At the end of the lesson, you are expected to:

• Distinguish moral and normative statements

• Articulate the difference between moral and non-moral standards
• Explain how ethics differs from law, religion, and culture

EYEBALL TATTOO: MORAL OR NON-MORAL ISSUE?

GMA Public Affairs. (2020, May 11). Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho: Eyeball
tattoo? (Video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBUfgeYmXgc

After watching the short video clip, please answer the following:

1) What was the video all about? Provide the salient information such as the name of
the person who got his eyeballs tattooed, his motivation for getting the tattoo, etc.
You may as well look for articles written regarding eyeball tattoo to understand its
history, implications, etc.

2) What were the specific issues raised in the video?

3) Is eyeball tattoo a moral or non-moral issue? Why?

Moral statements are categorized as normative statements rather than factual

statements. A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that
claims that something “ought” to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment that claims

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

that something “is” the case. As such, when one makes a normative statement, he/she
presents an evaluative account of how things should be rather than what things are. Thus,
we assess the correctness of normative statements by looking at certain criteria, standards
or norms instead of focusing on empirical data. However, as can be seen in the examples
below, aside from moral statements, there are various kinds of normative statements that
have their corresponding basis of assessment:

NORMATIVE STATEMENT BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

You ought to return the excess change to the Moral Standard
cashier
There should be unity, balance, and contrast Aesthetic Standard
in your painting.
You ought to use the preposition “in” rather Grammatical Standard
than “on”
It is illegal to make a U-turn there. Legal Standard
Cover your mouth when you laugh Standard of Etiquette

As mentioned above, since a factual statement expresses a claim that something is

the case, its claim can be empirically assessed as true or false based on either research,
observation, or experiment. For example:

FACTUAL STATEMENT BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

Jose P. Rizal was executed on December 30, Historical Research
1896 in Bagumbayan.
Some tribes in India practice cannibalism Observation
The Coronavirus Infectious disease is Scientific Research
airborne.
A blue litmus paper will turn red when Experiment
dipped in an acid solution.
Cover your mouth when you laugh Standard of Etiquette

Take note that since a moral statement is a normative statement rather than a factual
one, it cannot be justified by merely appealing to facts, empirical evidences, or data. Although
providing facts may be significant in justifying a moral claim, this remains insufficient.
Consider the following argument:
According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty, the rate of
criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced. Therefore, it is morally
right to enforce the death penalty.

The premise “According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty, the
rate of criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced” is a factual
statement. This statement is established by gathering statistical data to arrive at a factual
claim. However, it is not sufficient to make the moral conclusion “Therefore, it is morally right
to enforce the death penalty”. There is a need to supply certain moral standards or principles
such as “An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the people” to connect the factual
statement and the moral conclusion. The moral argument should be:

According to a study of ten countries that enforce the death penalty, the rate of
criminality in these countries went down after it has been enforced. (Factual
Statement)

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the people. (Moral Statement)
Therefore, it is morally right to enforce the death penalty. (Moral Conclusion)

VS

Nevertheless, though some people may also accept or agree with the fact that death
penalty can reduce the rate of criminality in our society, they still hold that it is morally wrong
to impose the death penalty as they believe that the right to life of a human being is sacred
and inviolable. Thus, despite the greater good to society that the imposition of death penalty
may bring about, others would still regard it as morally unacceptable.

Going further, ho do we determine the acceptability of factual and moral statements?

For factual statements, we appeal to empirical data through research and observation. For
moral statements, like other normative statements, we appeal to norms and standards.

Create a simple moral argument on “Abortion” containing

factual and moral statements.

We have seen earlier that aside from moral statements, there are other statements
that are normative, that is, those justified and accepted based on standards rather than facts.
However, these normative statements are justified by moral standards. So what are these
other normative standards? And how do they differ from moral standards? The following are
examples of non-moral standards:
Standards of Etiquette – standards by which we judge manners as good or bad
Standards of Law – standards by which we judge an action to be legally right or wrong
Standards of Language – standards by which we judge what is grammatically right and
wrong
Standards of Aesthetics – standards by which we judge good and bad art
Standards of Athletics – standards by which we judge how well a basketball or a
football game is being played

Ethicists have identified a number of characteristics that speak of the nature of moral
standards. Although each of these characteristics may not be unique to moral standards, if
taken together, they can distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards.

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 1) Moral standards deal with matters that we think can seriously harm or benefit
human beings. Whether human dignity is respected or degraded, work conditions
are safe or dangerous, and products are beneficial or detrimental to our health are
matters that affect human well-being.
2) Moral standards have universal validity. They apply to all who are in the relevantly
similar situation. If it is morally wrong for a person A to do act X, then it is wrong
to do X for anyone relevantly similar to P. This characteristic is exemplified in the
moral rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”.
3) Moral standards are generally thought to have a particularly overriding
importance, that is, people feel they should prevail over other values. For an
instance, a violation of the moral rule against killing or stealing is more important
than an error in grammar or a travelling violation in basketball.
4) Moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies, nor
are they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition. The validity of
moral standards lies on the adequacy of reasons that support or justify them. So
long as these reasons are adequate, the standards remain valid.

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuation or moral standards are imposed by a higher authority that commands
our obedience. Nevertheless, we shall see how ethics differs from etiquette, law, and religion.

ETHICS AND ETIQUETTE

Etiquette refers to the set of rules or customs

that determine the accepted behaviors in a particular
social group. Following these rules makes us show
respect and courtesy to others. In eating out, for an
instance, one should wait until all the people on the
table have been served before he/she starts eating.
Aside from dining, we have etiquette at certain
occasions such as baptism and funeral, we have
etiquette on riding a public transportation, doing business, and communicating. These so-
called rules of etiquette vary from one culture to another.
Etiquette is concerned with proper behavior. It is arbitrary
and more culture-based. To get other’s approval of our action,
to be thought of well by people, and to show respect to them,
we try to observe common rules of etiquette. Violating the
rules can lead society to consider you ill-mannered, impolite,
or even uncivilized – but not necessary unethical or immoral.

Take note that following what etiquette demands does

not necessarily mean acting morally. Scrupulous observance
of rules of etiquette can camouflage moral issues. Before the
laws against racial discrimination were enacted in the
America, it was thought that it is bad believed that such rule of

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

etiquette is rooted in racial discrimination and human degradation, promoting or simply
conforming to such rule does not amount to doing the moral thing. Such was the point of
shown by a 42 – year old black woman named Rose Parks when she was asked expectation,
she stood her ground knowing that she has not done anything immoral. On the contrary, she
believed she was doing the morally right thing to do as she fought for equality and fairness.

Though morality and etiquette are not synonymous with

each other, there is a relationship between the two since both
concern human action. Disregarding or scorning etiquette can be
considered immoral in certain circumstances. Once the custom
is adopted, the practice takes on the importance of a moral rule.
For an instance, in Islamic societies, standards of modesty
call for a woman to cover her body, particularly her chest. Thus,
some Muslim women wear hijab or a scarf that covers the head
and neck and falls below the level of the shoulders to cover the
upper chest area. Following this practice makes these women
believe that it protects women’s dignity and promote modesty.

ETHICS AND LAW

Law is an ordinance of reason, promulgated by legitimate

authority, to be adhered by all, for the purpose common good.
Like etiquette, law also regulates human conduct, which is why
it is often confused with morality. The moral imperative not to
kill a person coincides with the legal imperative not to commit
murder or homicide.

Positive Law. This refers to the different rules and

regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure
that require compliance. Examples: constitution, republic acts,
ordinances. The law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions
administered through persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey.
As a basis of ethics, the law has the benefit of providing us with an objective standard
that is obligatory and applicable to all. But, should we equate ethics or morality with law?
Law and morality are different. Breaking the law is not always an immoral act, just as
following the law is not necessarily doing what is morally right. Suppose one of your family
members suffered a heart attack and he/she needed to be brought to the hospital
immediately. You took him/her in your car and rushed to the hospital driving at a speed of 120
kph. Although you are prohibited by law to drive at more than 60 kph on that road, it does not
seem morally right for you to follow the law and drive at that speed limit knowing that doing
so will jeopardize the life of your loved one.
Take note as well that an action that is legal can be morally disturbing. We might find
that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by law but are ethically
questionable to us. For an instance, abortion may be legal in a particular country, but the
question whether it is morally right to commit it remains an issue especially for pro-life
advocates. Another, while it is legal to exempt a convict from getting jailed due to
humanitarian considerations, it is morally disturbing to see how this legal measure favors
the elite and deprives the poor. Still other, if you remember Janet Napoles of the PDAF Scam,
DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
she repeatedly invoked the right to self-incrimination, thus evading the questions and being
mum on what she knew about the politicians who were involved in corruption. It may be legal
to remain silent rather than to tell the truth, but such act jeopardizes truth and justice, and
thus is morally questionable.

Case Scenario!

A toddler had been run over by a couple of vehicles. It was

witnessed by Juan, Pedro, and Maria. No one among them
helped the child. Later on, the child died.

Can Juan, Pedro, and Maria be criminally charged for the death of the
toddler? Can they be legally sanctioned? Are they morally liable?

Laws may be enacted, amended, or repealed by legislators to protect their vested

interests, and may not really be beneficial to the general welfare. One may wonder why the
Anti-Political Dynasty bill which aims to remove the concentration of political power within a
particular clan has been proposed in the Philippine Congress several times already, but has
not gotten the nod of the legislators. It can be surmised that enacting such law will be
detrimental to the interests of those political personalities in the Congress.

ETHICS AND RELIGION

Ethics is often identified with religion. In various societies around the world, religion
has so much influenced the moral life of the people so as to be seen as indistinguishable
from morality. People actually think tend to think that what is right can be derived from
religious beliefs and teaching. Because this line of thinking is anchored on the idea that God
is the source of goodness, living a moral life, then, is achieved by adhering to God’s will, while
acting immorally is disobeying God. Religion teaches us one thing: “One is obliged to obey
his/her God in all things” As foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine
command theory.
Many of us had been brought up with one
form of religious upbringing or another, so it is
very possible that there is a strong inclination in
us to refer to our religious background to back up
our moral valuations. Taking religion as basis of
ethics has the advantage of providing us with not
only a set of commands but also of Supreme
Authority that can inspire and compel our
obedience in a way that nothing else can.
Should morality be based on religion? Let’s
take a look at Euthyphro’s Dilemma.

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 Euthypro: But I would certainly say that the holy is
what all the gods love, and that the opposite, what all
the gods hate, is unholy….
Socrates: Perhaps we should learn better my friend.
For consider: Is the holy loved by the gods because it
is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by God?

Although religion gives moral basis and direction to people, thinking that morality
depends on religion raise some problems:
1) Can we really be certain about what God wants us to do? On the practical level, we
realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently
from its adherents, which would result in conflicting ethical standards. There
should be a basis of morality that transcends religious boundaries, lest we fail to
carry out an objective rational moral discussion with people from other religions.
2) The moral directives given by world’s great religions are general and imprecise.
People encounter moral dilemmas in particular situations or contexts that demand
specific moral precept. For example, a certain religion would restrict “blood” for it
is impure. This restriction includes the prohibition of getting blood transfusion. In
certain health concerns, this restriction would raise the issue of whether or not it
is God’s will that a person must refuse blood transfusion even if that person’s life
is at stake. What do religions say regarding more complex yet specific moral issues
of today’s world such as artificial reproduction, genetic engineering or the use of
animals in research?
3) As rational beings, we are doing ourselves a disservice if we simply base our
judgment of right and wrong on what our religion dictates. We merely have to know
what our religion says about a certain moral issue and conform to it. But are we
leading a rational life if this is how we view morality? What is our rational ability
for?

Religion can guide us in making moral judgment and leading a moral life, but morality
should transcend religion. Ultimately, it is a matter of reason rather than mere adherence to
religion.

1) Identify a list (atleast 5 each) of: (a) obligations we are expected to fulfill, (b)
prohibitions we are required to respect, and c) ideals we are encouraged to meet
as a i) college student; ii) member of your local community; and iii) as a Filipino
citizen. Discuss whether these are ethical in nature or not.

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 Obligations Prohibitions Ideals Moral or
Non-moral
As a college 1
student 2
3
4
5
As a member of
my local
community
As a Filipino
Citizen

2) Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste or does it make sense for clothes to become
a subject in a discussion of ethics? Why? How about other forms of adornment, such as
tattoos and piercings?

A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that

claims that something “ought” to be the case as distinct from a factual
judgment that claims that something “is” the case.
There are other normative standards that are not necessarily moral standards
such as Standards of Etiquette, Law, Language, Aesthetics, and Athletics
Moral standards deal with matters that we think can seriously harm or benefit
human beings. They have universal validity. They are generally thought to have
a particularly overriding importance, that is, people feel they should prevail over
other values. They are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies,
nor are they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition.

DSSP 2020 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION