
validation of certain theories and
principles concerning good and bad.
● Religion, on the other hand, relies
primarily and mainly on supernatural
reason, that is divine revelation or divine
authority.
MATERIAL AND FORMAL OBJECTS OF
ETHICS
● the material object of ethics is human
conduct or the human act.
● Human conduct refers to the act that is
done by a human person that he/she is
conscious of, which proceeds from one’s
deliberation and free will, and thus, for
which one is held morally responsible.
● FORMAL OBJECT OF ETHICS is the
morality or the moral rectitude of human
act or human conduct.
● Ethics deals with the human person’s
right conduct, whether his/her actions
conform to the right reason which is the
immediate norm of morality.
NORM
● is here understood as a rule, standard,
or measure. Specifically, it is something
by which an act or conduct is measured
as good or bad, right or wrong, moral or
immoral.
● By the norm of morality, we mean the
standard of right and wrong in human
actions.
Technical Norm
● This refers mainly to man’s needs which
come from his bodily space-time
limitations. This norm has to do with
survival, health, and well-being.
● It is concerned with problems of
effecting change, transforming the
natural world, the problems of coping
with natural forces every community
prescribes certain proper ways of
working and doing things.
● For example, there is the ‘right’ way of
preparing the field for planting rice, the
‘correct’ way of constructing the roof of a
house, household chores, how to
assemble things, etc.
Societal Norm
● This norm has something to do with the
need for group cohesion and for
strengthening the bonds that keep the
community together.
● Example, certain manners or attire,
certain ways of speaking or of
conducting oneself, certain rituals and
ceremonies are considered ‘proper’ and
‘fitting,’ ‘appropriate’ or ‘recommended,’
because they maintain and strengthen
the bonds that keep the community
together.
Aesthetic Norm
● This refers to typical perceptual forms
regarding color, shape, space,
movement, sound, feeling and emotion,
touch and texture, taste, scent and odor
which are considered by the community
as ‘ennobling,’ ‘cathartic,’ ‘heightening
man’s existence,’ or ‘beautiful,’ because
they represent a certain free play and
celebration of the human spirit.”
● Examples: “religious music is good,” “the
latest coronavirus movie is bad,” “the
food of food panda is terrible,”
“Leonardo da Vinci’s painting is
Arellano, R.│ 2
 admirable,” “the color of my ethics
teacher’s hair is disgraceful,” “my female
students’ styles of dressing are
obnoxious,” “Vice Ganda’s fashion
sense is simply outrageous,” “President
Duterte’s manner of speaking is utterly
disgusting.”
Ethical or Moral Norm
● “The moral or ethical norm refers to
some ideal vision of [a human person],
an ideal stage or perfection of [his/her
being], which serves as the ultimate
goal and norm.
● In This norm, the human person and
their actions are judged to be right or
wrong, good or bad Because of this
ideal vision of what a human person
should be.
Characteristics of Moral Principle
Reasonability
● moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons or arguments.
● something is right if it is “reasonable.” If
it does not appeal to reason and
common sense/experience, then it has
to be viewed with suspicion and
reservation.
Impartiality
● This means that an ethical or moral rule
should be neutral when it comes to the
question of who are its recipients.
● Moral standards are supposed to apply
to everyone regardless of one’s status
and the situation in life.
● To be impartial is to treat everyone alike,
no one gets special treatment or
favoritism.
Prescriptivity
● This refers to the practical, or action-
guiding nature of morality. This is also
the commanding aspect of morality.
● Moral principles are generally put forth
as some kind of commands or
imperatives.
● Examples of this are : “Do not kill,” “Do
no harm to your fellowmen,” “Love your
neighbor,” “Do not steal,” “Tell the truth.”
Overridingness
● Moral standards must have hegemony.
● This means that they should reign
supreme over all the other standards or
norms of valuation, whatever they may
be. They have predominant authority
and override other kinds of principles.
● Whenever, there is a conflict between
the moral norm and any other norm, the
moral must prevail.
● Morality over legality; morality over
technicality; people over dogma.
Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority
● Moral standards should stand on their
own logic independent of the
arbitrariness of the majority.
● What is right is right even though no one
is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if
everybody is doing it.
Publicity
● This means that moral rules and
principles must be made public if they
are to serve as clear guidelines for our
actions.
● The obvious reason for this is that
principles are made and promulgated to
render advice as well as assign praise
or blame to certain behaviors.
● For one cannot be made morally
accountable for something which one
truly does not know.
Arellano, R.│ 3
 ● Keeping them in secret defeats the very
purpose why they are created. You do
not hide something that you really think
is genuinely good and noble.
Practicability
● Moral rules should not be impossible to
achieve or else they are not for men but
for angels.
● They must be “workable,” and not “too
idealistic.”
● Ethical standards must not be over what
an ordinary human being is capable of
doing.
Universalizability
● A moral rule or principle must be
applicable to everyone, without
exception, provided of course that all
people are in a relevantly similar
situation or context.
● “If I judge that an act is right or wrong for
a certain person, then the act is right or
wrong for any other relevantly similar
person.
● The Golden Rule: “Do unto others what
you want others to do unto to you.”
Lesson 2: The Morality of
Human Acts and Moral Acountability
● Human acts (actus humani) are those
actions done by a person in a certain
situation which are essentially the result
of his/her conscious knowledge,
freedom and voluntariness.
● Acts of man - are actions which happen
in the person “naturally”, even without
his/her awareness of himself/herself
while doing them. These actions are
done without deliberation, reflection and
consent.
● Acts of man, therefore, are those that
humans share with animals.
● These things are performed without
deliberation and free will.
● The person here is neither morally
responsible nor accountable for these
kinds of actions.
Basic Elements of Human Acts
1. The act must be deliberate. It must be
performed by a conscious agent who is
very much aware of what he/she is
doing and of its consequences good or
evil.
2. The act must be performed in freedom.
It must bedone by an agent who is
acting freely, with his/her own volition
and powers.
3. The act must be done voluntarily. It must
be performed by an agent who decides
willfully to perform the act. The act, to be
truly a voluntary one, must come from
the core of a person’s being.
Major Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
The Act Itself or the Object of the Act
● The action that is done or performed by
an agent.
● It is WHAT the person does.
● This is “the substance of the moral act”.
The Motive or the Intention
● The motive is the purpose or intention of
which something is done.
● It is the reason behind our acting.
● It answers the question “WHY the
person does what he does?”
● One normally performs an act as a
means to achieve an end or goal.
Arellano, R.│ 4

Four Principles of the Morality of Human
Act
● An indifferent act can become
morally good or morally evil
depending upon the intention of the
person doing the act.
○ Speaking/Talking is good or
bad…. depending on the
intention of your talking or
speaking to voice your idea or
you destroy someone’s
reputation
● An objectively good act becomes
morally evil due to a wrong or bad
motive.
○ Helping or praying is good but it
will become evil depending on
the intention (election or curse).
● An intrinsically (objectively) morally
good act can receive added
goodness, if done with an equally
noble intention or motive.
○ Helping or praying is better
when you pray for peace, give
thanks to the Lord for the graces
you received, or glorify HIM.
● An intrinsically evil act can never
become morally good even if it is
done with a good motive or intention.
○ Robinhood is stealing to help
the poor.
○ Cheating to pass the board
exam
○ Killing the drug Lord.
Circumstances
● The moral goodness or badness of an
act is determined not only by the object
or act itself, plus the motive or intention
of the moral agent, but also on the
circumstances or situation surrounding
the performance of the action.
● Circumstances refer to the various
conditions outside of the act. They are
not, strictly speaking, part and parcel of
the act itself.
● Circumstances are conditions that
influence, to a lesser or greater degree,
the moral quality of the human act.
Four Types of Circumstances
Mitigating or Extenuating Circumstances
● It diminishes the degree of moral good
or evil in an act.
● To kill an innocent person is homicide or
murder.
● circumstances lessen the severity of the
act and its punishment.
Aggravating Circumstances
● It increases the degree of moral good or
evil.
● The same act of murder can be made
worse if it is carried out at night and with
the use of superior arms by a known
recidivist.
Justifying Circumstances
● It shows adequate reason for some acts
done.
● A person charged with murder can
vindicate himself/herself if he/she can
prove that he/she killed a superior
aggressor and that he/she did so in
defense of his/her own life. (Hold up,
robbery).
Specifying Circumstances
● It gives a new and distinct species of
moral good or evil of the act.
● The moral quality of the act of murder
changes if the murderer is wife of the
victim, or if the murderer and the victim
are one and the same.
Arellano, R.│ 5
 ● The circumstances which served as a
reason for it, render it worthy of approval
or condemnation.
Seven Seven Kinds of Circumstances
● These circumstances will affect morality
of human action:
that the person used or employed in the
performance of the act.
● Was the action performed in “cold
blood,” “in a painful manner,” “in a very
brutal way (as in torture),” “maliciously,”
etc.?
When

Who ● Every act is done at a particular and

specific time. The element of time is also
● the person who does or receives the important and even vital as to the moral
action. assessment and judgment of the human
● Status, Position, Education, Age, act.
Illiterate, Out of school Youth, Gangster ● Was the act performed in broad daylight
or was it done during nighttime? Was it
Where committed when the victim was in the
act of praying or while asleep and
● is the setting of an action. Every act is unaware?
done in a particular place.
● Is the act done inside the house, street, To whom
way going home, etc.
● refers to the recipient of the action, or
By What Means – Intentional or accident? the person to whom the act is done.
(refer to # 1- The who)
● Is there any use of force, compulsion,
threats, coercion, intimidation,
Principle Governing Circumstances
embarrassing words, lewd remarks,
vulgar statements, insensitive 1. Circumstances may either increase or
comments? decrease the wrongfulness of an evil
act.
Why 2. Circumstances may either increase or
decrease the merits of a good act.
● is the intention or the motive that moves 3. Circumstances may exempt temporarily
the agent to an action. someone from doing a required act.
● (#2 determinants of the morality of 4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of
human act) a person. The presence of a person
● It answers the question “WHY the when a crime is committed does not
person does what he does?” prove he is the criminal when a crime is
committed.
How
Modifiers of Human Acts
● (By what means) This circumstance also
involves different conditions or ● These modifiers, accordingly, “affect
modalities such as voluntariness, human acts in theessential qualities of
consent, violence, fear, ignorance. knowledge, freedom, voluntariness, and
● It also includes the particular so make them less perfectly human’
weapon/equipment/tools/gadgets/etc. (Glenn 1965: 25).

Arellano, R.│ 6
 1. Ignorance
- is the absence of necessary knowledge
which a person in a given situation, who
is performing a certain act, ought to
have. Ignorance therefore is a negative
thing for it is a negation of knowledge.
○ Vincible Ignorance can easily
be remedied through ordinary
diligence and reasonable efforts
on the part of the person who is
in this particular mental state.
This specific type of ignorance
is therefore conquerable since it
is correctible.
● Medical practitioner
● Absent student
○ Invincible Ignorance is the
kind of ignorance which an
individual may have without
being aware of it, or, having
knowledge of it, simply lacks the
necessary means to correct and
solve it. This type of ignorance
is unconquerable, and thus not
correctible.
● Restaurant – waiter and
chef
● School – student and
parent
Principles Governing Ignorance
Invincible ignorance renders an act
involuntary.
● A person cannot be held morally
responsible or liable if he or she is not
aware of the state of his or her
ignorance.
Vincible Ignorance
● It does not destroy, but lessens the
voluntariness and the corresponding
accountability over the act. A person
who becomes aware and conscious of
the state of ignorance he or she is in the
moral obligation to correct it by
employing enough diligence in finding
the information required to make one’s
ignorance disappear. “To act with
vincible ignorance is to act imprudently.”
Affected or pretended ignorance
● It does not excuse a person from his/her
bad actions; on the contrary it actually
increases their malice. This specific kind
of ignorance happens when a person
really wants and chooses to be ignorant
so that he/she can eventually escape
any accountability arising from the
wrongfulness of the act later on.
2. Passion or Concupiscence
- is a strong or powerful feeling or
emotion.
- Positive emotions – love, desire, delight,
hope and bravery.
- Negative emotions - hatred, despair,
horror, sadness, anger, grief and the
like.
St. Thomas Aquinas
In themselves passions are indifferent; they are
not evil…inasmuch as they are the movements
of the irrational appetite, have no moral good or
evil in themselves. But if they are subject to the
reason and will, then moral good and evil are in
them. God has endowed the human person with
these appetites which pervade his/her whole
sensitive life. They are instruments and means
for self- preservation of the individual and the
human race. Every person needs them for
self-defense, growth, and improvement. The
saints and Christ Himself expressed their
passions (as cited in Salibay 2008: 40).
Arellano, R.│ 7
Passions are either classified as antecedent
or consequent.
1. Antecedent - are those that precede
an act. It may happen that a person is
emotionally aroused to perform an act.
2. Consequent – are those that are
intentionally aroused and kept.
Principle governing Antecedent Passions
● Do not always destroy voluntariness but
they diminish accountability for the
resultant act.
Principle governing Consequent Passion
● Consequent passions do not lessen
voluntariness, but may even increase
accountability.
● Here, the person concerned who willfully
acts following his/her passion, allows
himself/herself to be completely
controlled by it and hence, is considered
morally responsible for it.
3. Fear
- is defined as “the disturbance of the
mind of a person who is confronted by
an impending danger or harm to himself
or loved ones” (Agapay2008: 36-37
- Here, it is treated as a “special kind” of
passion, and hence also treated as
another distinct modifier of human act
since it is a kind of a test of one’s mental
character.
Principles Governing Fear
Acts done “with” fear
● Are voluntary.
● This is so since the person acting with
fear is acting in spite of his/her fear, and
thus, still very much in control of his/her
conduct. Therefore the person
concerned remains morally responsible
of his/her action, whether good or bad,
right or wrong.
● Example: Cheating, Stealing
Acts done “because of” intense fear or panic
● Are simply involuntary. A person when
acting out of extreme fear is not morally
accountable of his/hernaction or
conduct.
● A good example is a cashier who hands
the money to a robber who is poking a
gun on his/her head is acting out of
intense fear and panic, and thus, doing
something involuntarily and without
his/her consent.
4. Violence
- refers to any physical force exerted on a
person & another free agent for the
purpose of compelling said person to act
against his will.
- In cases where the victim gives
complete resistance, the violence is
classified as perfect violence.
- However, if the victim offers insufficient
resistance, the violence classified as
Imperfect Violence.
Principles Governing Violence
● When a person experiences so much
fear in the face of an unjust aggressor
who is armed and extremely dangerous,
he or she is not held morally responsible
of his or her action.
● If there is a serious threat to one’s life, a
person confronted by violence can
always offer intrinsic resistance by
withholding consent; that is enough to
save one’s moral integrity” (Panizo as
cited in Agapay 1991:25).
5. Habit
- is a “constant and easy way of doing
things acquired by the repetition of the
same act” (Panizo, 1964:37).
Arellano, R.│ 8

Principles Governing Habit
● When a person will simply let his/her
habit take control of his/her action
without doing anything about it
whatsoever, then we can say that
he/she is morally accountable of his/her
action by allowing the habit to determine
his/her conduct.
● When a person decides to fight his
habit, and for as long as the effort
towards this purpose continues, actions
resulting from such habit may be
regarded as acts of man and not
accountable.
The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and
Values
Hiya (Shame)
● Negative, because it arrests or inhibits
one's action. This trait reduces one to
smallness or to what Nietzsche calls the
"morality of slaves", thus congealing the
soul of the Filipino and emasculating
him, making him timid, meek and weak.
● Positive, because, it contributes to
peace of mind and lack of stress by not
even trying to achieve.
Ningas-cogon (Procrastination)
● Negative, by all standards, because it
begins ardently and dies down as soon
as it begins. This trait renders one
inactive and unable to initiate things or
to persevere.
● Positive, in a way, because it makes a
person non-chalant, detached,
indifferent, nonplussed should anything
go wrong, and hence conducive to
peace and tranquillity.
Pakikisama (Group Loyalty)
● Negative, because one closes one's
eyes to evils like graft and corruption in
order to conserve peace and harmony in
a group at the expense of one's comfort.
● Positive, because one lives for others;
peace or lack of dissension is a constant
goal.
Patigasan (Test of Strength)
● Negative, because it is stubborn and
resists all efforts at reconciliation. The
trait makes us childish, vindictive,
irresponsible, irrational. Actions resulting
from this trait are leaving the phone off
the hook to get even with one's party
line; stopping the engine of the car to
prove that one has the right of way;
standing one's ground until the opposite
party loses its patience.
● Positive, because it is assign that we
know our rights and are not easily
cowed into submission. It is occidental
in spirit, hence in keeping with
Nietzsche's "will to power."
Bahala Na (Resignation)
● Negative, because one leaves
everything to chance under the pretext
of trusting in Divine providence. This
trait is really laziness disguised in
religious garb.
● Positive, because one relies on a
superior power rather than on one's
own. It is conducive to humility, modesty,
and lack of arrogance.
Kasi (because, i. e., scapegoat)
● Negative, because one disowns
responsibility and makes a scapegoat
out of someone or something. One is
never to blame; one remains lily white
and has a ready alibi for failure.
Arellano, R.│ 9
 ● Positive, because one can see both
sides of the picture and know exactly
where a project failed. One will never
suffer from guilt or self-recrimination.
Saving Face
● Negative, because, being closely related
to hiya and kasi, it enables a person to
shirk responsibility. One is never
accountable for anything.
● Positive, because one's psyche is saved
from undue embarrassment, sleepless
nights, remorse of conscience. It saves
one from accountability or responsibility.
This trait enables one to make a
graceful exit from guilt instead of facing
the music and owning responsibility for
an offense.
Sakop (Inclusion)
● Negative, because one never learns to
be on one's own but relies on one's
family and relatives. This trait stunts
growth and prevents a person from
growing on one's own. Generating a life
of parasitism, this trait is very
non-existential. Blaring music, loud
tones are a result of this mentality. We
wrongly think that all people like the
music we play or the stories we tell. This
mentality also makes us consider the
world as one vast comfort room.
● Positive, because one cares for the
family and clan; one stands or falls with
them. This trait makes a person show
concern for the family to which he
belongs.
Mañana or "Bukas na" (Procrastination)
● Negative, because one constantly
postpones action and accomplishes
nothing. This aggravates a situation, a
problem grows beyond correction, a
leak or a small break becomes a gaping
hole. This arises from an indolent
mentality that a problem will go away by
itself.
● Positive, because one is without stress
and tension; one learns to take what
comes naturally. Like the Chinese
wu-wei, this trait makes one live
naturally and without undue artificiality.
Utang na loob (Indebtedness)
● Negative, because one overlooks moral
principles when one is indebted to a
person. One who is beholden to another
person will do anything to please him,
thinking that by doing so he is able to
repay a debt. One condones what the
other person does and will never
censure him for wrongdoing.
● Positive, because it is a recognition of
one's indebtedness. This trait portrays
the spirit behind the Filipino saying, "He
who does not know how to look to the
past will never reach his destination."
Kanya-kanya (Self-Centeredness)
● Negative, because self-centered; one
has no regard for others. So long as my
family and I are not in need, I do not
care about he world.
● Positive, because one takes care of
oneself and one's family: "Blood is
thicker than water."
● At the end of our exposé of the positive
and negative aspects of the Filipino
psyche, one asks the question: What
after all, is its ideal of personality, activity
and achievement?
Arellano, R.│ 10