VIRTUE OF ETHICS

Aristotle

plato
 By: Group 1

VIRTUE OF ETHICS
Members:
Adanza, Rose Marie
Agresor, Reynald Zorren
Alaban, Christine Jane
Ararao, Simon Paolo
Asas, Ryan
 CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
An online news account narrates key
officials from both the legislative and
executive branches of the government
voicing out their concern on the possible
ill effects of too much violence seen by
children on television. The news estimates
that by the time children reach 18 years
old, they will have watched around 18,000
simulated murder scenes.
 This prompted the Department
of Education Secretary Bro. Armin
Luistro to launch the implementing
guidelines of the Children’s
Television Act of 1997 in order to
regulate television shows and
promote more child-friendly
programs.
 Luistro’s claim
seems to be based
on a particular
vision of childhood
development.

Undesirable effects of seeing violent

images on television:

They make They might

Children may think that think that such
consider violence is part acts, since
violent acts as of the daily committed by
“normal” occurrences in adults, are
life permissible
American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry
Their study enumerated the
harmful effects of television
violence such as being
insensitive to the possible ill
consequences brought about
by watching violent shows.
The study suggests that children exposed to
television violence begin to:

“imitate what Consider violence

they observe” as “a way to solve
problems”
 - Ethical framework that is
concerned with understanding
the good as a matter of
VIRTUE developing the virtuous
ETHICS character of a person.

- Focuses on the formation of

one’s character brought about
by determining and doing
virtuous acts.
Nichomachean
Ethics
by Aristotle
- First compre-
hensive and
programmatic
study of virtue
ethics.
 Aristotle
Was born in Macedonia and
studied Philosophy under Plato
in Athens
Considered to be the brightest
student of Plato in the former’s
school, the Academy
Founded his own school called
Lyceum
Known to be the tutor of
Alexander the Great
Nichomachean Ethics is his
major work in moral philosophy
 Aristotle’s discourse of ethics
departs from the Platonic
understanding of reality and
conception of the good.
Both Plato and Aristotle affirm
that rationality is the highest
faculty of a person and having such
characteristics, but they differ in
the appreciation of reality and
nature.
WHAT IS REAL:
·Actually exist as a thing
·Occurrence in fact
·Not fictional
·Base on Facts,
What is truth:
Based on fact/reality
Belief that accepted
as true

What is good:
To be desired
Morally Right
Enhances the life of
those who possess it
What real is:
For Plato:
“Allegory of the Cave” by Plato
The real is outside the realm of any
human sensory experience but can
somehow be grasped by tone’s
intellect.
Example:
-Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity: The world is
composed of 3 spatial dimension and 1 time
dimension
-Many-World Interpretation: There are many worlds
which exist in parallel at the same space and time as
our own.
The truth/good, are in the sphere of forms/ideas
transcending the human condition
What real is:
For Aristotle:
The real is found within our within our
everyday encounter with objects in the
world.
An object/fact is intelligible because it
has a property (form, matter).
Example:
-Laws of Physics/Nature
HAPPINESS
AND
ULTIMATE
PURPOSE
Why does a Aristotle: action directed
person act? toward purpose/telos.
Every pursuit of a person
hopes to achieve a good.
For Aristotle, good is
considered to be
telos/purpose for which
all acts seek to achieve.
Why does a Aristotle: believe that a
person act? particular purpose can
be utilized for higher
goal/acitivity, which
can be also used to
achieve eve higher
purpose/activity, and
so on.
 Aristotle says:
But a certain difference is found among
ends; some are activities, other are
products apart from activities that
produce them. Where there are ends apart
from the actions, it is the nature of the
products to be better than the activities.
Now, as there are many actions, arts, and
sciences, their ends also are many; the end
of medical art is that of shipbuilding a
vessel, that of strategy victory, that of
economics wealth.
 Aristotle says:
But where such arts fall under a single
capacity – as bridle-making and the other
arts concerned with the equipment of
horses fall under the art of riding, and this
and every military action under strategy, in
the same other arts fall under yet others –
in all of these, the ends of the master arts
are to be prefered to all the subordinate
ends; for it is for the sake of the former
that the latter is pursued.
Example situation of the hierarchy of telos
(plural – teloi)

→
Taking lesson while listening to remembr the
→ →
lesson pass the exam passing mark to→
graduate
WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE
IS A HIERARCHY OF TELOS,
ARISTOTLE THEN ASK ABOUT THE
HIGHEST PURPOSE, WHICH IS THE
ULTIMATE GOOD OF A HUMAN
BEING.
CRITERIA OF HIGHEST GOOD/TELOS OF MAN

Highest good The ultimate telos of a

of a person person must beself-
must be final sufficient
Must not Nothing is sought
be utilized after and desired.
Must be satisfying
for another That telos is the
telos best possible telos
in life of a person
 What is highest goal for Aristotle?
What is both final and self-sufficient
Can only be adequately answered by older
individuals
Because they gone through enormous ad
challenging life experiences that helped
them gain knowledge on what is the
ultimate purpose of a person.

According to Aristotle:
The highest purpose and
ultimate good of man is
happiness (eudaimonia in
Greek)
 Aristotle says:
Now such a happiness, above all else, is
held to be; for this we choose always
for itself and never for the sake of
something else, but honor, pleasure,
reason, and every virtue we choose
indeed for themselves (for if nothing
resulted from them we should still
choose each of them), but we choose
them also for the sake of happiness,
judging that by means of them we shall
be happy. Happiness, on the other
hand, no one chooses for the sake of
these, nor, in general, for anything
other than itself.
First Criterion of being
the final end of a human
→
being happiness
 No amount of
wealth or power
can be more
fulfilling than
having achieved
the condition of
happiness.
 Once happiness is achieved,
things such as wealth, power, and
pleasurable feelings just give value-
added benefits in life. The true
measure of well-being for Aristotle
is not by means of richness or fame
but by the condition of having
attained a happy life.
There are various opinions on what specifically
is the nature of the ultimate telos of a person:

Happiness Take
is attached With nobler
with feelings that things like
having are honor and
wealth pleasurable. other
and ideals.
power.

 How does a person arrive at her

highest good?
For Aristotle, one can arrive at the ultimate
good by doing one's function well. If an
individual's action can achieve the highest
good, then one must investigate how she
functions which enables her to achieve her
ultimate purpose.
For Aristotle, what defines
human beings is her function or
activity of reason. This function
makes her different from the
rest of beings.
Aristotle expresses this clearly:
‘...What then can this be? Life seems to
be common even to plants, but we are
seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us
exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition
and growth. Next there would be a life of
perception, but it also seems to be
common even to the horse, the ox, and
every animal. There remains, then, an
active life of the element that has a
rational principle; of this, one part has
such a principle in the sense of being
obedient to one, the other in the sense of
possessing one and exercising thought."
In his Nicomachean Ethics,
Aristotle states his idea of
the highest good. In his
mind, the highest good is
happiness, and to achieve it
we must be entirely
virtuous.
Aristotle believes that humans are
entirely happy when acting in
accordance with reason, as well as
acting morally and intellectually
virtuous. This means that in order
to be entirely happy in life, we
must understand, obey, and follow
what we define as good acts.
Aristotle believes that
humans are entirely happy
when acting in accordance
with reason, as well as
acting morally and
intellectually virtuous. This
means that in order to be
entirely happy in life, we
must understand, obey, and
follow what we define as
good acts.
The journey toward happiness
varies from person to person,
but it is certainly capable for
any given person to achieve
happiness in life.
 The unique function of
Humans is that we can reason.
Thus, reason is at once our
defining trait and our telos.
Being a "good human being"
or being good as a human
requires that we reason and
reason well.
But Aristotle is not talking about the mere
Theoretical Reason-Sophia (our exercise of reason
for itself or to come to know truth), but rather
Practical Reason- Phronesis, the use of reason to
govern and guide our actions. He means reason to
be the ability to deliberate over choices and to
choose on the basis of those deliberations; we have
the ability to consider two courses of action in the
abstract and choose between the two based on
rational appraisal.
 “The Rational Animal”
Non-human animals act on the basis on
instincts or emotional responses. Thus,
their choices are not motivated or
guided by rational deliberation over
abstract choices. We could (and
sometimes do) live our lives the same
way, but this would be living the
excellent life of a pig, NOT the excellent
life of a human. Acting virtuously (as
one is supposed to) for humans is acting
rationally, activity in accor­d with a
rational principle.
 Aristotle arrives at his
conception of the “good life”
for a human (as a rational
being) by asking, “What is the
natural good for man?" that is,
what all humans desire "for its
own sake" and not "for the sake
of anything else.
 Here it is helpful to distinguish two
kinds of “value.”

Intrinsic Instrumental
Value Value
Something has Something has
intrinsic value if it is instrumental value if
valuable for itself and it is valuable as a
not merely for some means to some other
other reason. end (ex. money).
There must be
a Summa
Bonum, a Final
End of human
action(s).
There must be a Summa Bonum, a Final End
of human action(s).

Proper to Realizable; Can

Intrinsically our nature/ be acquired
valuable unique largely
human good independently
of being given
from outside
Our final good? Happiness.
Eudemonia: Aristotle's term
for happiness in the sense of a
state a thriv­ing, health, actualized
well-ness and full human
develop­ment.
The local saying “Madaling maging tao, mahirap
magpakatao” can be understood in the light of
Aristotle’s thoughts on the function of a good
person. Any human being can perform the activity
of reason: thus, being human is achievable.
However, a good human being strives hard in doing
an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the task of
being human becomes more difficult because doing
such activity well takes more effort on the part of
the person.
THANK YOU!
 VIRTUE AS
EXCELLENCE
Presented by: Christine Caga-anan
Malvin Ayop
 VIRTUE
The excellent way of doing things. Virtue is
something that one strives for in time. One
does not become an excellent person overnight.
Being an excellent individual works on doing
well in her day-to-day existence.
 WHAT EXACTLY MAKES A HUMAN BEING
EXCELLENT?
Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human
soul and therefore, one needs to understand the very
structure of a person’s soul which must be directed by her
rational activity in an excellent way.
IRRATIONAL ELEMENT
this part of man is not in the realm where
virtue is exercised because, as the term
suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason.
Consists of the vegetative and appetitive
aspects.

Vegetative Aspects – functions as giving

nutrition and providing the activity of
physical growth of a person. This aspect of the
soul follows the natural processes involved in
the physical activities and growth of a person.

Appetitive Aspects – works as a desiring

faculty of man.
 RATIONAL FACULTY
Intellectual – the act of knowing. This faculty is
attained through teaching. One learns and gains
wisdom by being taught or by learning. There are two
ways by which one can attain intellectual
excellence: philosophic and practical.

Philosophic Wisdom – deals with attaining knowledge

about the fundamental principles and truths that
govern the universe. It helps one understand in
general the meaning of life.

Practical Wisdom – an excellence in knowing the

right conduct in carrying out a particular act.

Moral – the act of doing

In carrying out a morally

virtuous life, one needs
the intellectual guide of
practical wisdom in
steering the self towards
the right choices and
action.
 Aristotle is careful in
making a sharp distinction
between moral and
intellectual virtue. In
itself, having practical
wisdom or the excellence in
knowing what to act upon
does not make someone
already morally virtues.
 Knowing the good is
different from determining
and acting on what is good.
But a morally good person
has to achieve the
intellectual virtue of
practical wisdom to perform
the task of being moral.

Rational faculty of a person

tells us that she is capable of
achieving two kinds of virtue:

Moral and Intellectual.

 MORAL VIRTUE
Aristotle says that it is attained by
means of habit or acquired through
habit. Morally virtue man for Aristotle
is someone who habitually determines
the good and does the right actions.
 INTELLECTUAL VIRTUE
Intellectual virtues are the deep
personal qualities or character
strengths of a good thinker or learner.
They include qualities like curiosity,
open-mindedness, and intellectual
courage. Intellectual virtues are
qualities that make us excellent
thinkers.
MORAL VIRTUE
AND MESOTES
Presented by: Angel Bert Balbido
Daryll James Busbus
Marvie Bernales
 As stated by Aristotle, In attaining practical
developing a practical wisdom wisdom, she may initially
involves learning from make mistakes on how
experiences. reason is applied to a

particular action, put
Knowledge is not inherent in a through these mistakes,
person. One needs to develop she will be able to attain
this knowledge by exercising practical wisdom and to
in their daily lives. know or learn morally

right choices and actions.

 However, when practical wisdom guides the conduct of

making morally right choices and actions, what does it
identify as the proper and right thing to do?

As maintained by Aristotle, it is the

middle, intermediate or mesotes that is
aimed at by a morally virtuous person.
Determining the middle becomes the proper
tool by which one can arrive at the
proper way of doing things.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person
is concerned with achieving her appropriate
action in a manner that is neither excessive
nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the
middle or the intermediary point in between
extremes.

One has to function in a

state that her personality
manifests the right amount of
feelings, passions and
abilities for a particular
act.
 A morally virtuous person
targets the mesotes. For
Aristotle, the task of
targeting the middle is
always difficult because
every situation is different
from one another.
 As pointed out by Aristotle, the mean
is simply arithmetical proportion
mesotes determines whether the act
applied is not excessive or deficient.

Targeting the middle entails being

immersed in a moral circumstance,
understanding the experience and
eventually developing the knowledge of
identifying the proper way to address a
particular situation.
 In relation to the news
article, the government and its
agencies responsible for
protecting and assisting the
young on their personal
development should act in view
of the middle measure.
 The government could have
dissolved the issue or could
have banned the show portraying
violence. But such extreme
censure the citizens’ freedom
of expressing and artistic
independent which can result to
another issue.
Aristotle’s discussion ultimately leads to
defining what exactly moral virtue is: “A
state of character concerned with choice,
lying in a mean, that is the mean relative
to us, this being determined by a rational
principle, and by that principle by which
the mean of practical wisdom would
determine it”.
 Thirdly, the rational faculty that serves as a
guide for the proper identification of the
middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous person
learns from her experiences and therefore
develops the capacity to know the proper way of
carrying out her feelings, passions, and
actions.
 The rational faculties of this person,
specifically practical wisdom, aid in making a
virtuous person develop this habit of doing the
good. A moral person in this sense is also
someone who is wise.
Habit is not simply borne out of repetitive and
non-thought-of activities in a person. Habits
for Aristotle are products of the constant
application of reason in the person’s actions.
Habit is not simply borne out of repetitive and
non-thought-of activities in a person. Habits
for Aristotle are products of the constant
application of reason in the person’s actions.

One sees Aristotle’s attempt

to establish a union between
the person’s moral action and
knowledge that enables him to
achieve man’s function.
VIRTUES AND THEIR VICES

EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness

Recklessness Courage Cowardice

Prodigality Liberality Meanness

GROUP 3
 GROUP 3
CABANDING, LANCE

CASTILLON, LENARD

DOLDOLEA, JHON ROZEND

DUTERTE, LEAH

GAMBAN, EDWIN
GROUP 3

SYNTHESIS:
MAKING INFORMED
DECISIONS
 4 Major Ethical Theories
GROUP 3

and Frameworks
Utilitarianism

Natural Law Ethics

Kantian Deontology

Virtue Ethics
GROUP 3

None of them
is definitive
nor final
GROUP 3

"What ought I to do?"

"Why ought I to do so?"

GROUP 3

This quest has not reached its final conclusion;

instead, it seems that the human condition of
finitude will demand that we continue to grapple
with these questions. The to be the never-ending
search for what it means to be fully human in the
face of moral choices.
01 02
Neither the laws nor rules of one's immediate
These questions of what the right thing to
do is and why are questions that all human community or of wider culture or of religious
beings- regardless of race, age, affiliation can sufficiently answer these
socioeconomic class, gender, culture, questions, especially when different duties,
educational attainment, religious affiliation, cultures, or religions intersect and conflict;
or political association-will have to ask at
one point or another in their lives
03
Reason has a role to play in addressing these questions, if not in
resolving them. This last element, reason, is the power that
identifies the situations in which rules and principles sometimes
conflict with one another. Reason, hopefully, will allow one to
finally make the best decision possible in a given situation of
moral choice.
It enables us to distinguish between
human situations that have a
genuinely moral character from
those that are non-moral (or amoral)
. It shows us that aesthetic
considerations and questions of
etiquette are important facets of
human life, but they do not
necessarily translate into genuine
ethical or moral values. However,
reason also reminds us that the
distinctions are not always easy to
identify nor explain..
 How is one to make
GROUP 3

an intelligent,
sensible decision
when confronted by
such possible
quandaries in
specific situations?
GROUP 3

The ethical or moral dimension compared to the realms of the aesthetic

or of etiquette is qualitatively weightier, for the ethical or moral cuts to
the core of what makes one human. Mistakes in aesthetics ("crimes“ as
it were, against the "fashion police") or in etiquette (which can be
considered "rude," at worst) can be frowned upon by members of one
human society or another, but need not merit the severest of
punishments or penalties. Reason, through proper philosophizing, will aid
an individual (and hopefully her wider community) to make such
potentially crucial distinctions.
 Ethics teaches us that moral valuation can happen in the level of the
personal, the societal (both local and global), and in relation to the physical
environment. Personal can be understood to mean both the person in relation
to herself, as well as her relation to other human beings on an intimate or
person-to-person basis. Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act
in relation to other human beings and toward self. How she takes care of
herself versus how she treats herself badly (e.g., substance abuse, suicide,
etc.) is a question of ethical value that is concerned mainly with her own
person.

The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in
this context means one's immediate community (one's neighborhood,
barangay, or town), the larger sphere (one's province, region, or country), or
the whole global village defined as the interconnection of the different
nations of the world. One must be aware that there are many aspects to
social life, all of which may come into play when one needs to make a
decision in a moral situation. All levels of society involve some kind of culture,
which may be loosely described as the way of life of a particular community
of people at a given period of time.
 Culture is a broad term…
GROUP 3

it may include the beliefs and

practices a certain group of people
considered valuable and can extend
to such realms as art (e.g., music,
literature, performance, and so on),
laws (e.g., injunctions against taboo
practices), fields of knowledge (e.g.,
scientific, technological, and medical
beliefs and practices at a given point
in time), and customs of a
community (e.g., the aforementioned
rules of etiquette).
 Ethics serves to guide one
GROUP 3

through the potentially confusing

thicket of an individual's
interaction with her wider world
of social roles, which can come
into conflict with one another or
even with her own system of
values. In an age defined to a
large extent by ever-expanding
globalization,

how does one negotiate the right

thing to do when one's own
culture clashes with the outside
community's values?
 The latter part of the twentieth century gave birth to an awareness among many people
GROUP 3

that "community" does not only refer to the human groups that one belongs to, but also
refers to the non-human, natural world that serves as home and source of nurturance for all
beings. Thus, ethics has increasingly come to recognize the expansion of the question "
What ought I to do?" into the realm of human beings' responsibilities toward their natural
world. The environmental crises that currently beset our world, seen in such phenomena as
global warming and the endangerment and extinction of some species, drive home the
need to think ethically about one's relationship to her natural world.

We cannot simply assume that ethics is an activity that a purely rational creature engages
in. Instead, the realm of morality must be understood as a thoroughly human realm. Ethical
thought and decision-making are done by an agent who is shaped and dictated upon by
many factors within her and without. If we understand this, then we shall see how complex
the ethical situation is, one that demands mature rational thinking as well as courageous
decision-making.
GROUP 3

● Bachelor of arts in 1956 (Ateneo de Manila

university)
● PhD in Philosophy from Universite Catholique
de Louvain in Belgium in 1965
● 1935-2014 he taught Ethics, Modern Philosophy
and contemporary Philosophy at the
department of Philosophy in Ateneo De Manila.
● The MetroBank most outstanding teacher
award (1987)
● Pioneer of the Philosophical approach known
as “existential phenomenology”
● Has a book named “ Ground of Norm of
Morality: Ethics for college students” published
in 1988
● Wrote the essay: “ man and Historical Action”-

Ramon Castillo Reyes Where succinctly explained that “who one is” is
a cross- point. That who is,who I am is a
product of many forces and events that
(1935- 2014) happened outside of one’s chosing.
GROUP 3
4 kinds of cross- points
01 02
● PHYSICAL INTERPERSONAL CROSS-POINT
Events in the past and material factors in ● Your parents, siblings, relatives
the present.
● People surrounding you. Etc.
● Being a Homo sapiens and possesses the
ability/ capabilities and limitations of ● Your relationships
human.
● Factors like your geological location or
origin

03 04
SOCIETAL ● HISTORICAL
Events that one’s people has
● Culture and tradition of the undergone
society ● Example: the effects of the
● What his/her peers engage into Philippines’ long history of
colonization to the development
of culture
However, being the product of
all these cross- points is just
one side of “who one is”.
According to Reyes, “who one
is “ is also a project for one’s
self. This happens because a
human individual has freedom.
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!!!
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
CULTURE AND ETHICS
& RELIGION AND
ETHICS
By:
HIBAYA, JUICYLL
ISRAEL, MARY ROSE RHOFIAN
JUMAWID, CHRISTIAN MAE
LANARIA, JAIME II
LOLONG, EDMER JOSEPH
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
What is Ethics?
• Ethics is a code of behavior that
society considers moral and appropriate
for guiding relationship with one another.
• Deals with things to be sought, and
things to be avoided.
• Ethics are standards of right and
wrong, good and bad.
A common opinion many people hold is
that one’s culture dictates what is right or
wrong for an individual.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
What is Culture?

❏ Traditional point of view that is followed by the

community
❏ Set of custom, belief, ideology that is followed
by a group of people.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
What is Culture?

Describes a collective way of life, or way of doing things. It is the sum of

attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by individuals in a group,
organization, or society.

Cultures vary over time periods, between countries and geographic regions, and
among groups and organizations. Culture reflects the moral and ethical beliefs
and standards that speak to how people should behave and interact with others.
Just like what St. Ambrose said "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" when you
are in different place with different environment, you need to act according to
their culture. That way, you showed respect to their culture.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
ELEMENTS OF
CULTURE

• Value ➡️ criteria for
judging right and wrong
• Norm ➡️ rule of guideline
that says how to behave in
a particular situation.
• Symbol ➡️ gesture and
different sign that express
particular meaning.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
• Language ➡️ verbal and
written symbols that can
be used for communication
• Knowledge ➡️ body facts
and practical skills that
people accumulate over
time.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Effects of Culture:

❑ Determines how people communicate

and interact
❑ Determines how people relate to one
another
❑ Determines appropriate behavior
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Cultural Diversity: Combination of Culture

❖ Different Understanding - right and wrong

❖ Different Society - different type of people
❖ Different customs - different rituals
❖ Different beliefs - different religion
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
What is Cultural Relativism?

Cultural relativism states that we cannot

absolute say what is right and what is wrong
because it all depends in the society we live
in.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003)
- An American Philosopher
- provided a real argument against the validity of cultural relativism
in the realm of ethics.
- He defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there
is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality.

Since different cultures have different moral codes, then there is no

one correct moral code that all cultures must follow.

Rachels questions the logic of this argument: first, that cultural

relativism confuses a statement of fact, which is merely descriptive,
with a normative statement. Rachels provides a counter-argument by
analogy: Just because some believed that the Earth was flat, while
some believe it is spherical, it does not mean that there is no
objective truth to the actual shape of the Earth.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Rachel also employs an argument:

An argument which reductio ad absurdum, first assumes that the claim in

question is correct, in order to show the absurdity that will ensure if the
claim is accepted as such.
Rachels assumes three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of
cultural relativism.
1. if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the
practices or beliefs of another cultural anymore as long as the culture
thinks that what it is doing is correct.
2. if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the
practices or beliefs of one’s own culture.
3. if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even accept that
moral progress can happen.

Rachels concludes that he
understands the attractiveness of
the idea of cultural relativism for
many people, that is, it recognizes
the difference between cultures.
However, Rachels argues that
recognizing and respecting
differences between cultures do not
necessarily mean that there is no
such thing as objective truth in
morality, though different cultures
have different ways of doing
things, cultures may hold certain
values in common.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
Rachels posits that if one scrutinizes the beliefs and
practices of different cultures, however far apart they
are from each other, no culture, whether in the
present world or in the past, would promote murder
instead of prohibiting it. Rachels argues that a
hypothetical culture that promotes murder would
cease to exist because the members would start
murdering each other.
Rachels ends his article on cultural relativism by
noting that someone can recognize and respect
cultural differences and still maintain the right to
criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are
wrong if she performs proper rational deliberation.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Religion and Ethics
SLIDESMANIA.COM
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Philippines Religious Affiliation
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Religion

• Represents a group’s ultimate,

most fundamental concerns
regarding their existence.
• For followers of a particular
religion, the ultimate meaning of
their existence, as well as the
existence of the whole of reality, is
found in the beliefs of that
religion.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Body of Writings
Sacred Scriptures

Other Forms
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
“What exactly does
sacred scripture (or
religious teaching)
command?”
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
The reading or interpretation of
a particular passage or text is
the product of an individual’s
embodiment and historicity and
on the other hand, her
existential ideal

Moral agent in question must
challenge herself to understand
using her own powers of rationality,
but with full recognition of her own
situatedness and what her religious
authorities claim their religion
teaches.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
One must determine what
justifies the claim of a
particular religious teaching
when it commands its followers
on what they "ought to do"
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
Plato’s Philosophical question in his Philosopher’s Moral Version:
Dialogue:

"Is the pious loved by the gods When something is "morally good," is
because it is pious, or is it pious it because it is good in itself and that
because it is loved by the gods?" is why God commands it or is it good
because God simply says so?
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
If a particular preacher teaches her followers to do something because it is what
(for example) their sacred scripture says, a critical-minded follower might ask
for reasons as to why the sacred scripture says that. If the preacher simply
responds "that is what is written in the sacred scripture", that is tantamount to
telling the follower to stop asking questions and simply follow. Here, the
critical-minded follower might find herself at an unsatisfying Impasse

A contemporary example is
when terrorists who are religious
extremists use religion to justify
acts of violence they perform on
fellow human beings
SLIDESMANIA.COM
The responsible moral agent
then is the one who does not
blindly follow externally-
imposed rules, but one who has
a well-developed “feel” for
making informed moral
decision.
 SLIDESMANIA.COM
As summary, Ethics is not just about following
the rules of one's culture or rejecting other
cultural beliefs. People should try to be more
moral and use their own thinking and
understanding to make good choices. This
includes taking into account their culture and
religious beliefs. Even if someone follows a
religion, they still need to think for themselves
and use their own reasoning when deciding
what is right or wrong.
Thank you!

SLIDESMANIA.COM
SYNTHESIS:
MAKING
INFORMED
DECISIONS
PRESENTED BY: GROUP 5
FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE
IS ALWAYS A REASON.
TOPIC OUTLINE
Today's Discussion

MORAL DELIBERATION

FEELINGS IN MORAL
DELIBERATION
GROUP 5 MEMBERS
JEANNE CLAIRE LOMOTOS

HILLAICA MILLANES

CARILLE ISABELLA MAR

ISIDRO OCON JR.

JAMES CLYDE OPELINIA

 A practical decision is a decision as to what
to do. The process of thinking that produces
a practical decision is known as deliberation.

Where the selecting or non-selecting of one of

those courses of action is seen as depending
on moral considerations, the deliberation is
moral deliberation.
 MORAL
DELIBERATION
What is it?
It is defined as the detection, filtering, and
weighing (consciously or unconsciously) of
relevant moral principles, heuristics, or
concepts that identify morally relevant
features and thereby create a “moral context.”
 Lawrence Kohlberg
(1927-1987)
American moral psychologist and
educator
Graduated from the University of
Chicago (B.A.and PhD in psychology)
Became interested in Jean Piaget’s work
on the moral development of children.
 Lawrence Kohlberg
(1927-1987)
Theorized that MORAL
DEVELOPMENT happens in three
levels each split into two stages
Moral understanding is linked to
cognitive development
Interviewed 72 lower- and
middle-class white boys
Moral dilemma: whether it would
be permissible for a poor man to
steal medicine for his dying wife.
The children’s responses became
the basis of his six-stage theory
of moral development
THREE LEVELS OF MORAL

DEVELOPMENT
- Examines how moral reasoning changes as
we grow
- Focus on how children develop morality
and moral reasoning
- Storytelling techniques , presenting stories
with moral dilemmas
- Famous story is about a man named Heinz
Moral Dilemma Story: Heinz
A man named Heinz, who lived in Europe, had a wife whom he loved very much. His
wife was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer and did not have long to live. Luckily,
there was a pharmacist who invented a drug called radium that could cure her. The
pharmacist owned all rights to this medication and decided to sell it at a high markup in
order to make a profit. While it cost only $200 to make, he sold it for 10 times that
amount: $2000. Heinz did not have enough money to pay the exorbitant price, so he tried
fundraising to cover the costs. With time running out, he had only managed to gather
$1000, which was not enough to buy the medication. Heinz begged the pharmacist to sell
it to him at a reduced price, but the man refused. Desperate and running out of time,
Heinz broke into the pharmacy after hours and stole the drug. Was this the right or
wrong thing to do? Why?
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love
his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger,
would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder
if the woman died?
THREE LEVELS OF MORAL
DEVELOPMENT

1.PRECONVENTIONAL
2. CONVENTIONAL
3. POSTCONVENTIONAL
 Key Concept in
The Three Levels of Moral Development:

Each of these offers a new perspective, but not everyone

functions at the highest level all the time.

People gain a more thorough understanding as they build

on their experiences, which makes it impossible to jump

stages of moral development.

 LEVEL 1:

PRECONVENTIONAL
MORALITY
Young Children under the age of 9 years

old
Correspond how infants and young

children think
Rules imposed by authority figures are

conformed to in order to avoid punishment

or receive rewards.
Basic and egocentric understanding
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Believe that the morality of the behavior is

determined by consequences.
Individuals should obey rules in order to avoid

punishment.
Rules are absolute and inflexible and the

consideration of
extraneous factors involved in a situation have no

relevance.
Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange

Behavior is determined again by consequences but

this time the individual focuses on receiving

rewards or satisfying personal needs.

Understand and adopt the views taught
Recognizes there are more than one perspective,

therefore rules are not absolute

Actions in moral dilemmas are based on self-

interest and not just strict adherence to external

rules.
Receiving in exchange a reward or a favor.
 EXAMPLES ON KOHLBERG’S

PRECONVENTIONAL MORALITY

1. Not Leaving the Classroom

2. Being at Work on Time
3. Obeying the Speed Limit
4. Sharing Crayons
5. Not Cheating on An Exam
6. Sticker Charts for Prosocial Behavior
7. Attendance Certificate
8. Gift-Giving for Expected Reciprocal Acts
9. Pushing to Score a Goal
10. Taking Another Child’s Toy
 WRAP IT ALL!

In the first stage, children obey the rules taught and

believe what society says is right. Avoiding punishment

is a leading factor in their desire to obey authority.

This has diminished by stage two, where children can

see that they are multiple points of view to the

matter in question. They tend to reason according to

their own self-interests, including bartering with

others.
 LEVEL 2:
CONVENTIONAL

MORALITY
To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality
of actions by comparing them to society's views and
expectations.

Older Children
Adolescents
Adults
 LEVEL 2:
CONVENTIONAL
Conventional morality is characterized by:
Acceptance of social rules regarding what is good and
moral
During this stage individuals begin to develop personal
moral codes by internalizing the rules of adult role models.
There is no questioning of these norms and rules during this
stage, they are adopted and not critiqued.
Acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the
group.

Two stages at this level of morality:

Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships
Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order.
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships

The child/individual recognizes the

desire to be accepted into societal
groups as well as how each person
is affected by the outcome. This
highlights the close relationships
with family and friends.
 Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order

The child/individual becomes aware of the

wider rules of society, so judgments concern
obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and
to avoid guilt. Each person becomes more
aware of the impact of everyone’s actions on
others and focuses now on their own role,
following the rules, and obeying authorities.
EXAMPLES ON KOHLBERG’S
CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

1. The Teacher’s Pet-Obtaining the approval of role models is an essential

2. Pressure To Cheat-Non-compliance can lead to being rejected from the group
and ostracized by others.
3. Exploring Fashion Choices-This can be a time when young boys and girl
experiment with different styles of clothing.
4. Volunteering, cleanimng the beach- Cleaning up these public areas is a grea
service for the common good for the benefit of others and society in general.
5. Paying Taxes-Paying taxes because it is a social obligation that maintain
order is moral reasoning at stage
 LEVEL 3: POST
CONVENTIONAL
Morally responsible agent recognizes that what
is good or right is not reducible to following the
rules of one's group.
Morality is defined as abstract principles and
values that apply to all situations and societies.
The individual attempts to take the perspective
of all individuals.
 Stage 5. Social Contract and

Individual Rights

The individual views society as a social

contract
Becomes aware that while rules/laws might
exist for the good of the greatest number,
there are times when they will work against
the interest of particular individuals.
Stage 6. Universal Principles

People at this stage have developed their own

set of moral guidelines which may or may not
fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
The person is prepared to act to defend these
principles even if it means going against the
rest of society.
 PROBLEMS WITH
KOHLBERG'S METHODS

1. The dilemmas are artificial

2. The sample is biased
3. The dilemmas are hypothetical
4. Poor research design
SUMMARY
One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg's
theory of moral development to see its overall value.

One must make free use of her own power of

reasoning in cases of moral choice and not remain a
creature of blind obedience to either pain and pleasure
or to the demands of the group if one aspires to moral
maturity
The significance of studying the different ethical theories and
frameworks becomes clear only to the individual who has
achieved or is in the process of achieving moral maturity.

For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the task
of using one's reason to understand moral issues becomes a
real possibility and an authentic responsibility.

Part of this maturity is also the realization that ethical

thinking is not a completely intellectual task, but one that also
involves feelings.
 FEELINGS IN
MORAL
DELIBERATION

Emotions or feelings have long been derided

by purely rationalistic perspectives as having
no place in a properly executed moral
decision.

A more realistic attitude toward decision-

making is to appreciate the indispensable role
emotions have on an agent's act of choosing
 ARISTOTLE'S VIEW
According to Aristotle, emotions are an original
and integral part of (virtue) ethics. Emotions are
an inherent part of our moral reasoning and
being, and therefore they should be an inherent
part of any moral deliberation.

Aristotle precisely points out that moral virtue

goes beyond the mere act of intellectually
identifying the right thing to do. Instead, it is the
condition of one's character by which the agent
is able to manage her emotions or feelings.
 ARISTOTLE'S VIEW

Aristotle does not say, "Remove all feelings.

Instead, he sees that cultivating one's
character lies in learning to manage one's
feelings."
"TULAK NG BIBIG;
KABIG NG DIBDIB"
Thus, part of the genius of Aristotle in his realization that it is
possible that there can be a disconnect between INTELLECTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD and the ACTUAL ABILITY OF AN
INDIVIDUAL TO PERFORM ACCORDINGLY.

Aristotle accepts that feelings cannot be set aside in favor of

some illusory, purely intellectual acceptance of the good. Instead,
he sees moral virtue as a matter of habitually managing one's
feelings in a rightful manner.

Doing the right thing for Aristotle is being able to manage one's
feelings so that she is actually driven or propelled to do what she
already sees (intellectually) as right.
 MORAL AGENT
"dispassionate moral decision- maker is an unrealistic ideal."
The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making an
informed moral decision.

The morally developed or mature individual or agent therefore must

have honed her intellectual capacity to determine the relevant
elements in a moral situation, including the moral principles to
explore

A meaningful moral decision is one that she makes in full cognizance

of where she is coming from and of where she ought to go.
 THANK
YOU FOR
LISTENING
 ETHICS

moral problems
&
The value of studying ethical theories or
frameworks
Prepared By : Group 6
Group Members:
Orias, Norvie Mae
Pasagad, Jovy
Ranis, Elaine Aubrey
Rañoa, Yehosuah
Requierme, Jamel

Let u s s t a r t w i t h a
q u e s t i o n

What must a morally mature

individual do when she is
confronted with a moral
problem?
 Moral
problem
•It is a situation that
involves a choice, •When faced with a
decision, act/action, or moral problem, you
Also known as Moral solution that may will probably be
Dilemma or Moral include an unpleasant asking yourself
(Ethical)Issue problem or situation “What should I do?”
where you feel you or “What ought I do
simply do not know what now?
to do or which way to

turn.

goin g b a c k t o t h e
question...

In order to answer this question, we

must first understand that there are
different types of moral problem, each
one requiring a particular set of rational
deliberation. We may attempt to
construct an outline of what we ought
to do when confronted with the
potential ethical issues.
Steps/outline of what
we ought to do when
confronted with
potential ethical
issues
 i rs t s te p t h a t w e
The f i s
t o ta k e if t h e r e
ought c al i s s u e
a poten t i a l e th i
r m i n e o u r le v e l
is to dete t h e c a s e
of invo l v e n t i n
a t h a n d .
Fir s t S t e p
 First step

Do we need to make a moral decision in a situation

that need action or our part?

Are we trying to determine the right thing to do in

a particular situation being discussed?
 First step

In the latter situation, we may be making a

moral judgment on a particular case, but
that does not necessarily involve ourselves.
We may just be reading about a case that
involves other people but we are not part of
the case.
 First step

In any ethics class, students are made to imagine what they

would do in a particular situation. Their moral imagination is
being exercised in the hope of cultivating moral reasoning
and giving direction to the needed cultivation of their
feelings through habits. But they must be able to distinguish
between making a judgment on a particular ethical situation
and coming up with a morally responsible decision for a
situation they are actually a part of.
 First step

Being a moral agent specifically refers to the latter

situation. We must therefore identify which activity we
are engaged in, whether we are making a judgment on a
case that we are not involved in or if we truly need to
make a decision in a situation that demands that we act.
 o n d st e p is t h a t
The sec k e s u re
we n ee d to m a
of th e f ac ts.

Secon d S t e p
 Second step

The first fact to establish is whether we are

faced with a moral situation or not. Are we truly
confronted with a genuinely moral situation or
one that merely involves a judgment in the
level of aesthetics or etiquette and therefore is
just an amoral or non-ethical question?
 Second step
But if the situation we are involved in truly has a moral weight,
if it strikes one to the core because it involves what it truly
means to be human, then we must now establish all the facts
that might have a bearing on our decision. We must set aside
all details that have no connection to the situation. We must
also identify whether an item in consideration is truly factual
or merely hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded assumption,
and thus unsupportable.
 Second step
This is where such things as “fake news” and “alternative facts”
have to be weeded out. Letting such detail seep into our ethical
deliberation may unfairly determine or shape our ethical
decision-making process, leading us to potentially baseless
choices or conclusions. The responsible moral individual must
make sure that she possesses all the facts she needs for that
particular situation, but also only the facts that she needs – no
more, no less.
 e t h i r d s te p is t o
Th w h o
t i fy a l l p e o p le
iden ll y b e
may pote n t i a
affect e d b y t h e
t i o n s o f a m o ra l
impli c a
a ti o n o r b y o u r
si tu t io n.
e c h o i c e o f a c
concret

Thi r d S t e p
 Third step
These people are called the stakeholders in a particular
case. Identifying these stakeholders forces us to give
consideration to people aside from ourselves. The
psychological tendency of most of us when confronted
with an ethical choice is to simply think of ourselves, of
what we need, or of what we want. This is also where we
can be trapped in an immature assumption that the only
thing important is what we “feel” at the moment, which
usually is reducible to Kohlberg’s notion of pre-
conventional thinking.
 Third step
When we identify all the stakeholders, we are oblique to
recognize all the other people potentially concerned
with the ethical problem at hand, and thus must think of
reasons aside from our own self-serving ones, to come
up with conclusions that are impartial, though still
thoroughly involved.
 ow th e y m a y b e
Determ i ne h e
w h i c h c hoic e t h
affected by n
a ke s in t he g iv e
agen t m
situation

Fourt h S t e p
 fourth step

Not all stakeholders have an equal stake in a given moral case;

some may be more favorably or more adversely affected by a
particular conclusion or choice compared to others. A person's
awareness of these probabilities is necessary to gain a more
reasons for making a definite ethical conclusion or choice.
 ethi cal is s ues at
Identify the
hand

Fif t h S t e p
 fifth step
Types of Ethical Problems or
Issues
a. Situation in which we need to clarify whether a certain
action is morally right or wrong.
b Involves determining whether a particular acriin in question
can be identified with a generally accepted ethical or
unethical.
c. The presence of ethical dilemma. dilemmas are ethical
situations in which there are competing values that seem to
have equal worth.
 u a l to m a k e h e r
Fo r th e i n d i v id n ,
l u s i o n or d e c i s i o
ethical co n c g h t
u d g i n g w h at o u
w h et he r i n j o r in
i n a g i v e n c a s e
to be don e r e t e
u p w i th a c o n c
comin g p e r f or m
m u s t a c t u ally
action she

six t h S t e p
 sixth step

• Not all facts in a given case may be available to the agent

for her consideration.
• Some facts may turn out to be misleading, or not true at all.
• The moral agent must be able to learn how to avoid the
other values that one does not want to consider in a situation
for whatever reason.
 sixth step

• A moral individual is always a human being whose intellect

remains finie and whose passion remain dynamic, and who is
always placed in a situations that are unique.
• One must continue to manage her reason and passions to
respond in the best way possible to the kaleidoscope of moral
situations that she finds herself in.
 The values of
studying ethical
theories or
frameworks
e t h i c a l t h e o r i e s
or fram e w o r k s

What then is the role of ethical

theories or frameworks in the
continuing cultivation of one's
capacity for moral choice?
 WHY?
These ethical theories and frameworks
may serve as guideposts, given that
they are the best attempts to
understand morality that the history of
human thought has to offer. As
guidepost, they can shed light on many
important considerations, though of
course not all, in one’s quest to answer
the twin question of:
What ought I to do?
Why ought I to do so?
 Utilitarinism
Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing
that an act is good if it will bring about the greatest good for
the greatest number of those affected by the action, and
each one of those affected should be counted as one, each
equal to each. Utilitarianism thus puts every single
stakeholders at par with everyone else, with no one being
worth more than any other. Whether president or common
citizen, rich or poor, man or woman, young or old, everyone
has as much worth as anyone else. Utilitarianism, arguably,
puts more value on the notion of the “common good”
compared to any of the other ethical frameworks we have
covered.
 Natural Law

The natural law theory, on the other hand, puts more

emphasis on the supposed objective, universal nature of what
is to be considered morally good, basing its reasoning on the
theorized existence of a “human nature”. This theory has the
advantage of both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The
latter pertains to the assumption that whatever is right is
what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses of one’s
being or of one’s conscience (and not just in some shallow
emotional level) because what is good is imprinted in our
very being in the form of natural inclinations.
kantian deontology
Kantian Deontology puts the premium on rational will, freed
from all other considerations, as the only human capacity than
can determine one’s moral duty.

Kant focuses on one’s autonomy as constitutive of what one

can consider as moral law that is free from all other ends
inclinations-including pain and pleasure as well as conformity
to the rules of the group. This shows Kant’s disdain for these
rules as being authorities external to one’s own capacity for
rational will.
R e i v e w o f k a n t
d e o n t o l o g y

What is Kant's Theory of Deontology?

What is Kant's highest moral value?

 From valuing all human beings to
intuiting what is universally good and to
practicing one’s autonomy in
determining what one ought to do, all of
these explore the possible roles of reason
and free will in identifying what one
ought to do in a given moral situation.
Aristotole's Virtue Ethics

Main Idea of Virtue of Ethics

Treating our character as a lifelong project, one that has the
capacity to truly change who we are.
According to Aristotle’s ethical theory, the virtuous person
exhibits the joint excellence of reason and of character. The
virtuous person not only knows what the good thing to do is,
she is also emotionally attached to it.

Aristotle's Most Important Virtue

Prudence, justice, temperance and courage
Summary
S u m m a r y
One has to realize that the philosophical study of ethical
theories or framework must not merely end in a
smorgasbord of theories from which one may choose a
framework that she may apply willy-nilly to a particular
moral situation. The assumption that ethics is merely a
matter of finding whichever theory seems to work for the
case and hand ends in a cynical cul-de-sac: such an attitude
still does not make any substantial headway into answering
the twin question of “What ought I to do?” and “What
ought I to do so?” Such an approach substitutes a smug
attitude of expediency for the complex and difficult task of
truly searching for what is right.
S u m m a r y

What the responsible moral individual must instead

perform is to continuously test the cogency and coherence
of the ethical theory or framework in question against the
complexity of the concrete experience at hand. In such a
spirit of experimentation, the moral individual is able to play
off the theories against one another, noting the weakness
in one for a particular case and possibly supplementing it
with the strength of another.
 Thank You for listening!

Aristotle:
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit.
 Self, society and
Environment and Social
life: in the Philippines
Context and in the Global
Village

 SELF, SOCIETY,
AND
ENVIRONMENT
ETHICS
INTRODUCING
XYLA JOYCE SIMBORIO
OUR MEMBERS PART-TIME STUDENT
Memorized A-Z in the alphabet

PATRICK HENDRY REYES

PART-TIME STUDENT
natural cutie
ELEANORE TUBAC
PART-TIME STUDENT
Can solve calculus in just 3 secs

EZRIEL JON SALUDO

PART-TIME STUDENT
fluent in counting numbers
GERALD VILLA
PART-TIME STUDENT
tank user
INDIVIDUAL/SELF
1 DEONTOLOGY
An ethical theory that uses RULES to
distinguish right from wrong.
THE FOUR ETHICAL
THEORIES
2
UTILITARIANISM
An ethical theory that determines right
from wrong by focusing on OUTCOMES.

3 4
RIGHTS
MORAL RIGHTS
- rights people are born with or
possess by virtue of their nature
LEGAL RIGHT
- government-recognized laws
established and upheld to protect some
interests
VIRTUES
an ethical framework that says that we
ought to focus not on what rules to
follow, but on what kinds of people (or
organizations) we should be, and what
kinds of ethical exemplars we ought to
imitate.
 JOHN STUART
MILL'S THEORY OF
UTILITARIANISM
John Stuart Mill defines utilitarianism as a
theory based on the principle that "actions
are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness." Mill
defines happiness as pleasure and the
absence of pain.
 JEREMY BENTHAM'S
THEORY OF
UTILITARIANISM
The moral and political rightness of an
action is determined by its utility,
defined as its contribution to the
greatest good of the greatest number.
NO SELFISHNESS
"IT IS BETTER TO BE A SOCRATES
DISSATISFIED RATHER THAN A PIG
SATISFIED." - MILL
 THOMAS AQUINAS'
THEORY OF
NATURAL LAW
"Good is to be done and evil is to
be avoided.”

Human Inclinations:
self-preservation
sexual intercourse
the desire to know God
GOOD
ANY ACTION THAT SUSTAINS AND
CULTIVATES ONE'S BIOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL
EXISTENCE

BAD
DESTRUCTION OF ONE'S EXISTENCE
TAKING CARE OF ONE'S BEING IS A
MORAL DUTY THAT ONE OWES TO
THEMSELVES AND TO GOD.
THE PROMOTION OF LIFE, THE
TRUTH, AND OF HARMONIOUS
COEXISTENCE.
KANT'S DEONTOLOGY
DESCRIPTION

Kant's deontology celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent,

which sets it above merely sentient beings. Kant's principle of
universalizability challenges the moral agent to think beyond her own
predilections and desires, and to instead consider what everyone ought
to do.

Kant goes beyond simply telling

people to not use others as
instruments.
KANT'S DEONTOLOGY

Many people lose sight of what is truly important because they become
consumed with many other perceived goals.

Lastly, Kant's principle of autonomy teaches one that no one else

can tell her what she ought to do in a particular situation; the
highest authority is neither the king nor the general nor the
pope.

For Aristotle, one's ethical or moral responsibility to herself is

one of self-cultivation.
ONE MAY MAKE MISTAKES FROM TIME TO TIME,
But in the end, the important question to ask is whether the person learned from such
mistakes and therefore constructed a more or less orderly life.

Life for Aristotle is all about learning from one's own experiences so that one becomes
better as a person. But make no mistake about this, one must become a better person
and not just live a series of endless mistakes.

The realm of the personal also extends to one's treatment of other persons within
one's network of close relations. Utilitarianisms recognition of the greatest happiness
principle shows that even in interpersonal interaction, what must rule is not ones own,
subjective notion of what is pleasurable.

The other, therefore, is as important as one's self in her consideration of the moral
worth of her actions.
AQUINAS OFFERS AN ETHIC OF INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS THAT
Gives guidance on how one ought to relate with her close relations. The value of
human life must be upheld by the individual in her relations with family and
friends, as well as the promotion of the truth and peaceable social life.

Kant's deontology recognizes the principle of humanity as end in itself and as a

cornerstone of ethical decision-making. Everything else in the universe can be
used by the rational agent as mere means. Only a rational agent herself can never
be reduced to mere means, but must always be treated as end it itself.

Aristotle's Mesotes points to the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific
moral situation, which involves identifying the relevant feelings that are involved and
being able to manage them. Temperance is one Aristotelian virtue that clearly applies to
treating oneself and others fairly and with much circumspection.
 SOCIAL LIFE: IN THE
PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND
IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE
SOCIAL LIFE IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT
DESCRIPTION
Membership in any society brings forth
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
the demands of communal life in terms
of the group's rules and regulations
The idea that a person's beliefs and practices
should be understood based on that person's
PHILIPPINE SOCIETY
own culture.
Made up of many ethnolinguistic groups, each
with its own possibly unique culture and set of Proponents of cultural relativism also tend to
traditions. argue that the norms and values of one culture
should not be evaluated using the norms and
EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT values of another.
Issue of land ownership when
ancestral land is at stake
JOHN STUART
MILL'S UTILITARIAN
DOCTRINE
Always push for the greatest
happiness principle as the prime
determinant of what can be
considered as good action, whether
in the personal sphere or in the
societal realm

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
OUGHT TO BE,
"Will this action bring about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number?"
"GREATEST NUMBER" CAN ALSO GO BEYOND
THE BORDERS OF ONE'S OWN PERCEIVED
TERRITORY
SHOULD ONE STOP AT "WHAT IS GOOD FOR US" EVEN IF
IT IS FOR THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER PEOPLE FROM
OTHER LANDS?

Filipinos within the Philippine

territory technically "cannot remain
a matter for Filipinos only" if the
action can potentially affect those
outside the borders of the nation.
NATURAL LAW THEORY

System of law based on a close observation of

human nature, and based on values intrinsic to
human nature that can be deduced and
applied independently of positive law.

PURPOSE
Guide the individual in her actions that affect
her larger society

THOMAS AQUINAS
(CA. 1225–1274)
WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE MIND OF AN
INDIVIDUAL
1 HUMAN LIFE

2 CARE AND EDUCATION OF CHILDREN

3 PROMOTION OF TRUTH

4 HARMONIOUS SOCIAL LIVING

ACCORDING TO THOMAS AQUINAS

"No harmonious social life will be
possible if individuals that comprise
such a society do not value human life,
telling the truth and peaceful
coexistence"
 CONTEMPORARY
SOCIAL ISSUES
SOCIAL MEDIA
Dissemination of "post-
truth" alternative facts' and
"fake news" in the realm of
CRIMINALITY AND TERRORISM social media are rightful
The demand of the natural targets of a Thomistic
law for a peaceful and criticism of what ought and
orderly social life can be ought not to be allowed in
put in danger by these acts. our dealings with each
other.

THE MORALLY RESPONSIBLE AGENT MUST THEREFORE GUARD AGAINST

COMMITTING ANY ACT THAT CAN GO AGAINST THIS TWOFOLD
REQUIREMENT OF THE THIRD NATURAL INCLINATION OF HUMAN NATURE.
 IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant argues for the use of the
principles of universalizability and of humanity
as end in itself to form a person's autonomous
notion of what she ought to do. These
principles can and should apply directly to the
construction of ethical duty in one's social life.
Thus, no manner of heteronomous rules and
expectations should dictate one's choice of
actions, whether they be laws of the state or
international treaties, cultural norms and
customs, of even the laws of one's religion.
ARISTOTLE'S VIRTUE
ETHICS
Prescribes mesotes as the guide to all the
actions that a person has to take, even in
her dealing with the larger community of
people. Virtues such as justice, liberality,
magnificence, friendliness, and rightful
indignation suggest that they are socially-
oriented Aristotelian virtues. A person
ought to be guided by them in her
dealings with either the local or the wider
global society.
FOUR ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS
We have seen here how each of the four ethical frameworks we have covered
can be used as a fecund starting point for thinking through what a person's
moral responsibility is toward herself, her close relations, her fellow members
in society, and her fellow human beings in a global society.
THANKS FOR
LISTENING!
THE NON-HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT
NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Environmental ethics is about including the rights of non-human animals in our
ethical and moral values. Even if the human race is considered the primary concern
of society, animals and plants are in no way less important. They have a right to get
their fair share of existence.
The ethical or moral responsibilities human beings have toward the non-human
world, only appeared in the twentieth century. Previously, most ethical theorists
focused more on interhuman relations rather than human-to-non-human relations.
Consequently, some argue that using any of the four ethical theories or frameworks
may be an exercise in anachronism, that is, in forcing together elements that belong
to different periods. We will, therefore merely suggest beginning the possibilities for
further exploration into an environmental ethics based on any of the four classical
theories.
The four classical ethical theories

1. Utilitarianism
2. Deontology
3. Rights
4. Virtues
UTILITARIANISM
In the case of utilitarianism, some scholars point out that this hedonistic doctrine
that focuses on the sovereignty of pleasure and pain in human decision-making
should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasures and pain; namely
animals. Thus one of the sources of animal ethics is utilitarianism of course animals
themselves cannot become moral agent because they do not seem to have reason
and free will, Some thinkers, however will argue that animals can experience
pleasure and pain. Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness
principle covers the greatest number of creatures that experience pleasure and pain,
then number should include animals. Therfore, though only human can make moral
decisions, animal ethics proponents argue that human should always take into
account the potential pleasure or pain that they or pain that they may inflict on
animals.
 What is good then is not only what is good for the greatest number of human
being affected, but also for the greatest number of creatures that can feel pleasure
or pain. To extend the arguement, though the other members of an ecosystem (e.g.,
plants) may not have the capacity for pleasure and pain, human still ought to perform
actions that will not lead to their destruction, that in return might lead to their
destruction, that in turn might lead to pain dor the animals that live off them. There is
a general call of actions that not just benefit humans but the whole ecosytem as
well, since it is possible that non human but the whole ecosystem as well, since it is
possible that nonhuman creatures might be harmed by neglecting the ecosystem.
DEONTOLOGY
Deontology is a type of ethical theory that focuses on the morality of an action
rather than its consequences. Applying deontology to environmental ethics would
mean valuing the moral worth of protecting and nurturing the environment,
regardless of potential outcomes or results. This could include using a more
sustainable lifestyle and advocating for the conservation of plants, animals, and
habitats. It could also include limiting the use of natural resources and actively
preserving natural habitats, regardless of the cost.
Since Kantian deontology focuses on the innate dignity of the human being as
possessing reason, it can be argued that one cannot possibly universally maxims
that, in the end, will lead to an untenable social existence. Can one accept the
following maxim as something that everyone ought to follow: "One ought to not
worry about environmental destruction, as long as he/she benefits from it by gaining
wealth and also produces economic wealth for the society?" Such thinking is
shortsighted and, in the end, does not produce universal maxims.
RIGHTS
Even if the concept of nature is not currently understood to include individual
animals, provisions recognizing the rights of nature still implicitly acknowledge that a
nonhuman can have rights. This may seem obvious since corporations and other
nonhuman entities are legal persons and have rights, but entities such as rivers or
ecosystems traditionally have not been extended the same recognition by legal
systems worldwide. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, may not necessarily talk
about the physical environment and human responsibility to it as such. Still, one can
try to infer from his philosophy that specific actions should be avoided because they
do not produce a harmonious, peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting the
physical environment because of shortsighted economic goals will eventually lead
to disasters such as flooding or famines that will affect the community in a
detrimental fashion.
VIRTUE
Lastly, Aristotle's virtue ethics also pick up on the problem of such shortsightedness
and ask how this can possibly lead to becoming a better person. One may actually
invent a neo-Aristotelian vice here: the vice of myopia. This is a nearsightedness, not
a physical one, but in one's understanding of the implications of her actions. This
problem is therefore connected to a lack of intellectual virtue, to a deficiency in
foresight. How can a person claim that she is cultivating her character if she is guilty
of the vice of myopia? One become a better person, therefore, if she learns to
expand her vision to see beyond what is merely at close hand. Thus, seeing beyond
the immediate is a virtue. One may argue therefore that Aristotle would support the
argument that a person has moral responsibility to see beyond what is immediate. If
so, one must see beyond the satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make
sure that harming the environment for the sake of such will not eventually lead to
something much worse.
 What we have tried to show here in this current section is possibility, that classical
ethical theories contribute to potentially solve twenty-first century problems. The
important point here is not to "force answers" but to be open to real possibilities, as
well as accepting real dead-ends. One must see the value of testing one's
hypotheses, but also of the virtue of accepting that some hypotheses need to be let
go.
The End