TOPIC I: Moral and Non-Moral Problems

Introduction
People encounter various problems every day, some are simple, some are complex. In all
aspects of life, things are not always simple. From the time one wakes up in the morning until
practically bedtime, one may be preoccupied with something to be done or about things that are
undone. Not everything is foreseeable. There are always things that are missing; some others
need immediate fixing, someone else getting a flat tire just before leaving for work and many
more situations of the same type. We are not always ready and we cannot foresee everything.
Something, somewhere, somehow is not alright. There are problems or situations that call for
moral or ethical valuation or judgment. It may be about contemplating whether or not to tell a
teacher about a cheating incident during an examination. As a student, a problem may be about
what to do having known that she is pregnant. Should she reveal to her parents about it? What
could her parents’ reaction be?

Should a student lie to his/her professors for not having been in class very often for no
reason at all? Must one spread rumors using the social media about someone he/she hates since
his/her identity can remain unknown and can inflict more pain and moral damage on the person?
Is suicide a better solution to end all the troubles? There can be other serious problems that
anyone is going through and the question is what to do in these difficult circumstances.

Distinguishing between a moral problem and non- moral problem is the aim of this
topic. When do you say a problem pertains to what is right or wrong or when it is simply a
matter of fact?

Learning Outcomes

1. Differentiate between moral and non-moral problems

2. Describe what a moral experience is as it happens in different levels of human
experience.

Activating Prior Learning

In a group of 5, list down rules in your school, at home, in your community or
organization. Evaluate the rules by responding to the following questions:

a. Which of the rules do you find constricting (in the sense of restricting)? Why?
b. Why are rules important to social beings.
Try these:
 In school, you may come up with the rules in the school relative to the wearing of school
uniforms, ID’s and many more which you believe are constricting or restricting.

At home, you may come up with rules which you believe curtail your freedom. These
rules may include curfew time imposed by your parents, table manners, requiring evening
prayers, telling the truth, respect for each member of the family, eating together or that the last
one to finish eating will have to fix the table, etc.

In the community, you may discuss rules that may involve anti-littering, segregation of
garbage, leashing pets, curfew time, rules restricting public disturbance and gambling, rules
prohibiting driving without license, etc.

Presentation of Contents

Distinction between Moral and Non-Moral Problems

In the context of the discussion about constricting rules, there are rules that are
formulated by authorities for the common good or for improvement but are not moral precepts.
As such, they are clearer when they are expressed in the imperative mood. They are constricting
rules but are not moral concerns and hence, are classified as non-moral rules.

When does a rule become a moral problem or enter the domain of morality? It can be
stated that a rule becomes a moral rule if it violates certain standards. For instance, a rule may be
stated in the following terms: HIV infected individuals will be treated with disdain and are not
allowed to join any public forum. Such rule violates the inherent human dignity and the right of
an individual to be part of the larger society. This type of rule implies moral valuation. The
rightness or the wrongness of the rule is put into question. Should people who are victims of the
curse of the virus be treated in such a manner? Is isolating them the appropriate way of dealing
with them. Do human dignity and the right of the human person end when one gets contaminated
with the virus? Your response to this can be further clarified by knowing the different
kinds of valuations.

Kinds of Valuations that do not imply Moral Judgment or are not part of Ethics

1. Aesthetic Valuation. Some things are considered good or bad because of their appeal
to the senses. It is possible that one finds the food served by the waiter as good or bad
depending on whether the taste buds approve or disapprove them. Or, one might
consider a painting good because it is pleasing to the eyes when looking at it. Or,
someone could not appreciate a piece of music because it disturbs and is irritating to
one’s tympanic membrane and is therefore judged to be bad. These valuations or
judgments require the sense of approval or disapproval depending on whether or not
they have good appeal to the senses. But they are not valuations in the realm of ethics.
These are known as aesthetic valuations.
 Quite a number of times people use this type of valuation in different situations.
People make judgments but they have nothing to do with morality or ethics. It is
important that people know that they are not making a judgment that has moral
implication but simply a manner of making an appreciation relative to their senses.

Technical Valuations. Some things are considered right or wrong depending on

whether or not the proper manner of doing them has been respected. This type of
valuation is within the realm of technical valuation. When baking a cake, one must
see to it that the right procedure and right amount of ingredients are respected. If they
have been respected, chances are the result of the effort in baking will be good. If not
respected, the cake might taste bad. In the same manner, as a driver, most likely,
passengers will be anxious if the driver does not execute the proper rules of driving.
Driving too fast or sudden stops will make passengers uncomfortable and fear an
eminent danger. We say that the driver is either a good or a bad driver. These
examples are not; however, properly considered within the realm of ethics but are
proper to technical knowledge and skills.

2. Etiquette. People approve or may disapprove about certain ways of doing. For
example, inside a library, I see to it that I do not make noise because people inside
need to concentrate on their studies. Or, I greet my teachers when I happen to meet
them along the school corridor. Knocking at the door before entering an office is
perceived to be the proper manner. These ways of doing are judged to be the proper
observation of certain standards or etiquette but are not judged according to ethical
standards. Individuals who demonstrate the proper etiquettes are appreciated and
those who lack them are not. However, there is a need to properly distinguish what is
in the realm of etiquette and one which is beyond this realm. It is a good
demonstration of a good etiquette when offering a seat to an elderly inside a bus for
the person to feel more comfortable and safer but it would be utterly deplorable if you
push an elderly out of the bus while it is in motion (Bulaong Jr. et al., 2018).

3. Acts of Man versus Human Acts. The distinction between acts of man versus
human acts will further help to consider certain activities that absolutely imply no
coloration of ethical concern and one which is clearly within the domain of morality.
The acts of man refers to the involuntary activities that are necessary to sustain
human life, like in the case of breathing, the continuous beating of the heart and
involuntary movements of the intestines and lungs. They are crucial activities that
sustain life and without them, life ceases to exist. Other than that, other natural acts
like speaking, hearing, eating and walking are also natural acts but have no moral
implication as such.

On the other hand, helping someone in need and other gestures that relieve people
from their uncomfortable or disadvantaged experience or from their sufferings,
making people suffer and placing them in difficult situation are human acts.
Understandably, the activities categorized as acts of man carry no ethical valuation.
But those that fall under the category of human acts call for moral or ethical
considerations.
 After the discussion on the different categories and situations that do not enter the
category of moral valuation, let us now consider situations and issues which call for
moral valuation or fall under the realm of morality or ethics. Below are two situations
in which moral valuations are called upon.

Valuations that Involve Moral or Ethical Valuations

1. Moral problems according to Bulaong Jr. et al. (2018) “involve valuations that belong to
the sphere of human actions characterized by certain gravity and concern the well-being
or human life itself.” Pre-meditating or making a plan how to kill another is an act that
qualifies under moral problems. Or, deciding whether to allow passive euthanasia to
happen is a decision with gravity and concerns the well-being or human life itself. These
and other acts relative to one’s well-being and the well-being of others involve ethical or
moral valuations. Furthermore, an act may not directly be an affront to human life but its
consequences are clearly indicative of serious threat. Open pit mining is certainly an
activity that is intended to benefit people involved in it. However, it is a system that
seriously damage nature resulting to environmental catastrophe beyond imagination
affecting the lives of people living in the vicinity. In fact, it might even result to more
damages resulting to natural imbalance with greater impact affecting an entire region and
beyond.

2. Something is about moral problem when it violates certain standards. Example, cultural
practices and values are perceived as standards of behaviour. Unrespectful attitudes are
judged as wrong. Among Filipinos, a very strong cultural element is respect to the
elderly. Anyone who treats the elderly with respect is considered a person of excellent
moral upbringing. However, anyone who treats the elderly with disdain is unethical. It is
ethically right to respect the elderly and ethically wrong to disrespect them.

A religious belief may also qualify as a standard of this nature. The religious conviction
that it is a call to assist someone in need is a moral demand and maybe a moral imperative.
Thousands of people and maybe more are deeply motivated by such conviction that it is an
ethical obligation to help others who are in need. People do not hesitate to give their all-out
support and donate whatever they can to victims of devastating natural calamities. Imagine what
happened to Tacloban and other events that triggered so much anguish and loss of lives. People
moved by their compassion and religious commitment offered whatever they could without a
second thought to save lives and ease the effect of almost annihilating circumstances.

In the same vein of ideas, an act is a moral problem if it violates certain moral
standards. The examples below of moral standards will clarify this perspective.

a. “That we should not use people.”

b. “That we should not kill one person to save another.”
c. “That every life is sacred.”
d. “That it is wrong to discriminate against the handicapped” (Rachels, 2003)
 These moral rules or standards imply that these help us live a morally acceptable
fashion. Their violation would be judged as morally or ethically wrong or incorrect. There are
other standards and principles of these kind. They are considered standards by which we pattern
our life and tell us whether we are morally upright or unethical in the way we live. These
standards are particularly valuable and make sense when we experience extreme difficulty and
the easier way out is their violation.

In any culture and as a way of life, most of us agree that honesty is the best policy. It is
expected that in any situation one should always be honest. One’s value of honesty is especially
challenged when one is in a difficult situation like that of deprivation. At this moment, a person
is tempted to give up honesty if it would become a way out of the situation of deprivation. I
might consider stealing as an option knowing that it will relieve me from my discomfort and
respond to certain needs. Before acting however on such alternative, the individual makes a
thorough consideration how the act can possibly affect the people who would be victim or
victims of the act and what it implies to the individual himself or herself. Is the act worth
considering? Are there other alternatives that are better than stealing and will not negatively
affect others or make them suffer? Doing acts that violate moral rules and in broader sense
principles are not easily acted upon because they call for moral judgment and people know they
are violating important principles.

Activity

In the same group, discuss why only human beings can be ethical.

Why only human beings can be ethical?

From St. Thomas Aquinas point of view, the human being is ethical because the human
person has the rational soul. If plants according to him have the vegetative soul and animals have
sentient soul, only human beings have the rational soul, the highest form of soul. Plants may
have the capacity to feel but they are incapable of responding being unable to move and express
their feelings. Animals may have more than what plants possess and are capable of movements
but possess no capacity for understanding. They have limited capacity and cannot exercise
judgement. Rationality which individuals or human beings possess allows them to be aware of
their situation and their environment. Their consciousness and their ability to think make them
capable of making judgment. These capacities allow them to foresee the consequences of their
actions and make a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of their actions. Only human
beings have this capacity. Hence, according to St. Thomas, we can ascribe morality only to
human beings.

Also, the ethical assumptions; namely, free will and reason are important bases that
determine why only human beings can be ethical. Reason or rationality and freedom are
important elements to determine whether actions are within the realm of morality or not. For
without such assumptions no amount or degree of ethical valuation can be ascribed to an act.
Only human beings have them, which make them the only ethical beings. (This will be further
discussed in the topic dealing specifically with the moral assumptions.) We also add the element
of conscience or the inner voice that tells one about the rightness or wrongness of an act. It is an
aspect only true to human beings. Conscience tells us whether or not we did what we ought to do
and whether we have done the right thing or the opposite. It makes one happy or comfortable
when he or she knows the right thing was done and feels guilty or suffers from deep sense of
remorse knowing that what was wrong has been committed. The three; reason, freedom and
conscience altogether determine therefore why only human beings can be ethical.

Another authority explains that human beings have rules, principles, desires (the desire to
do what is good), consciousness, sensitivity to higher order (ability to recognize God) and
AKRASIA (Greek word for courage). AKRASIA or courage is ability. As ability it has a
double meaning. Someone can have the ability to do something unacceptable or otherwise it also
signifies ability to do something acceptable. Doing something moral or ethical, or immoral or
unethical depends on one’s courage to do it. Whether acceptable or unacceptable, it requires the
persistence of doing it. When one insists on doing something, it requires the courage to do it.

What is moral experience and how moral rule is born?

Professor Bitanga explains how moral rule is born. For instance, you found a wallet that
contains 5,000 pesos and an ATM card with the pin number as well! Something inside tells you
to get it but at the same time you remember the prohibition; “Thou shall not steal.” That is a
moral experience and where moral rule is born. It calls for judgment.

Summary

Moral rule constitutes a moral situation that calls for or requires moral judgment to do
good or the opposite. This knowledge of what constitute moral problems as well as the
parameters to identify them is significant so that individuals are guided when they make
decisions. By that, one considers with seriousness their plans before acting, considering their
consequences and the principles that can possibly be violated by the acts. It is important because
individuals whose actions imply moral valuations also imply moral responsibilities. Therefore,
one cannot just ignore actions that carry with them important ethical implications.

It is probably the mistake of many who confuse moral actions with those without. If
people think that whatever actions they do are just any other action, there is a danger of ignoring
their actual responsibility over the action. Without having to make distinction between those
morally loaded and those that carry no moral significance, people make instant decisions and act
instinctively knowing that they have no responsibility over them. If we think in this manner, we
lose the chance to be better individuals and become a “neighbor” to others. With such thinking,
we permit ourselves to make promises without the intention of fulfilling them. Deceiving others
will make no difference at all.