Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Module in SS 112: Ethics
Module in SS 112: Ethics
SS 112:
ETHICS
Module in
SS 112:
ETHICS
i SS 112
Notes to the Students
The learning outcomes for SS 112, specified below are unpacked by the specific
objectives of each lesson. Generally, at the end of this module, you would have:
A. Competencies
1. differentiated between moral and non-moral problems;
2. described what a moral experience is at it happens in different levels of
human existence
3. explained the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral
experiences and solve moral dilemmas;
4. described the elements of moral development and moral experiences;
5. used ethical framework or principles to analyze moral experiences;
6. make sound ethical judgements based on principles, and facts; and
7. developed sensitivity to common good.
B. Skills
1. Analyzed the difference between moral and non-moral problems;and
2. Used ethical framework or principles to analyze moral experiences.
C. Values
1. Articulate sensitivity to common good.
2. understand and internalized the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at
the level of the person, society and in interaction with the environment and other
resources;and
3. Make sound ethical judgement based on principles, facts and the stake
holders affected.
Before you begin learning what the module is about, please be familiar with
some icons to guide you through this instructional tool. You are right now reading
the introduction entitled Notes to the Students. This will be followed by the Table
of Contents.
Activate Prior Knowledge- In this, you will do activity that you have
already known and is related to the lesson
Apply Your Knowledge- In this part you will practice what you
have learned from the
lesson.
ii SS 112
Assess Your Knowledge- You will be tested here and you will be
able to know the gaps in
understanding this Unit. Here, you will
have a Unit-check
test.
Directions are found inside each lesson that tell you how long you are going to work
on this module. All formative activities must be answered and submitted for checking
and recording your scores. Be serious on learning activities you are working on.
Inquiries in some points not fully understood will be made online depending on the
available online platform we are going to use. This module is a self- contained
learning kit with instructions that will guide you to the end.
You are now ready to begin. Seize the day! Enjoy
iii SS 112
Table of Contents
iv SS 112
Activate Prior Knowledge
Fun Ethics Exercise
Ethical Questions 1:If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had eight
children already, three were deaf, two who were blind, one physically disabled, and
she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion. Explain your
answer.(Answer honestly).
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Ethical Question 2:It is time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding
vote. Explain your answer. Here are some facts about the three leading candidates:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
v SS 112
Acquire New Knowledge
Here is your first lesson – Read and learn.
3. Study of ethics makes students reflect on the values that are most
important to himself/herself.
1|P age
Lesson I: Lesson 1: The Study of Ethics and
Cultural Conceptions of the Good
Why we study of Ethics and Cultural Conceptions of the Good:
Firstly, it is true that there are traditions that guide one’s action.
Secondly, people like to think that their traditions are already clear and
unquestionable to serve as basis for how they should act.
This is because people grow up with traditions. Traditions are part of
culture. Culture is a system of codes that gives the world
meaning and shapes the behavior of people. It also determines
proper behavior. This includes:
what we eat and how we prepare food
how we talk and what language we use
what we make and utilize things
how we understand the meaning of life and death
how we recognize the meaning of life
Culture is our code that shapes how we understand; what life is worth
living and what it means to be human.
2|P age
There are some of the ways culture shapes the way people act;
In the Province of Pampanga, penitents line the streets during Holy week to whip
themselves. For them, it is a way of to participate in Christ’s sacrifice and by doing so, they
cleanse themselves of their sins and are spared from the punishment. Mostly, people who
engage in these practices come from the traditional communities influenced, by Spanish-
style Catholicism and the so- called animistic world view. Other Catholics who are educated
in more Westernized, modern systems, do not feel to engage in such practices and even
judge the flagellants as “backward”. However, the flagellation is perfectly natural and
acceptable to those who practice it because in their culture, flagellation is a way to
participate in Christ’s existence and, in a way participate in His being and power.
In some cultures, engaging in sexual activities for excitement and fun is amoral.
Sexual partners may not always have serious relationships with each other and merely
“hook-up” for fun, and that is perfectly acceptable as long as contraceptives are used and
partners protect themselves against diseases. Thus, the meaning of sexual activity in these
cultures is not necessarily connected to love and procreation, lineage and property
transmission. In other cultures, which are more agricultural or where transmission of
property is important, perhaps sex as a leisure activity is less acceptable. Also, in the culture
where monogamy is associated with romantic love and personal flourishing, sex is often
related to committed relationships, although not always to marriage. Among these people,
their system of meanings coded by their culture shapes how they understand sex and
acceptable sexual behavior. Some people cannot even conceive of sex as fun is not even
real experience for them because it is not part of the experiences that their culture
provides.
3|P age
It can therefore be noted that the conception of the good is shaped
by culture as it is very basic systems of codes that shapes human
behavior. This could be dangerous in a way because not all cultures
and their conception of good reflect the good or what ought to be.
4|P age
Apply Your Knowledge
Direction:Write your answer in the space provided
under the following question. Write it in 3-5
sentences.
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
5|P age
Lesson II: Lesson 2: What is ethics?
What do people think about when they ethically? What is the experience on which
ethical reflection is grounded?
What is Ethics?
Ethics deals with human well-being and ultimate end of human conduct, and
discusses;
The nature of “individual” good
The nature of “social” good
The ethical motives that exist for the individual to pursue “social
good”, or to whatever is “morally right”
The relation between “pleasure” and “good”
The nature of “virtue” (in antique ethics)
Duty and moral obligation (in modern ethics)
The freedom of the will
The ethical worth of “Positive Morality”
Positive Morality may change with the time and
country as it reflects cultures, conventions and
customs.
Ethics seeks for a principle that will determine the true worth of the ends of
conduct, to see if the true worth is said to be “good”.
Questions of the good are not questions of practicality or questions of
realizing one’s desired end. They are questions that refer to a person’s
6|P age
freedom and ability to live according to what he/she considers to be the
good. In different ages of human civilizations, the particular norms of the
good have taken on different forms. However, at heart, these norms express
the human realization that free action is defined by an ought that be not
measured by how practical results are achieved but by how human beings act
in a way that realizes their capacity to freely and creatively respond to the
order of things: whether this order is grounded on a transcendent or human
reason.
What is “good”? What is “morally good”? These questions require a scientific
definition. What is consciously approved by a person for its own sakeis
“good”. Satisfaction of “interest” is “good”. Pleasurable feeling is “good”.
VIRTUE/VICE
Virtue is a property of character, though indirectly applied to actions or
motives. A morally virtuousman, is one who respects the moral codes
enjoining Industry, Temperance, Honor, Justice, Charity and Mercy. Vice is
the opposite of virtue.
It is a habitual tendency to pursue always the best attainable ends. Virtue
has wider meaning than moral virtue. The difference is special virtue which
may interfere with higher virtues. Excellence in a profession by this virtue is,
however, a higher virtue. All moral virtues are on the same level; the
highest. Natural or special virtues are not attainable by everyone; thus
community does.
7|P age
Well-being signifies the permanent realization of good by an
individual. Ancient Greek philosophers and schools of thought had all
differing views of well-being and its definition. Aristotle, however, puts it
that “an individual cannot regard his own bell-being apart from others”
which is still one of the best corollaries of the well-being in our day.
Ethical question arises when human beings intuit that their actions must authentically
fulfill their freedom in response to a ground of authentic human existence.
Conclusion: Ethics has something to do with realizing the fullest potential as free
persons acting in the world and doing right for others. It is not about being efficient
or achieving goals. It is about realizing what people intuit to be the good. Human
being intuits that life is not just about existing or survival, and human actions are not
just about expediency. Somehow, human beings’ sense that there is this thing they
call the good which they are bound to realize to genuinely be human and build better
societies.
8|P age
Apply Your Knowledge
Direction: Write your answer in the space provided
under the following question. Write it in 3-5
sentences.
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
9|P age
Lesson III: The Moral Act
Human beings are complex beings. Unlike other organisms that are simply
driven by the survival instinct, human beings experience the world in a
variety of ways through a variety of perceptive capacities. Bacteria are driven
solely to replicate themselves; plants seek only nourishment and growth, and
animals seek to address their hunger and reproduce themselves. Apart from
our capacity which allows us to reckon reality with imaginative and calculative
lenses, our feelings also play a crucial part in determining the way we
navigate through various situations that we experience. We do not simply
know the world and others; we also feel their existence and their value.
We are pleased when others compliment us for job well done. We get angry
when we are accused of wrongdoing we did not do. We became afraid when
we are threatened by someone, and we feel anguish and despair in moments
of seemingly insurmountable hardship. Most of the time, we act based on
what we feel. This is something we shared with animals to a certain degree.
We seek food when we hungry and we wish for companionship when we are
lonely. However, unlike animals that are instinctively programmed to
accordance on what they feel, we have capacity to reflexively examine a
situation before proceeding to the act with respect to how we feel. In other
words, although feelings provide us with an initial reckoning of a situation,
they should not be the sole basis for our motives and actions.
10 | P a g e
to listen to his/her reasons for committing such an act may be considered
cold and cruel. That is not to say that the act is deemed right after one finds
out why someone stole. It is then viewed as a complex act, connected to a
web of various circumstantial factors and motives. A person’s act of stealing
may, in fact, appear to be a symptom of a greater injustice in one’s society
prompting one to do good not by simply punishing immoral act but by
proactively seeking justice for the disadvantaged people who are pushed by
poverty and societal injustice to feed themselves by stealing. In other words,
reason, while a reliable ground for moral judgement, needs the feeling of
empathy to come up not just with moral but also a just decision.
Moral situations often involve not just one but others as well. Our decisions
have consequences and these have an effect on others. Matters on moral
import need to be analyzed with a perspective that takes the welfare and
feelings of others into considerations. What is good for one may not be good
for others.
-For example: If a jeepney driver thinks it is only right for him to get
as many passengers as he can in order to address the needs of his family of
by breaking a few traffic rules that to his mind harms nobody (he does not
run anyone over or he does not bump other vehicles on the road), his
reasoning may be construed as narrow and selfish. The inconvenience and
stress he caused others drivers by picking up and dropping off passengers
anywhere and anytime he pleases actually harms others more than he thinks.
Some people may come late for work and get fired because of this habit.
Some drivers may feel too much stress which endangers their lives and this
has an effect on the people that depend on them. In other words, if one’s
reasoning does not consider the interests of people that are affected by
his/her actions, then he/she is actually being prejudicial to his/her own
interests. Saying that actions do not harm anybody is not a sufficient moral
justification until one actually takes into rational accounted for, weighted
rationally, and assessed without prejudice. Prejudices make decisions
impartial. Reason recognizes not only the good of oneself but also the good
of others.
One way of ensuring the rationality and impartiality of moral decisions is follow the
seven- step moral reasoning models. These steps can serve as a guide in decision
making process or making choice of moral import.
11 | P a g e
2. Clarify goals. It is also necessary to clarify your short-system
and long-term aims. One often decides on the basis of what
he/she wants to accomplish. Sometimes, in the heat of the
moment, short term wants eclipse long term goals. Thus, you
must determine if you are willing to sacrifice more important
life goals to achieve your short-term goals.
3. Determine Facts. Make sure you gather enough information
before you make choice. An intelligent choice is one that is
supported by verified facts. You must first make sure that
what you know is enough to merit action. Without verifying
facts, you may regret your choice in the future once various
aspects of the situation come to light. Never make a choice on
the basis of hearsay. Make sure your sources credible and
have integrity.
4. Develop options. Once you are clear in terms of goals and
facts, try to come up with alternative options to exhaust all
possible courses of action. Most of the time, the pressure of a
situation may make you feel you have less options than you
think. Clear your mind and try to think of other creative ways
of clarifying your motives and implementing your actions with
the least ethical compromise.
5. Consider consequences. Filter your choices and separate
the ethical from the unethical choices bearing in mind both
your motives and the potential consequences of your action.
Think of long-term consequences and act in accordance with
the principles of justice and fairness. Consequences are
historical realities that bear upon lives of others. A decision
turns something in your mind into reality. Make sure you do
not regret the decision you have conferred reality upon.
6. Choose. Make decision. If the choice is hard to make, try
consulting others who may have knowledge or experience of
your situation. Find people with a virtuous character and
compare your reasoning with moral analysis. Once you make
up your mind, summon the will to do the right thing even if it
is hard and seemingly counter-intuitive.
7. Monitor and modify. Monitor what happens after decision
and have enough humility to modify your action or behavior as
necessary. Pride may get in the way admitting that you might
have not thought out a decision well enough. As you become
more aware of the consequences of your actions, especially on
the lives of others, summon the strength and determination to
make changes to rectify any shortcomings. Do not hesitate to
revise your decisions in light of new developments in the
situation.
12 | P a g e
These seven steps can help you ensure that you do not
take moral decisions lightly. They shed light on the various
aspects of moral situations that you have consider before
making a decision. An important element, though, is your
will to commit to an action based on moral principles. You
must have the necessary resolve to put your choice in
motion after a long process of deliberation.
While feelings and reason set up the theoretical basis for
moral action, it is the will which implements your decision
and projects your motives into reality. It is not enough to
want to do good, you must actually do it not only for your
sake but for the benefit of those that may bear the
consequences of your decision.
Moral courage is the result of morally developed will. It is the capacity to
initiate and sustain your resolve whenever you are certain of doing good.
Moral courage is a kind or virtue that enables one to be ethical not just in
thought but more importantly in deed.
13 | P a g e
Apply Your Knowledge
Direction: Write your answer in the space provided
under the following question.
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
Step 1:
___________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Step2
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Step3:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Step4:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Step 5:_
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
14 | P a g e
Step 6:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Step 7:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
15 | P a g e
Lesson IV: From the Act to Person
Personhood- denotes individual beings who are moral agents. Moral agents engage
in behavior that can be evaluated as moral or immoral, as morally right or wrong, as
morally permissible or morally impermissible. There acts are blameworthy or
praiseworthy.
16 | P a g e
Apply Your Knowledge
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
17 | P a g e
Lesson V: Overview of Ethics
History of ethics
The known history of pure ethics or ethics (moral) theories begin
with ancient Greek philosophers (Sophists, Socrates, Socratic
schools, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Stoics) and after recovered by
early English positivists has been the main topic of discussions in
the Medieval times in Europe. As the scholastic doctrines are by-
passed (therefore Christian Ethics is not a scientific term
anymore), we come to the illuminated times after the Medieval,
and continue with Hobbes, the Father of Modern Ethics.
Ethics are the set of moral principles that guide a person’s behavior.
While ethical beliefs are held by individuals, they can also be reflected in the
values, practices and policies that shape the choices made by decision
makers on behalf on their organizations. The phrases business ethics and
corporate ethics are often used to describe the application of ethical values to
business activities. Ethics applies to all aspects of conduct and is relevant to
the actions of individuals, groups, and organizations.
Professional ethics like professional such as manager, lawyers, and
accountant are individual who exercise specialized knowledge and skills when
providing services to customers or to the public.
- For example: Lawyers must hold client conversations
confidential and accountants must display the highest levels of
honest and integrity in their record keeping and financial
analysis.
Ethics Training
18 | P a g e
Moral sensitivity,which is“the ability to see an ethical dilemma, including how
actions will affect others.”
Moral judgement, which is “the ability to reason correctly about what ‘ought’ to be
done in a specific situation.”
The ability to think through moral issues and dilemmas, then, requires an
awareness of a set of moral and ethical values; the capacity to think
objectively and rationally about what may be an emotional issue; the
willingness to take a stand for what is right, even in the face of opposition;
and the fortitude and resilience to maintain ones ethical and moral standards.
Studies have uncovered four skill sets that paly a decisive role in the exercise
of moral expertise: moral imagination, moral creativity, reasonableness and
perseverance.
Moral imagination: the ability to see the situation through the eyes of others.
Moral imagination achieves a balance between becoming lost in the perspectives of
others and failing to leave one’s own perspective.
Cultureand Ethics
Culture reflects the moral values and ethical norms governing how people
should behave and interact with others.
Culture- refers to the outlook, attitude, values, goals,
and practices shared by group organization or society.
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
19 | P a g e
reflects the moral and ethical beliefs and standards that speak to how people
should behave and interact with others.
Interpretation of what is moral is influenced by cultural norms, and different
cultures can have different beliefs about what is right and wrong.
Cultural norms are the shared, sanctioned and
integrated system of beliefs and practices that are
passed down through generations and characterize
a cultural group.
20 | P a g e
in moral judgements among different people across
different cultures.
Personal Values
-Example:If you value equal rights for all and you go to work for an organization
that treats its managers much better than it does its workers, you may form the
attitude that the company is an unfair place to work; consequently, you may not
produce well or may even leave the company. It is likely that if the company had a
more egalitarian policy, your attitude and behaviors would have been more positive.
21 | P a g e
Ethical Lines
Ethical decisions involve judgments of facts and situations that are subject to
interpretation and other influences.
Identifying the ethical choice can be difficult, since many situations are
ambiguous and facts are subject to interpretation.
In organizations, employees can look to the code of ethics or the
statement of values for guidance about how to handle ethical
gray areas.
Business ethics: The branch of ethics that examines
questions of moral right and wrong arising in the context
of business practice or theory.
Law and ethics are not the same thing. Both exist to influence behavior, but
complying with the law is mandatory, while adhering to an ethical code is
voluntary. Laws define what is permissible, while ethics speak to what is
right, good, and just. Lawyers and judges are responsible for clarifying the
meaning of a law when there is ambiguity or when a matter is subject to
interpretation. Where ethics are concerned, that responsibility lies with each
individual. In organizations, employees can look to the code of ethics or the
statement of values for guidance about how to handle ethical gray areas.
Individual judgments can be influenced, even clouded, by a number of
factors. A study by Professor Robert Prentice suggests that self-image can
influence an individual’s decision -making process, making him or her feel
justified in taking shortcuts or doing things that could be seen as ethically
questionable. In addition, there are times when people believe that the ends
justify the means. In other words, if the result of an action is good, then it is
okay if the action itself is unethical.
Even when an individual has a clear sense of right and wrong, or good and
bad, it can be difficult to know what is ethical in a given situation. Ethical
choices involve judgment because they involve weighing the potential
consequences of one’s actions for other people. One analyzes ethical issues
by asking questions such as: What could happen? How likely is it happen?
What might the harm be? Who might be hurt? The answers are not always
clear cut.
There is a saying that a good person is one who does good deeds when no
one is looking. The same goes with ethical decisions. People who are ethical
follow their beliefs even when they believe no one will find out about what
they have done. In many cases of ethical breaches in organizations, those
who acted unethically likely believed that they wouldn’t be discovered. Others
may have thought that if the issues were discovered, the actions wouldn’t be
traced back to them. They had the opportunity to be ethical but chose not to
be.
22 | P a g e
Apply Your Knowledge
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
23 | P a g e
Lesson VI: Basic Concepts
Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions
they believe are morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on
the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and morally bad. Some
ethicists equate moral standards with moral values and moral principles.
Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a
group has about what is right and wrong, or good and
evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned
with or relating to human behavior, especially the
distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong)
behavior.
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical
considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality
or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of non-moral standards
include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various
house rules.
Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we
judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-
moral way.
Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which
we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which
we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by
which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse
morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.
As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference.
Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make
one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat
to human well-being.
Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes
(i.e. laws and ordinances) are non-moral principles, though they
can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and contexts.
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure
or benefit human beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For
instance, following or violating some basketball rules may matter in basketball games
but does not necessarily affect one’s life or wellbeing.
24 | P a g e
Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral
standard state that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she
is supposed to do that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even
with self-interest.
Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but
they take precedence over other considerations, including
aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones. A person may be
aesthetically justified in leaving behind his family in order to
devote his life to painting, but morally, all things considered,
he/she probably was not justified. It may be prudent to lie to save
one’s dignity, but it probably is morally wrong to do so. When a
particular law becomes seriously immoral, it may be people’s
moral duty to exercise civil disobedience.
There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may
come a time when the injustice of an evil law is unbearable and
thus calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such as the
antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their
owners)
25 | P a g e
treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of the
principle of consistency, that is, one ought to be
consistent about one’s value judgments.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a
certain person or group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal
standpoint in which each person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.
What is a Dilemma?
Examples of Dilemma
26 | P a g e
Here are two lighthearted dilemmas that someone might face:
Example 1
The menu at the restaurant looked amazing, and Sam wanted to try
everything. But, having a limited budget, he was faced with a choice—to order the
gourmet mac and cheese made with gouda (his favorite cheese); or to get the bacon
and gouda burger. For a gouda-lover, it was quite a dilemma!
Example 2
My mom gave me two choices: do the dishes or clean the bathroom. Neither
sounded like much fun. What a dilemma.
Types of Dilemmas
Dilemma is a general term, but there are also specific types that follow specific
scenarios.
27 | P a g e
Ethical dilemmas are especially important in the
medical and criminal justice fields, and in careers
such as social work and psychology. In addition, most
public servants have to undergo ethics training to
address common dilemmas they may come across
while working with the public. Recent advancements
in science have also brought forward interesting and
uncharted ethical dilemmas.
c. A moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is torn between right and
wrong. A moral dilemma involves a conflict with the very core of a person’s
principles and values. The choice the person makes may leave them feeling
burdened, guilty, relieved, or questioning their values. A moral dilemma often
forces the individual to decide which option he or she can live with, but any
outcomes are extremely unpleasant no matter what. Moral dilemmas are often
used to help people think through the reasoning for their beliefs and actions,
and are common in psychology and philosophy classes.
-The classic “lifeboat dilemma”, where there are only 10 spaces in the lifeboat, but
there are 11 passengers on the sinking ship. A decision must be made as to who will
stay behind.
-A train with broken brakes is speeding towards a fork in the tracks. On the left,
there is a woman crossing with her two children; on the right, there is a man doing
routine maintenance on the tracks. The engineer must decide which side to aim the
speeding train towards.
-A friend discovers her best friend’s boyfriend is cheating. She must decide whether
to tell her friend or keep it a secret.
When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they
are called ethical or moral dilemmas.
Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called
“moral agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more
conflicting options, neither of which resolves the situation in a morally
acceptable manner.
Individual
Organizational
28 | P a g e
Moral dilemmas are everywhere in organizational life. Situations on the entire
scale from real and acute dilemmas all the way to false pseudo-dilemmas
constitute challenges that the decision-makers should prepare for.
Organizational dilemmas are a typical consequence of the tropophobic and
restrictive dominant hierarchy, better known as bureaucracy. These dilemmas
arise because this organizational structure was deliberately designed to
restrict human behavior (i.e., people are paid to obey, not to think).
Organizational relates to how a business organizes itself (e.g. Functional Top-
Down, Divisional, Matrix, Flat, or Hybrid Organization). A dilemma is a
problem. Therefore, an organizational dilemma is a problem associated with
the way in which a business organizes itself.
Moral leadership in administration attempts to use these types of decisions to
lead the organization through the four stages of moral decision—making—
moral awareness and sensitivity, judgment, intent and action. Guiding
institutionalization and nurturing conflict are both viewed as useful in moral
leadership within organizations.
Systematic
Systematic Moral Analysis – or SMA for short – is a tool that helps us think
through ethically complex situations before taking action. And it can also help
us analyze the ethical dimensions of a complex situation after the fact. If no
one is likely to be harmed, then there's no ethical problem.
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make
mistakes.” - Mahatma Gandhi
Freedom- the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without
hindrance or restraint.
Freedom = freewill = liberty = freedom of speech = freedom of choice=
autonomy
Freedom distinguishes the person from other creatures,
especially to his nearest kin- the brute.
Freedom sets the person apart from nature.
Freedom is about making our way within the limits of
physical and material entanglements.
We either live in a life of virtue or vice. To live in either
way depends on our choices.
29 | P a g e
Types of Freedom
1. Role Responsibility- the duties one has for doing various things which one
with occupying a certain role in society.
2. Causal Responsibility- what caused something to happen
3. Liability Responsibility- who is liable for something’s happening
4. Capacity Responsibility- the capacity of a person to be held liability
responsible for their actions
-People have its own freedom and there is no limits onto it and that is the main
reason why freedom is base on moral act, to give limit to people, limit to know
what would be the right and wrong.
The freedom to choose is the privilege of every man and woman, and it can
be used either rightly or wrongly. By means of trial and error we have to find
out what is the best way to act. The process of evolution, which widens one's
consciousness, enables us to discover gradually how to use this freedom for
the benefit of fellow humans, realizing that their well-being is also in our own
interest. In a wider frame this freedom should also be applied to fostering the
well-being of all sentient beings, including the lower kingdoms of the animals,
30 | P a g e
plants and even minerals. Freedom and responsibility are all-encompassing,
excluding nothing
“Responsibility is the price of freedom.” -Elbert Hubbard
If morality provided the only way of deciding between right and wrong, then,
perhaps there will be some point in saying that a reasonable being should
normally do what he sees as right. But there are ways other than moral of
judging what is right or wrong. Why should one commit oneself to morality?
Morality must be connected with rationality.
The concept of rationality which he employed can be described as a thin one
in that it appealed only to the limited sense of ‘self-consistency”. But the
concept of a rational being, a being who not only has a capacity to make
logical distinctions but actually accepts the principle of non-contradiction can
be seen to involve more than simply the idea of a being who avoids
inconsistencies. Thus, the idea of a being who acts on reason is necessarily
involved in the idea of a being who, in the relevant sense, accepts the
principle of theoretical reason.
A rational being is necessarily reasonable. We need not seek, then, to
connect morality with rationality only in its limited sense as Kant did. In the
context of actions, where a being is freely deciding what to do, he is said to
be rational or irrational in virtue of whether or not he has reasons for doing
what he does. Very often it is irrational just to let things happen to oneself,
things which one could control, without the censorship of reason, for that
may be destructive to one’s wider aims or purposes. Where one can have a
reason, sometimes, though not always, it is irrational not to have it, for the
consequences of such acts may conflict with the achievement of those aims
for which one has reasons.
It is thus a general necessary condition of a rational life that one should be
aware of the nature of not only what he consciously chooses to do but also of
what is happening to him. For what is happening to him may have the
consequence of either impairing his ability to be rational or, by changing the
conditions of his life, of compelling him to abandon his rational aims in future.
In a minimal sense the acceptance of the principle of impartiality can be seen
to be implied by our mere preparedness to be rational in our arguments.
When a person, he says, “attempts seriously to decide between the demands
of different authorities, then he must, as a rational critical individual accept
certain normative standards or procedure”. He must respect truth at all costs.
For if we are prepared to attend seriously to what another person has to say,
whatever his personal or social attributes, we must have at least a minimal
respect for him as the source of an argument.
“The very idea of searching for truth takes for granted, a norm of
impartiality” is stating an important truth, provided it is realized that the
search for truth is not complete before the whole truth is known.
31 | P a g e
Thus, it seems to me that the dilemma can be resolved only by adopting,
what may be called, an attitude of active neutrality arising out of a state of
choiceless awareness. In the context of conduct, however, an active
neutrality implies nothing but acting from the point of view of complete
impartiality.
The rational being must translate his attitude into acts. Since he has no
overriding reason to act in one way or the other apart from the necessary
attitude in question, which is the product of his rational consideration of his
situation, it will clearly be less rational to act as though he attached more
worth to the interests of one as opposed to the other for no ultimately
justifiable reason.
To choose rationally in ignorance, and in an awareness of one’s ignorance, is
to choose from the point of view of complete impartiality. And in so far as
impartiality is characteristic of morality, to fulfil one’s rational obligation is to
fulfil one’s moral obligations as well.
32 | P a g e
Apply Your Knowledge
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
Questions: What real moral or ethical dilemma have you faced in life, and
how did you resolve it?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
33 | P a g e
Assess Your Knowledge
Direction: Write your answer in the space
provided under the following question.
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
3. Do you think in your entire existence you have done a “moral act”? If
yes, explain it.(5pts.)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
4. What is the biggest ethical or moral dilemma that you have faced, and
how you deal with it? (5pts.)
34 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
35 | P a g e
Acquire New Knowledge
Here is your Second lesson – Read and learn.
Moral values, judgment, behavior as well as moral dilemmas and how we perceive
them are largely shaped and influenced by history (i.e., historical contingencies),
power dynamics (i.e., competing ideas and interests), and the religion of a society.
The way we appreciate and assess things are not created out of nothing (ex nihilo)
or simply out of our imagination. They are conditioned by external and material
elements around us that, in turn, provide the basis for principles that orient our
judgment and valuation of things. Combined as one structure or phenomena, these
external and material elements make up culture. In other words, culture is what
shapes and influences social and personal values, decisions, behavior, and
practice. Thus, to understand how culture works and its features is to also grasp
the reason why things are done in a particular way and why we do these things the
way we do them.
36 | P a g e
That is a general consensus that it is an important factor in different
cultures has different ways to perceive the world. This difference also has
the effect of in the definition of ethical problems at the same time (Kavali
et. al., 2001, Thorne & Saunders, 2002).
Ethics - the concepts of ethics refer to classification such as good-bad,
beautiful- ugly, true false which the community members with in the same
values to the human behaviour and relations have added. Ethics deals with
human behaviour.
Ethics can be thought of as also a framework covering philosophy, moral
philosophy, moral problems and moral judgments (Mehalu, 2011).
In this context ethics is a set of norms and values which have been
improved to praise or criticize the behaviour of the individuals living in the
same community (Jones & Kavanagh, 1996).
How it affects individuals and society actions in daily life, defined "good"
with particular emphasis on the issue of the concept are complied with.
Laws to regulate social life, even when it comes to the location of an event
may be insufficient to assess the ethical. Especially increased interactions
of nations show a situation, which can be considered as ethical in a
society, contradict can be considered unethical in another (Ho, 2010).
While culture has a significant impact on the ethical perception on its own
not enough to explain the reasons of the different behaviours exhibited in
similar circumstances. The level of integration level of individual has an
impact on the correlation of these two concepts. Beside these
individualistic conditions such as age, sex, religion, etc., also have an
impact on ethical perceptions and attitudes.
Both direct and indirect impact of ethics on the culture is available. This
sometimes occurs in the interaction of different variables, for example,
what is "ethical" as meaning that the person (Christie, 2003). According to
Hunt & Vittel cultural norms and values affect both perceived ethical
situation, alternatives, results and possibilities of these results (Hunt &
Vittel, 1986).
Ethical perception has a crucial role on the ethical decision-making
process. Because evalution of the individual a situation as an ethical
depends on it (Wittmer, 2000). In the process of construction this
perception firstly individual will competence in, then the families will
competence in and finally the society will competence in (Türkeri, 2010).
Given the reverse of this continuum in a society competence to make
ethical decision families and the persons grown up in these families will
competence in. The moral senility of competence individuals makes it
possible to understand the effects of their behaviours on the others (Rest,
1994). This is one of the reasons why different cultures produce different
ethical frames.
37 | P a g e
On the basis of creation different ethical perceptions of culture lies create
different values (Srnka, 2004). Which is acknowledged by the society in
which the behaviour is out of bounds by the individual behaviors that are
considered within the framework of these values. Therefore, values and
attitudes affect an individual's priorities (Elashmawi& Harris, 1984).
Culture undeniably does play a significant pseudo role within shaping moral
behaviour and extends even further to social norms.
The subjectivity argument for culture can be stretched further and applied to
morality. Where culture does form the basis of some of our morality is in the
fact that, ewe might share certain moral views, what is deemed morally
acceptablediffers from person to person.
Almost all of our behaviors are “shaped” by four factors occurring in our
behavioral environment, including: Motivational Circumstances, Antecedents,
38 | P a g e
Behavioral requirements, and Consequences (punishments and desirable out
comes). So, our behaviors indicative of Culture and Morals are built and
altered by four factors in our behavioral environment.
Values
Values are a culture’s standard for discerning what is good and just in
society. Values are deeply embedded and critical for transmitting and
teaching a culture’s beliefs. Beliefs are the tenets or convictions that people
hold to be true.
Individuals in a society have specific beliefs, but they also share collective
values
Values help shape a society by suggesting what is good and bad, beautiful
and ugly, sought or avoided.
Living up to a culture’s values can be difficult.
Example: It’s easy to value good health, but it’s hard to quit
smoking. Marital monogamy is valued, but many spouses engage
in infidelity. Cultural diversity and equal opportunities for all
people are valued in the United States, yet the country’s highest
political offices have been dominated by white men.
Values often suggest how people should behave, but they don’t accurately
reflect how people do behave.
Values portray an ideal culture; the standards society would like to embrace
and live up to. But ideal culture differs from real culture, the way society
actually is, based on what occurs and exists.
In an ideal culture, there would be no traffic accidents, murders,
poverty, or racial tension. But in real culture, police officers,
lawmakers, educators, and social workers constantly strive to
prevent or repair those accidents, crimes, and injustices.
One-way societies strive to put values into action is through rewards,
sanctions, and punishments. When people observe the norms of society and
uphold its values, they are often rewarded.
A boy who helps an elderly woman board a bus may receive a
smile and a “thank you.” A business manager who raises profit
margins may receive a quarterly bonus. People sanction certain
behaviors by giving their support, approval, or permission, or by
instilling formal actions of disapproval and nonsupport.
Sanctions are a form of social control, a way to encourage conformity to
cultural norms. Sometimes people conform to norms in anticipation or
expectation of positive sanctions: good grades, for instance, may mean praise
from parents and teachers.
From a criminal justice perspective, properly used social control is also
inexpensive crime control. Utilizing social control approaches pushes most
people to conform to societal rules, regardless of whether authority figures
(such as law enforcement) are present.
39 | P a g e
When people go against a society’s values, they are punished.
A boy who shoves an elderly woman aside to board the bus first
may receive frowns or even a scolding from other passengers. A
business manager who drives away customers will likely be fired.
Breaking norms and rejecting values can lead to cultural sanctions such as
earning a negative label.
Values are not static; they vary across time and between groups as people
evaluate, debate, and change collective societal beliefs. Values also vary from
culture to culture.
40 | P a g e
Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning
is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of
moral reasoning is as far as most people get.
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage
5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their
moral views from those around them and only a minority think through
ethical principles for themselves.
• 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.
41 | P a g e
Apply Your Knowledge
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
Questions: How did your community influence your behavior? What is one
culture in your community that reflects on a particular behavior that you
have? How did this particular community culture influence the
development of a particular behavior?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
42 | P a g e
Lesson VIII: The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as
a Habit
Moral Agency
Moral Agents
Moral agentsare those agents expected to meet the demands of morality. Not
all agents are moral agents. Young children and animals, being capable of
performing actions, may be agents in the way that stones, plants and cars
are not. But though they are agents they are not automatically considered
moral agents. For a moral agent must also be capable of conforming to at
least some of the demands of morality.
Moral agents- is the person who has ability to discern right from
wrong and held be accountable of his/her actions. They can have
a moral responsibility not to caused unjustified harm.
Agents can obey moral law such as “Murder is wrong” or “Stealing is wrong”,
then they are moral agents, even if they respond only to prudential reasons
such as fear of punishment and even if they are incapable of acting for the
sake of the moral law.
Virtue Ethics
43 | P a g e
develops an honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by
honoring virtuous habit, people will likely make the right choice when faced
with ethical challenges.
Virtue as a Habit
Overtime time ones becomes used to behaving virtuously and after a while
one acts virtuously without needing to use volition. You have been virtuous,
it’s now part of you and how you act.
44 | P a g e
Apply Your Knowledge
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
Questions: What are your virtues that you are proud of? How did you
develop those? Explain.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
45 | P a g e
Lesson IX: Filipino Values
In order to understand Filipino culture, one must recognize that it has been
profoundly Christianized.
After hundreds of years of colonization by Western Christian empires, the
Filipinos’ moral and ethical imagination cannot be understood outside
Christian values and morality. Christianity is pervasive in our culture so that
the way we judge and value things and how things ought to be follows the
doctrinal grid of Christian theology.
An example of this pervasiveness and influence of Christianity to
Filipino culture is how Filipinos value more neighborliness (i.e.,
“bayanihan” or “pakikipagkapwatao” or “pakikisama”) more than,
say, the filial piety (of Confucianism). Filipino moral universe is
framed through the ethos of the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this
particular case, the way we relate to others is greatly affirmed
and influenced by what the Hebrew-Christian scripture teaches us
to do, that is, to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves.
Christianity reinforces the neighborliness of the Filipino bayanihan
system.
In other words, within Filipino culture, biblical teachings found
their way as foundational principles for a social norm. Put
differently, the intertwining of Christianity and culture in the
Filipino context is the base upon which we can understand why
Filipinos do the things the way they do or why Filipino believe
things as they are.
An example of this is
giving alms to beggar
46 | P a g e
individuals extend a helping hand without expecting any renumeration.
g. Flexibility, Adaptability,
Creativity- Studies shows that Filipinos often have an
aversion to set standardized rules or procedures; They
are known to follow Natural Clock or Organic sense of
time – doing things in the time they feel right. They are
present-oriented: which means that one attend to task or
requirement at the time.
47 | P a g e
i. Family Orientation- The
basic and most important unit of a Filipino’s life is the
family. Unlike in Western countries, young Filipinos who
turn 18 are not expected to move out of their parents’
home. When a Filipino’s parent are old and cannot take
care of themselves, they are cared for in their children’s
home.
48 | P a g e
Assess Your Knowledge
Direction: Write your answer in the space
provided under the following question.
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
49 | P a g e
Module in
SS 112:
ETHICS
(FINAL TERM)
50 | P a g e
Module in
SS 112:
ETHICS
(FINAL TERM)
51 | P a g e
Table of Contents
i SS 112
WVSU 2020
1|P age
WVSU 2020
right thing for Aristotle is being able to manage one’s feeling so that she is actually
driven or propelled to do what she already sees (intellectually) as right.
Have you ever look back at some of the terrible decisions you've made and
wondered, what was I thinking? Well there's actually a chance you weren't thinking.
Instead, you may have acting on emotion, not logic.Whether you dated an attractive
person who treated you horribly, or you wasted a lot of money on a really bad
investment, your feelings can lead you astray if you're not careful. The more intense
your emotions, the more your judgment may grow clouded.The best decisions are
made when there's a careful balance between emotions and logic. When your
emotions are running high, your logic will be low, which can lead to irrational
decisions.
Here are four ways your emotions can cloud your judgment:
There's a reason why casinos use bright lights and loud noises - they want
you to get excited. The more excited you feel, the more likely you'll be to spend
large amounts of money.When you feel really excited about something, you are
more likely to underestimate a risk. Whether you're taking out a large loan for a
thrilling opportunity, or you're betting all your money on an impressive horse, you'll
be more likely to underestimate your risk when you're feeling excited.
2. Anxiety in one area of your life spills over into other areas.
2|P age
WVSU 2020
nervous, you may refuse to create change or you may struggle to make decisions. As
a result, your thinking is likely to be clouded.
Research shows you're likely to set your goals really low when you're feeling
sad. In one study, participants were asked to sell various objects. Participants who
felt sad set their prices lower than the other participants. Researchers suspect
sadness led them to set the bar low, in hopes that achieving their goal would
improve their mood.Creating low expectations for yourself can prevent you from
reaching your greatest potential. You may decide not to apply for that promotion or
you may not negotiate for what you want all because you're feeling down.
Intense emotions can lead to rash decisions, if you're not careful. Anger and
embarrassment may make you particularly vulnerable to high-risk, low pay-off
choices. Researchers suspect intense uncomfortable emotions impair self-regulation
skills.Of course, when you're feeling really emotional, your risks can become self-
destructive. When those big risks don't pay off, your anger and embarrassment are
likely to intensify.
Raise your logic and decrease your emotional reactivity by listing the pros
and cons of a tough decision. Seeing the facts on paper can help you think more
rationally about your options and prevent your emotions from getting the best of
you.
3|P age
WVSU 2020
from (1) Emerson's fallibilism and (2) his sense that all individuals are inwardly
infinite and therefore inestimably worthy. Human perception is imperfect. No
individual is qualified to rank order human beings. At the same time, each individual
is "new in nature" and therefore "an inscrutable possibility": "I never know, in
addressing myself to a new individual, what may befall me." Emerson's combined
sense of the limits of human perception and the "infinitude" of individuals leads him
to embrace moral equality as the most responsible operating assumption. Adhering
to this assumption will keep him attentive to the novelty and inestimable worth of
each individual, even when that novelty and worth are not immediately apparent. It
will save him from the erroneous overconfidence of heroic individualist immoralism,
which justifies exploitation by presuming that one's own flourishing is more
important than the flourishing of others. Self-assertive though self-reliance is, truly
self-reliant individuals realize themselves while respecting the rights of others.
Through egalitarian moral respect, the self-reliant register their commitment to
human equality and signal their transcendence of the base desire to establish one's
dignity through others' degradation. Conditioning one's dignity on the subjection of
others is not strength but weakness, an exposure of the spiritually slavish two ideas:
self-reliance and complicity. Complicity also militates against the intellectual
wakefulness required by self-reliance. Almost always complicity involves self-
deception-the rationalization of actions (or inactions) we suspect to be unjust. Willful
and repeated moral rationalization corrupts our ability to see and think clearly, and
so habituates us to dishonesty that we come to mistake mental and moral slumber
for mental and moral wakefulness. Complicity, finally, is often a form of conformity:
we fail to question prevailing political, social, and economic arrangements because
we fear social ostracism. Insofar as complicity constitutes conformity, the aversion of
complicity constitutes the aversion of conformity. And since the aversion of
conformity defines self-reliance, the aversion of complicity enacts self-reliance.
Emerson never wrote a sustained treatise on the relationship between self-reliance
and complicity, but his antislavery writings and activities demonstrate his belief in
their incompatibility. Throughout the antebellum era, Emerson struggled to live self-
reliantly within a polity that sponsored slavery. His first love was his intellectual
calling-his effort to think original thoughts all the way through.
We are pleased when others compliment us for job well done. We get angry
when we are accused of wrongdoing we did not do. We became afraid when we are
threatened by someone, and we feel anguish and despair in moments of seemingly
insurmountable hardship. Most of the time, we act based on what we feel. This is
something we shared with animals to a certain degree. We seek food when we
4|P age
WVSU 2020
hungry and we wish for companionship when we are lonely. However, unlike animals
that are instinctively programmed to accordance on what they feel, we have capacity
to reflexively examine a situation before proceeding to the act with respect to how
we feel. In other words, although feelings provide us with an initial reckoning of a
situation, they should not be the sole basis for our motives and actions.
Moral situations often involve not just one but others as well. Our decisions have
consequences and these have an effect on others. Matters on moral import need to
be analyzed with a perspective that takes the welfare and feelings of others into
considerations. What is good for one may not be good for others.
-For example: If a jeepney driver thinks it is only right for him to get as many
passengers as he can in order to address the needs of his family of by breaking a
few traffic rules that to his mind harms nobody (he does not run anyone over or he
does not bump other vehicles on the road), his reasoning may be construed as
narrow and selfish. The inconvenience and stress he caused others drivers by picking
up and dropping off passengers anywhere and anytime he pleases actually harms
others more than he thinks. Some people may come late for work and get fired
because of this habit. Some drivers may feel too much stress which endangers their
lives and this has an effect on the people that depend on them. In other words, if
one’s reasoning does not consider the interests of people that are affected by his/her
5|P age
WVSU 2020
actions, then he/she is actually being prejudicial to his/her own interests. Saying that
actions do not harm anybody is not a sufficient moral justification until one actually
takes into rational accounted for, weighted rationally, and assessed without
prejudice. Prejudices make decisions impartial. Reason recognizes not only the good
of oneself but also the good of others.
Moral courage is the result of morally developed will. It is the capacity to initiate
and sustain your resolve whenever you are certain of doing good. Moral courage is a
kind or virtue that enables one to be ethical not just in thought but more importantly
in deed.
Morally courageous individuals act upon their ethical values to help others during
difficult ethical dilemmas, despite the adversity they may face in doing so. To be
morally courageous means standing up for what you believe even when it means
that you do so alone.(Murray, 2015).
“Nothing demands more courage and character than to be in open opposition to time
and mainstream, to stand up and to say aloud: No!”
6|P age
WVSU 2020
situation, the young Turks had to reckon with massive negative social consequences
such as being assaultedby the Nazi skinheads or at least being harassed by them. In
contrast, the tsunami volunteers and donators could anticipate positive social
consequences such as gratefulness from the victims and recognition from other
volunteers, other donators, and the public. Thus, even if both types of actions
pursue the same issue, namely helping persons in need, the consequences for the
helper might be very different.
Moral courage is a prosocial behavior with high social costs and no (or rare) direct
rewards for the actor (e.g., Bierhoff, 2002). In situations which demand a moral
courageous intervention, instances of injustice happen, human rights are violated,
persons are treated unfairly and degrading, or nature and cultural assets are in
danger; these situations are about discrimination against foreigners or other
minorities, violence and aggression against weaker individuals, sexual harassment or
abuse, mobbing, or illegal business practices (Frey, Schaefer & Neumann, 1999).
Lopez, O’Byrne, and Peterson (2003) define moral courage as “the expression of
personal views and values in the face of dissension and rejection and “when an
individual stands up to someone with power over him or her (e.g. boss) for the
greater good “. Thus, often an imbalance of power exists with a disadvantage on the
side of the person who acts morally courageously.
Greitemeyer Fischer, Kastenmueller, and Frey (2006) define moral courage as brave
behavior accompanied by anger and indignation which intends to enforce societal
and ethical norms without considering one’s own social costs. Social costs (i.e.,
negative social consequences) distinguish moral courage from other prosocial
behaviors.
Differences between Moral Courage and Helping Behavior: The Role of Negative
Social Consequences
As already mentioned, the anticipated negative social consequences in case of
prosocial action distinguished moral courage from other prosocial behaviors . For
helping behavior, positive consequences like plaudit or acknowledgement can be
expected. Moral courage, however, can result in negative social consequences like
being insulted, excluded or even attacked. Of course, helping or donating could also
lead to negative consequences for the help giver (e.g., losing time or money), but
not to negative social consequences. More severe the social consequences were the
more participants characterized the relevant behavior as moral courage (and less as
7|P age
WVSU 2020
helping behavior). Subsequently, Greitemeyer, Fischer, Kastenmueller, and Frey
(2006) more closely examined peoples’ implicit theories about moral courage and
compared them to implicit theories of helping behavior, because implicit theories are
crucial for a decision to engage in any kind of prosocial behavior (Dweck, Chiu &
Hong, 1995). If people’s implicit theories of moral courage and helping vary, then
their decisions on whether or not to engage in moral courage will follow the
application of different standards. In the first study of Greitemeyer et al. (2006),
participants read a vignette in which a bystander witnessed a person in need who
was threatened and attacked by an offender. Similar to the already mentioned study
of Fischer et al. (2004), expected negative social consequences were manipulated by
varying the extent to which the offender appeared threatening. Participants learned
that the actor intervened and stopped the attack, and then had to indicate to what
extent they perceived the actor’s behavior to be moral courage and helping behavior,
respectively. Results revealed that the actor’s behavior was more clearly labeled as
moral courage when the offender was threatening than when the offender was not
threatening. In contrast, perceptions of helping behavior did not depend on expected
negative social consequences. Thus, the amount of expected negative consequences
was related to the categorization of prosocial behavior as moral courage but not as
helping behavior. In a second study, it was further demonstrated that in the case of
offering help participants expected more positive than negative social consequences;
in contrast, in the case of moral courage, participants expected more negative than
positive social consequences. Thus, it can be concluded that people’s implicit theories
of moral courage and helping behavior do in fact differ and that perceptions of
prosocial behavior as an act of moral courage depend on expected negative social
consequences for the actor, whereas perceptions of prosocial behavior as helping
behavior do not.
Moral courage shows certain similarities with heroism. Becker and Eagly (2004)
defineheroism as taking risks “on behalf of one or more other people, despite the
possibility of dying or suffering serious physical consequences”.Regarding the
possibility of suffering serious physical consequences, moral courage and heroism
overlap: As already mentioned, when a person acts moral courageously s/he runs
the risk of negative social consequences like being insulted by a perpetrator; but
moreover, an act of moral courage can also result in physical violence by the
perpetrator against the helper and thus leads to serious injuries or even to death. An
important difference, however, between heroism and moral courage is that in the
immediate situation (and also afterwards), a hero can expect positive social
consequences like applause or admiration. In contrast, in the immediate moral
courage situation (and often also afterwards) a helper cannot expect positive
outcomes but rather negative social consequences like being insulted, excluded or
even prosecuted by one or more perpetrators. These theoretical assumptions were
also investigated empirically: In a series of studies, Osswald, Greitemeyer, Fischer,
and Frey (2008a) demonstrate a separation of moral courage and heroism. In the
first study, participants were given descriptions of different dangerous situations and
it was manipulated whether a perpetrator was present or not, and whether social
costs of the prosocial act were high or low. Participants had to indicate to what
extent they perceived the described behavior as moral courage and as heroism.
8|P age
WVSU 2020
Results revealed that participants clearly labeled situations with a perpetrator and
high social costs as moral courage. In contrast, situations with low social costs and
without a perpetrator were characterized as heroism. Further studies indicated that
moral courage and heroism correspond to different moral prototypes: moral courage
was associated with the just prototype whereas heroism was affiliated to the brave
prototype (for more research about moral prototypes in general, see Walker &
Hennig, 2004 and Walker & Firmer, 2007).
Another construct related to moral courage is social control (Jonas & Brandstaetter,
2004). Social control involves an intervention that curbs impolite or uncivil behavior,
verbal or nonverbal communication by which individuals signal another person that
they disapprove of his or her deviant, counternormative behavior (Chekroun
&Brauer, 2002). For example, persons exert social control when they criticize a
person who has thrown litter in a public park. Most of the empirical research about
social control was conducted by Brauer and colleagues (Brauer & Chekroun, 2005;
Brauer, Cheroun, Chappe & Chambon, 2007; Chaurand & Brauer, 2005; Chekroun &
Brauer, 2002). In their studies, they regard social control mainly as a reaction to
uncivil behaviors. Uncivil behaviors are counternormative behaviors that occur in
urban environments and decrease the quality of life, e.g. littering, failing to clean up
after one’s dog, urinating in public, playing loud music in the street etc. These uncivil
behaviors are “urban stressors” (Robin, Ratiu, Matheau-Police & Lavarde, 2004), but
they are not really serious or dangerous (Chaurand & Brauer, 2005). This is the first
theoretical reasonable difference between social control of uncivil behavior and moral
courage. Moral courage situations are dangerous both for the victim and for the
helper. Being bullied, discriminated against, insulted, harassed or attacked can have
serious mental and physical consequences for the victim.
Social control serves to keep up and to enforce social norms, because a person who
violates these social norms runs the risk of receiving an angry look, a negative
comment, etc (i.e., social control, Brauer & Chekroun, 2005). Given moral courage,
people also want to enforce norms and in so far similarities between social control
and moral courage exist. One could theoretically argue that the type of norm,
however, which is enforced by social control and moral courage, respectively, is
different. By social control, social norms which relate to everyday living are
implemented (Brauer & Chekroun, 2005). In contrast, with moral courage, ethical
norms (such as observation of human or democratic rights) are pursued, and people
stand up for a greater good (Greitemeyer et al., 2006; Lopez et al., 2003).
Since different types of norms aim to be enforced by social control and moral
courage, respectively, it may be that social control and moral courage derive from
different motives and values. In a recent study, Osswald (2008) investigated in an
empirical study with 65 persons (43 women) whether different motives and values
stand behind social control and moral courage. It could be demonstrated that social
control more likely results in egoistic motives compared to moral courage (Msocial
control = 4.41; Mmoral courage = 3.79), whereas people act morally courageously
because of altruistic motives (compared to motives behind social control, Msocial
control = 4.33; Mmoral courage = 5.56). Furthermore, moral courage is, compared
9|P age
WVSU 2020
to social control, more strongly associated with the value of universalism (Schwartz &
Boenke, 2004) (Msocial control = 2.20; Mmoral courage = 2.66). Universalism
means “understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection of the welfare of all
people and of nature” (Bardi &Schwarz, 2003, p. 1208).
Specifically, the participants saw a woman and a man who talked with each other in
a quite natural way during the first minutes. However, as time progressed, the man
became intrusive, touched the woman and started to harass her sexually. The
woman, however, clearly rejected the sexual advances. She tried to escape by
leaving the room, but the man blocked the exit, and a brawl started with the women
being clearly inferior. The picture then went black. In the helping condition, the
perpetrator was skinny and of small stature, whereas in the moral courage condition
he was strongly built and thug-like. In the bystander condition, participants were in
the presence of one additional passive bystander, whereas they were alone in the
solitary condition.
given in the solitary condition than in the bystander condition. In the moral courage
condition, however, participants were equally likely to show moral courage in the
solitary condition and in the presence of another bystander. Thus, while the
probability of showing helping behavior decreased with an increasing number of
bystanders, the probability of showing moral courage is not affected by the number
of bystanders. In the context of dangerous emergencies, i.e. in a moral courage
situation, the bystander effect does not occur.
Moreover, Fischer and colleagues (2006) found out that moral courage situations
faced in the presence of bystanders are recognized faster and less ambiguously as
real emergency situations than harmless (helping) situations. Furthermore, the costs
for the victim in case of a non-intervention are also higher in a dangerous moral
courage situation than in a more harmless helping situation. Thus, arousal in a moral
10 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
courage situation is higher than in a helping situation and an intervention becomes
more probable – independently whether a passive bystander is present or not.
To test this reasoning, Niesta, Greitemeyer, Fischer, and Frey (2008) conducted
three studies, in which participant’s mood (positive vs. negative vs. neutral mood)
was experimentally manipulated and either moral courage or helping behavior was
assessed. In the first study, actual behavior was recorded and results revealed that
positive and to a lesser extent also negative mood promoted helping behavior. In
contrast, mood did not differentially influence moral courage. In the second study,
positive mood fostered the intention to show helping behavior, whereas the intention
to act morally courageously was not affected.
Furthermore, norm salience was shown to partly mediate the relationship between
positive mood and helping behavior. The third study examined what variables
beyond mood and norm salience determined moral courage. Again it was replicated
that positive mood fostered helping behavior, whereas participants were comparably
likely to show moral courage in each of the three mood conditions. However, it was
also demonstrated that justice sensitivity, civil disobedience, resistance to group
pressure, moral mandate, and anger lead to moral courage, but not to help giving.
Thus, mood as a determinant drops out, but other variables possess the potential to
foster moral courage. Further determinants which promote moral courage are
presented in the next section.
11 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
effects of norms on moral courage. In the first study, for half of the participants
prosocial norms were activated by film material, whereas for the remaining half no
prosocial norms were made salient. The film material that activated prosocial norms
consisted of different scenes in which people showed moral courageous behavior.
The participants were then brought into a moral courage situation: They witnessed
how the experimenter insulted and discriminated against a foreign student (a
confederate). As dependent measure, it was assessed whether participants
intervened and defended the foreign student against the perpetrator.
Results revealed that salient prosocial norms fostered moral courage: Subjects for
whom prosocial norms were activated intervened more often against discrimination
than subjects for whom no prosocial norms were made salient. Thus, when prosocial
norms are salient in people’s minds they are more likely to show moral courage
despite of possible negative social consequences. The second study, shed light on
mediating mechanisms: It was demonstrated that anger, awareness of the situation,
and responsibility take over mediated the intention to intervene. When prosocial
norms were made salient participants reported more anger, a higher awareness of
the situation and more responsibility take-over (i.e. they felt more responsible to
act). Anger, awareness of the situation, and responsibility take-over in turn fostered
the intention to show moral courage.
To sum up, the results of Osswald et al. (2008) go in line with the study of
Greitemeyer et al. (2006,), which already gave first hints about the importance of
norms for moral courage: Prosocial norms have the potential to foster moral
courage, but they have to be strongly activated in the forefront to display an effect.
12 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
anger, but not of moral outrage. They admit, however, that a clear distinction
between the moral outrage and empathic anger is best (if not exclusively) possible
by manipulation. Since in the studies by Greitemeyer et al. (2006), Niesta et al.
(2008), and Osswald et al. (2008b) did not manipulate but measured anger, no clear
statement can be made whether empathic anger or moral outrage was assessed.
Presumably, the anger measured by these studies includes parts of moral outrage
and of empathic anger. To draw a final conclusion more research is
needed.Altogether, linking anger with a prosocial behavior like moral courage seems
to be an interesting research area since in most cases, empathetic or caring
emotions are theoretically and empirically linked to prosocial behavior (for a review,
see Batson, 1998), whereas anger has been linked to aggression and antisocial
behavior (e.g., Weiner, Graham & Chandler, 1982; Zillmann, 1988).
13 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
responsibility the more they intervened. These data are in accord with other studies
and theoretical considerations (see Schmitt et al., 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Batson,
1998). Since a study by Bardi and Schwartz (2003) demonstrated a relationship
between values and behavior, it was also assessed whether values might be related
to moral courage. Conformity and tradition turned out to be of importance: The less
centrally participants regarded conformity and tradition as values for their life, the
more likely they intervened. It seems reasonable that the values conformity and
tradition correlate negatively with the act of intervention against discrimination. If a
person esteems conformity and tradition he or she will probably not advance
opposite views or argue with perpetrators.
Thus, a variety of dispositional variables has been shown to play a role for moral
courage. More research is needed, however, since most of the present studies only
assess the intention to show moral courage and not actual behavior (e.g. Kuhl, U.,
1986; Labuhn, et al, 2004). So far, we have argued that moral courage should be
separated from helping behavior and presented determinants which promote moral
courage. In the next section we will address the issue of whether theoretical models
for helping behavior can be used to predict moral courage or whether particular
models for moral courage should be established.
The training aims to impart practical knowledge and behavioral competencies similar
to first aid courses. First empirical evaluation of our moral courage training revealed
that participants perceive themselves after the workshop as more competent how to
react in an emergency and report more self-efficacy when faced with a situation that
demands moral courage.
14 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
fostered (Frey, Winkler, Fischer, Bruckmeier, Gloecker, Koenig, Mutz & Spies, 2007).
Thus, it seems possible to train moral courage.
2. Determine what moral values and ethical principles are at risk or in question of
being compromised.
6. Avoid stumbling blocks that might restrain moral courage, such as apprehension
or over reflection leading to reasoning oneself out of being morally courageous in the
situation.
15 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
1. Is there one situation in your life that your emotions clouded your
judgment? If yes, explain. (5pts.)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
2. Do you think once in your lifetime you became a morally
courageous person? Explain your answer.(5pts.)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
3. If you are a morally courageous person can you consider yourself a
hero? (5pts.)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
4. What do you think is the advantages of using moral courage in
ethical decision making? (5pts.)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
16 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
17 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain,
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what shall we do. On the other hand, the standard of right and wrong, on
the other, the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern
us all in we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off
our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may
pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while.
The principle of utility recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation
of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of
reason and of law.
The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure
and pain. On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as
guided by our avoidance of pain and pleasurable as good if, and only if, they
produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to
experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
18 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the
principle of utility, Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as
happiness and consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes
people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of
pleasure. The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those
that produce unhappiness and pain are bad. Mill explains:
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, utility or the greatest
happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By
happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and
the privation of pleasure. To give clear view of the moral standard set up by the
theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the
ideas of pain and pleasure, and what to what extent, this is left an open question.
But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this
theory of morality is grounded-namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the
only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in
the utilitarianism as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent
in themselves or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of
pain.
Clearly, Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them
pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are inherently pleasurable in
themselves or they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance
of pain. Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as
whatever produced happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step
is to understand the nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for
distinguishing pleasures and to calculate the resultant pleasure or pain; it is relation
to these aforementioned themes that a distinction occurs between Bentham and Mill.
What kind of pleasure is morally preferable and valuable? Are all pleasures
necessarily and ethically good? Does this mean that because eating or exercising is
good, it is morally acceptable to eat and exercise excessively? While utilitarian
supporters do not condone excessive pleasures while others are suffering, it cannot
be justified on utilitarian grounds why some persons indulge in extravagant pleasures
at the expense of others. Suppose nobody is suffering, it is morally permissible on
utilitarian principles to maximize pleasure wanton by intemperance? While Bentham
and Mill agree on the moral value of pleasure, they do not have the same view on
these questions.
19 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a
framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus.
Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that
some actions can produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the
basis of intensity or strength of pleasure; duration or length of pleasure; certainty,
uncertainty or likelihood that pleasure will occur; and propinquity, remoteness, or
how soon there will be pleasure. These indicators allow us to measure pleasure and
pain in an action. However, when we are to evaluate our tendency to choose these
actions, we need to consider two or more dimension: fecundity or the chance it has
of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and purity or the chance it has of
not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind. Lastly, when considering
number of persons who are affected by pleasure and pain, another dimension is to
be considered---extent. Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their
resultant pleasure. This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale
regardless of preferences and values. In this sense, pleasure and pain can only
quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from the other experiences of pleasure
and pain accordingly.
Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the
principle of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not merely
quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures
appropriate to pigs or any other animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual
pleasures and lower base pleasures. We, as moral agents, are capable of searching
and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs are capable of. We
undermine ourselves if we only and primarily desire sensuality; this is because we
are capable of higher intellectual pleasurable goods. For Mill, crude bestial pleasures,
which are appropriate for animals, are degrading to us because we are by nature not
easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs. Human pleasures are qualitatively different
from animal pleasures. It is unfair to assume that we merely pursue pleasures
appropriate for beasts even if there are instances when we choose to pursue such
base pleasures. To explain this, Mill recognizes the empirical fact that there are
different kind of pleasures.
It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that
some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would
be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as
quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity
alone.
20 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
In defending further the comparative choice between choice between
intellectual and bestial pleasures, Mill offers an imaginative thought experiment. He
ask whether a human person would prefer to accept the highly pleasurable life of an
animal while at the same time being denied of everything that makes him a person.
He thinks that few, if any, would give up human qualities of higher reason for the
pleasure of a pig. In the most quote in Mill’s Utilitarianism, we read:
Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor
happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our
actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made
happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is
not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including
our own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that
utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve
the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s
happiness, in fact the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Mill identifies the
21 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways as examples of
utilitarianism. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure
over displeasure for the greatest number. Because of the premium given to the
consequences of actions, Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in
evaluating actions:
He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right,
whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays
the friend that trust him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object to serve another
friend to whom he is under greater obligations. But to speak only of actions done
from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience to principle: it is misapprehension
of the utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as implying that people should fix
their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or society at large. The great
majority of good actions are intended, not for the benefit of the world, but for that of
individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most
virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons
concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he
is not violating the rights- that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations—of
anyone else.
Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequences for the highest number
of people. It is not interested with the intention of the agent. Moral values cannot be
discernible in the intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based
solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on the world’s total amount of
pleasure and pain. This leads us to question utilitarianism’s take of moral rights. If
actions are based only on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is it
justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of majority?
I have, throughout, treated the idea of a right residing in the injured person,
and violated by the injury, not as a separate element in the composition of the idea
and sentiment, but as one of the forms in which the other two elements clothe
themselves. These elements are, a hurt to some assignable person or persons on the
one hand, and a demand for punishment, on the other. An examination of our
minds, I think, will show that these two things include all that we mean when we
speak of violation of a right. When we call anything a person’s right, we mean that
he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by force
or law, or by that of education and opinion. If he has what we consider a sufficient
claim, on whatever account, to have something guaranteed to him by society, we
say that he has a right to it.
Mill expounds that abovementioned rights referred are related to the interests
that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free speech or
religion, and others are justified because they contribute to the general good. This
means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing
that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. Extending
this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such principles on
22 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting and
protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarian’s are also the
staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles in
as much as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness
resulting from their implementation.
Utilitarians argue that issues carry a very strong emotional import because
the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests.
All of these rights are predicted on the person’s right to life. Mill describes:
To have a right, then is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to
defend me in the possession of. If the object goes on to ask why it ought, I can give
him no other reason than general utility. If that expression does not seem to convey
sufficient feeling of the strength of the obligation, nor to account the peculiar energy
of the feeling, it is because there goes the composition of the sentiment, not a
rational only but also an animal element, the thirst for retaliation; and this thirst
derives its intensity, as well as its moral justification, from the extraordinary
important and impressive kind of utility which is concerned. The interest involved is
that of security, to everyone’s feelings the most vital of interest.
It is mostly considered unjust to deprive any one of his liberty, his property,
or anything which belongs to him by law. Here, therefore, is one instance of the
application of terms just and unjust in a perfectly definite sense, namely, that it is
just to respect, unjust to violate, the legal rights of anyone. But this judgement
admits of several exceptions, arising from other forms in which the notions of justice
and injustice present themselves. For example, the person who suffers the
deprivation may have forfeited the rights which he is so deprived of: a case to which
we shall return presently…
Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points
out that when legal rights are morally justified in accordance to the greatest
happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected.
This is likely saying that there are instances when the law is not morally justified
and, in this case even objectionable. Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally
permissible to not follow, even violate, an unjust law. The implication is that those
who protest over political policies of a morally objectionable government act in a
morally obligatory way. While this is not always preferred, Mill thinks that it is
commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the sake
of promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict between moral and legal
rights, Mill points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights.
While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice
to violate an individual’s moral rights. However, Mill seems to provide some
extenuating circumstances in which some moral rights can be overridden for the
23 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
sake of the greater general happiness. Going back to the case of wire tapping, it
seems that one’s right to privacy can be sacrificed for the sake of the common good.
This means that moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of greater overall
happiness. He qualifies moral rights in this way:
All persons are deemed to have right to have a right quality of treatment,
except when some recognized social expediency requires the reserve. And hence all
social inequalities which have ceased to be considered expedient, assume the
character not of simple how they could have been tolerated; forgetful that they
themselves perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of
expediency, the correction of which would make that which they approve seem quite
as monstrous as what they have at least learnt to condemn.
The idea of justice supposes two things; a rule of conduct and a sentiment
which sanctions the rule. The first must be supposed common to all mankind, and
intended for their good. The other sentiment is desire that punishment may be
suffered by those who infringe the rule. There is involved, in addition, the conception
of some definite person who suffers by the infringement; whose rights are violated
by it. And the sentiment of justice appears to me to be, the animal desire to repel or
retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself, or to those with one sympathizes, widened so
as to include all persons, by the human capacity or enlarged sympathy, and the
human conception of intelligent self-interest. From the latter elements, the feeling
derives its morality; from the former, its peculiar impressiveness, and energy of self-
assertion.
24 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
25 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
What do the words natural and unnatural mean?” Sometimes, the word
“natural” seems to be used to refer to some kind of intuition that a person has, one
which is apparently trueto him that is unquestioned. For example, a woman may
claim that it is simply “unnatural” to eat insect, and what this means is that she
personally finds herself averse to the idea of doing so. In other instances, the word is
used to try to justify a certain way of behaving by seeing it’s likeness somewhere in
natural world. For example, a man might claim that it is okay for him to have more
than one sexual partner, since, in a pride of lions, the alpha male gets to mate with
all the she-lions. In yet other instances, the word “natural” is used as an appeal to
something instinctual without it being directed by reason. For example, a man may
deem it all right if he were to urinate just anywhere because after all he sees it as
“natural” function of humans. Lastly, we also easily find people using the word
“natural” to refer to what sees common to them given their practical environment.
For instance, a Filipina may suppose that eating three full meals of rice and ulam
everyday is what is “natural” because everyone she knows behaves in that way.
Given these varied meanings of the term “natural”, we need to find a more
solid and nuanced way to understand the term. Thomas Aquinas emphasized the
capacity for reason as what is essential in our human nature. This understanding of
human nature anchored on our capacity for reason will become the basis of the
natural law theory, a theory which will provide us a unique way of determining the
moral status of our actions.
Thomas Aquinas
There have been various thinkers and systems of thought emerging
throughout the history that could be said to present a natural law theory. Among
them, the one we will be focusing on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has
to be recognized, however that this natural law theory is part of larger discussion,
which is his moral theory taken as a whole. This moral theory in turn, is part of a
larger project, which is Aquinas vision of the Christian Faith. Before we turn to the
natural law theory, let us take a look at these contexts.
26 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
The Context of Aquinas’s Ethics
A full consideration of Aquinas’s ethics would require us to explore his
discussion of other matters, such as how, in our pursuit of happiness; we direct our
actions toward specific ends. We might explore how emotions—“the passions”—are
involved in this process, and therefore require a proper order if they are properly
contribute to a good life. We might explore how our actions are related to certain
dispositions in dynamic way since our actions both arise from our habits and at the
same time reinforce them. We might explore his discussion of how we develop either
good or bad habits with a good disposition leading us toward making moral choices,
thereby contributing to our moral virtue, and a bad disposition inclining us toward
making immoral choices, bringing us to vice. The Christian life, therefore , is about
developing the capacities given to us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined
toward the good.
Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our
moral thinking. This does not refer to some simple intuition or gut feeling. For
Aquinas, there is a sense of right and wrong in us that we are obliged to obey.
However, he also adds that this sense of right and wrong must be informed, guided,
and ultimately grounded in an objectives basis for morality.
So, we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop
and maintain a life of virtue. We need a basis for our conscience to be properly
informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make
lead us toward virtue or vice. Being told that one should heed one’s conscience or
that one should try to be virtuous, does very little to guide people as to what
specifically should be done in a given situation. Thus, there is a need for a clearer
basis of ethics, a ground that will more concretely direct our sense of what is right
and wrong. For Aquinas, this would be the natural law.
We can recall how the ethical approach called the divine command theory
urges a person toward unthinking obedience to religious precepts. Given the
problems of this simplistic approach to ethics, we can contrast how the moral theory
of Aquinas requires the judicious use of reason. In doing so, one’s sense of right and
wrong would be grounded on something stable: human nature itself.
God creates. This does not only means that he bring about beings, but it also
means that He cares for, and thus governs, the activity of the universe and of every
creature. This central belief of the Christian faith, while inspired by divine revelation,
has been shaped and defined by an idea stated in the work of the ancient Greek
philosopher Plato, which have been put forward a thousand years before Aquinas. He
is credited for giving the subsequent history of philosophy in one of its most
compelling and enduring ideas: the notion of a supreme and absolutely transcendent
good.
In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision
the ideal society. But that plan is only a part of a more fundamental concern that
animates the text which is to provide an objective basis and standard for the striving
to be moral. In other words, it can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions
such as, “Why should I bother trying to be good?” and “Why cannot ‘good’ be just
whatever I say it is?” His answer, placed in the mouth of the main character
27 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Socrates, is that the good is real and not something that one can pretend to make
up or ignore.
Socrates, in discussing this, elevates the notion of the good to unprecedented
heights:
Readers of The Republic have been long baffled by this enigmatic passage
and are still trying to figure out how exactly to interpret it. Rather than be dismissed,
this idea of the good—a good which is prior to all being is even the cause of all
being—will be become a source of fascination and inspiration to later thinkers even
to this day.
In these next centuries, after Plato’s time, scholars turned to his texts and
tried to decipher the wealth of ideas contained there. Because they saw their task as
basically clarifying and elaborating on what the great thinker had already written,
these later scholars are often labelled as Neoplatonists.
In the hands of the Neoplatonists, Plato’s idea of good, which is the source of
all beings, becomes identified with One and Beautiful. This is the ultimate reality,
which is the oneness that will give rise to the municipality of everything else in the
cosmos. All these beings have single goal, which is to return to that unity.
Still, do not, I urge you, look for The Good through any of these other things;
if you d, you will see not itself but its trace: you must form the idea of that which is to
be grasped cleanly standing to itself not in any combination, the unheld in which all
have hold; for no other is such, yet one such there must be.
Now it is clear that we cannot possess ourselves of the power of this principle
in its concentrated fullness: so to do one must be identical with it: but some partial
attainment is within our reach.
28 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
You who make the venture will throw forward all your being but you will never tell it
entire—for that, you must yourself be the divine intellect in Act—and at your utmost success
it will still pass from you or, rather, you from it. In ordinary vision you may think to see the
object entire: in this intellective act, all, less or more, that you can take to mind you may set
down as The Good.
It is The Good since, being a power, it is the cause of the intelligent and intellective
life as of life and intellect; for these grow from it as from the source of essence and of
existence, the Source as being One, simplex and first because before it was nothing. All
derives from this; it is origin of the primal movement which it does not possess and of the
repose which is but its absence of need; for neither rest nor movement can belong to that
which has no place in which either could occur; center, object, ground, all are alike
unknown to it, for it before all. Yet its Being is not limited; what is there to set bounds to it?
Nor, on the other hand, is it infinite in sense of magnitude; what place can there be which it
must extend, or why should there be movement where there is no lacking? All its infinitude
resides in its power; it does not change and will not fail; and it all that is unfailing finds
duration.
Through Neoplatonists like Plotinus, the Platonic idea of the good would continue
well into the Christian Middle Age, inspiring later thinkers and allowing it to be
thought a new in a more personal way as a creative and loving God.
First, we recognize that any being we can see around is corporeal, possessed
of a certain materiality or physical “stuff”. We can refer to this as the material cause.
A being is individuated--- it becomes the unique, individual being that it is—because
it is made up of this particular stuff. Yet, we also realize that this material takes on a
particular shape: so a bird is different from a cat, which is different from man. The
“shape” that makes a being a particular kind can be called it’s form. Thus, each
being also has a formal cause.
One can also realize that a being does not simply “pop up” from nothing, but
comes from another being which is prior to it. Parents beget a child. A mango tree
used to be a seed that itself came from an older tree. A chair is built as the product
of a carpenter. Thus, there is something which brings about the presence of another
being. This can be referred to as the efficient cause. Also, since being has an
apparent end or goal, a chair to be sat on, a pen for writing, a seed to become an
adult, one can speak of the final cause of each being. Identifying these four causes—
material, formal, efficient, and final—gives a way to understand any being.
29 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
These potencies are latent in the puppy and are actualized as the puppy grows up
and achieves what is supposed to be. The process of becoming –or change—can
thus be explained in this way. Understanding beings, how they are and how they
become or what they could be, is the significant Aristotelian contribution to the
picture which will be given to us by Aquinas.
Synthesis
The idea of a transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in
the form of the good and loving God, who is Himself the fullness of being and of
goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially good.
So, we recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in the first being,
which is God Himself. God’s act, like an emanation of light, is the creation of beings.
Insofar as God is that from which all beings come, it is possible for us to
speak of Him as the first efficient cause. Insofar as God is that toward which all
beings seek to return, it is possible to speak of Him as the final cause. We see here
the beginning of the synthesis by noting how the Neoplatonic movement from and
back toward the transcendent is fused with the Aristotelian notion of causes.
However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the
goodness possessed by being remains imperfect. “For Aquinas, only God in the
fullness of His being and goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this
goodness, and are good to that extent, but are imperfects since they are limited in
their participation. “But, once again, God did not create us to simply be imperfect
and to stay that way as He leave us alone. Instead, God, in His infinite wisdom,
directs how we are arrived at our perfection. The notion of divine providence refers
to how beings are properly ordered and even guided toward their proper end; this
end, which is for them to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine
goodness itself.
Beings are created by God in a particular way. It is not accidental how beings
emerge into existence; each being is created as a determinate substance, as a
particular combination of form and matter. This applies to all beings, including man.
The particular form determines the materiality which makes a being a certain kind of
being; the unique way that we have been created can be called our nature.
30 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him, the way the
human being is directed toward God is unique. Given that we are beings with a
capacity for reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving him. It is of
key importance then that the presence of a capacity for reason is the very tool which
God had placed in our human nature as the way toward our perfection and return to
Him.
This applies not only to an individual human being, but also to all humankind.
But we should not forget how the whole community of being, which is the universe
itself, is directed toward its return to God. This is not, as mentioned earlier, an
unthinking process, but is the very work of divine reason itself or God’s will. We can
think, then, of the whole work of creation as divine reason governing a community
toward it end. Under the governance of the Divine, beings are directed as to how
their acts are to lead them to their end, which is to return to Him. We shall now try
to understand this dynamic once again, but this time think of it terms of law.
Essence
As rational beings, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are
able to judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in one way or
the other. Our actions are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we desire.
We work on a project to complete it. We study in order to learn. For example, your
mother bakes in order to come up with some cookies. These are goods, and we act
in a certain way to pursue them, so goods are sometimes referred to as the ends of
actions.
There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act in such ways as
to pursue them. However, just because we think that a certain end is good and is
therefore desirable does not necessarily mean it is indeed good. It is possible to first
suppose that something is good only to realize later that doing so was a mistake.
This is why it is important for reason to always be part of the process. Acts are
rightly directed toward their ends by reason. But this does not simply mean that
through reason we can figure out how to pursue something that we already know
had thoughtlessly supposed to be good for us.
In thinking about what is good for us, it is also quite possible that we end up
thinking exclusively of our own good. Aquinas reminds us that this will not do; we
cannot simply act in pursuit of our ends or good without any regard for other
people’s ends or good. We are not isolated beings, but beings who belong to a
community. Since we belong to a community, we have to consider what is good for
the community as well as well as our own good. This can be called the common
good.
What exactly the common good is might not always be easy to determine as
the there are many variables to consider, such as the particular community we are
thinking of or the particular ends that the community is pursuing. But that need not
occupy us right now. What is of greater significance for us here is the recognition
that, since we must considered not just our own good but also that of others, we
cannot act in just any which way; there would have to be some kind of measure to
31 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
our acts. It is good for us to not simply be free to act in whatever way we like. We
should recognize the proper measure or the limits in our actions that would allow us
to direct our acts in such a way that we can pursue ends, both our own and also that
of others, together. The determination of the proper measure of our acts can be
referred to as law.
Using a simple example, we can think of traffic rules. A motorist cannot just
drive in any way he likes, but must respect traffic rules. These rules seem to
measure or place a limit on his driving, for example, by placing a maximum speed he
can travel on a particular road. Such a limit or such a rule is something good, for
both him and for others as it helps prevent motor accidents. As Aquinas puts it, the
law must regard properly the relationship to universal happiness.
Now, in thinking about community, what if we thought more grandly, not just
a small group, a class, a city, or even a country? What if we think of vast community
which is the entire universe in it, or in other words, all of being? Is there Someone in
charge of this community, guiding all toward their common good and directing all
with His wisdom.
Varieties
We have noted earlier how God, by His wisdom, is the Creator of all beings.
By saying this, we do not only recognize God as the source of these beings, but also
acknowledge the way they have been created and the way they could return to Him,
which is the work of His divine reason itself. This includes the proper measure
governing the acts of these beings. Aquinas writes: “He governs all the acts and
movements that are to be found in each single creature, so the type of Divine
Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end, bears the character of law”. This line
involves the assertion that the divine wisdom that directs each being toward its
proper end can be called the eternal law.
32 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Eternal law refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it is
intended to return to Him. Given our limitations, we cannot grasp the fullness of the
eternal law. Nevertheless, it is not completely opaque to us. We must recognize that
first, we are part of the eternal law, and second, we participate in it in a special way.
All things partake in the eternal law, meaning, all beings are already created
by God in a certain way intended to return to Him. Thus, we can find in them the
very imprint of the rule and measure of the acts by which they are guided. These
can be determined in the very inclinations that they possess, directing their acts
towards their proper ends.
Aquinas points out that while reflecting on our human nature will provide us
the precepts of the natural law, these are quite general and would have to be made
more specific, and at the same time more concrete in the actual operation of human
acts. For this reason, there is also human law.
Human law refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and
enforce laws in their communities. Given the larger picture of Aquina’s view, one
would have a basis for assessing the validity or invalidity of human law: whether or
not it conforms to the natural law. Insofar as human law goes against what nature
inclines us toward, it is not properly speaking a law---in the ideal sense of directing
us to the common good---but instead is unjust and can be called a matter of
violence.
Finally, Aquinas asks us to recall that there is a certain form of happiness that
is proportionate to our human nature, which we can obtain by means of our nature
principles. However, there also is another, more complete, happiness that surpasses
human’s nature, a supernatural happiness that can be obtained through the power of
God alone. To direct us toward our supernatural end, we had been given further
instructions in the form of divine law. This term, often confused with eternal law,
33 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
refers specifically to the instances where we have precepts or instruction that come
from divine revelation. For example, we have what is handed down to us in the
sacred Scriptures (e.g., the Ten Commandments in the book Exodus in the Old
Testament or Jesus’s injuction to love one’s neighbour in the Gospels).
While this necessary for Aquinas as he sees our end as the blessed return to
God, it is not our concern here insofar as, given that our concern is ethics, one need
not rely on the divine law in order to be moral. Of interest then about this natural
law theory of Aquinas is that while it is clearly rooted in a Christian vision, it is
grounds as sense of morality not on that faith but on human nature. Aquinas writes:
“So then no one can know the eternal law, as it is in its reflection, greater or
less…Now all men know the truth to a certain extent, at least as the common
principles of the natural law…
Natural Law
34 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Common with Other Beings
In reading Aquinas, we have to consider how we, human beings, are both
unique and at the same time participating in the community of the rest of creation.
Our presence in the rest of creation does not only mean that we interact with
creatures that are not human but there is also in our nature something that shares in
the nature of other beings.
Aquinas thus identifies first that there is in our nature, common with all other
beings, a desire to preserve one’s own being. A makahiya leaf folds inward and
protects itself when touched. A cat cowers and then tries to run away when it feels
threatened. Similarly, human beings have that natural inclination to preserve their
being. For this reason, Aquinas tells us that it is according to natural law to preserve
human life. We can thus say that it would be violation of the natural law, and
therefore unethical to take the life of another. Murder for instance, would be a clear
example of a violation of natural law. On the controversial note, it seems that taking
one’s own life would be unacceptable, even in the form of physician-assisted suicide.
On a more positive note, we can confidently posit that acts that promote the
continuation of life are to be lauded as ethical because they are in line with the
natural law.
Aquinas then goes on to say that there is in our human nature, common with
other animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s
offspring. As a matter of fact, animals periodically engage in sexual intercourse at a
specific time of “heat” and this could result in offspring. In human beings, too, that
natural inclination to engage in the sexual act and to reproduce exists.
The intrinsic connection between the sexual act and fecundity gives rise to a
number of notions of what is acceptable and unacceptable in varying degrees of
contentiousness. An ethical issue that is hotly contested in some parts of the world is
whether abortion is acceptable. From the stance of the natural law, the act of
preventing the emergence of new life would be considered unacceptable. Not so
controversial perhaps, would be the claims that we could more easily make about
hoe it is good to care for the young, to make sure that they are fed, sheltered, and
educated. On the other hand, it is bad to abuse the young, to force children into
hard labor or to deprived them of basic needs or otherwise abused them in physical
or emotional way.
With regard to the sexual act, the moral judgements get more volatile. This
argument seems to provide ground for rejecting various forms of contraception since
these allow for the sexual act to take place, but inhibit procreation. This also seems
to justify the claim that any form of sexual act that could lead to more offspring must
be considered deviant. One of these is the homosexual act.
35 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
rudimentary scientific of his time) believed. Another question is whether there must
be a necessary connection between the act of sexual intercourse and procreation.
UNIQUELY HUMAN
After the first two inclinations, presents a third reason which states that we
have an inclination to good according to the nature of our reason. With this, we have
a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society. It is of
interest that this followed by matters of both an epistemic and a social concern. The
example given to us of what would be in line this inclination are to shun ignorance
and to avoid offending those people with whom one lives. We could surmise on this
basis that acts of deception or fraud would be unacceptable to Aquinas. This, as
mentioned, is surmise because this is not something we are told directly by Thomas.
First, we have been elaborate with these three inclinations as bases for moral
valuation. In light of this, we know that preserving self is good. Contrary to common
misconception, the sexual inclination and sexual act are considered good things, not
something to be deplored or dismissed. However, reason is not only another
inclination that we have in par with others. Instead, reason is the defining part of
human nature. Tomas tells us that there is priority among the powers our soul, with
the intellectual directing and commanding our sensitive and nutritive capacities.
What this amount to is the need to recognize that while our other inclinations are
goods, as they are in our nature , what it means to be human is, precisely to
exercise our reason in our consideration of how the whole self would be comported
toward the good.
36 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
37 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Introduction
During the flag ceremony of that Monday morning, January 24, 2017, the
mayor of Baguio City awarded a certificate from the City Government that
commended Reggie Cabututan for his “extraordinary show of honesty in the
performance of their duties or practice of profession. “Reggie is a taxi driver who,
just three days before the awarding, drove his passenger, an Australian name Tent
Shields, to his workplace. The foreigner, having his little sleep and was ill the
previous day, left his suitcase inside the taxi cab after he reached his destination.
The suitcase contained a laptop, passport, and an expensive pair of headphones,
which Trent claimed amounted to around ₽260,000.
Consider closely the moment when Reggie found that Trent had left a
suitcase in his taxi cab: if he were return the suitcase, there was no promise of an
award from the City Government of Baguio and no promise of a reward from the
owner. What if he took suitcase and sold its content? That could surely help him
supplements his daily wages. Life as a taxi driver in the Philippines is not easy. A
little extra cash would go long way to put food on the table and to pay tuition fee for
his children.
Yet, Reggie returned the suitcase without the promise of a reward. Why?
Perhaps, he had previously returned lost luggage to passengers. Maybe, it was his
first time to do so. Maybe, he received a reward before, or maybe he knows some
fellow taxi drivers who did or did not receive rewards from passengers after they
returned lost luggage. However, the point is that there was no promise of a reward.
A reward, in the first place, is not an entitlement. It is freely given as an unrequired
gift for one’s service or effort. Otherwise, it would be a payment, not a rewar, if
someone demanded it.
Why did Reggie return the suitcase? For now, let us suppose his main reason
are simply because it was right to return lost property to the rightful owner, no
matter how tempting it is to keep it for oneself. Is it possible that Reggie’s reason for
returning the luggage was not because of any reward whether psychic or physical?
“It simply the right thing to do,” Reggie might have told himself.
What if Reggie did not return the suitcase, destroyed the lock, then took and
sells its valuable contents? What is wrong about keeping and benefiting from the
valuable that someone misplaced? “It his fault, he was mindless and careless,
“Reggie could have thought. As the saying goes: Finders keepers, losers weepers.
On one hand, Reggie could have mused: “He will learn to be more mindful of his
things from now on.” Yet Reggie returned the suitcase without the promise of a
reward.
As we previously said, perhaps, Reggie believed that it was the right thing to
do. Even if he felt that he could have benefited from the sale of the valuable items in
38 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
the suitcase he must have believed the principle that it is right to the right thing.
Reggie could say holding on this moral conviction as a principle of action.
The moral that evaluates actions are done because of duty is called
deontology. Deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which means “being
necessary”. Hence deontology refers to the study of duty and obligation. The main
proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant (1742-1804). He was a German
Enlightenment philosopher who wrote one of the most important works on moral
philosophy, Groundworks towards Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In this work, Kant
brings our attention to the fact that the human beings have the faculty called rational
will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we determine for
ourselves.
On the other hand, people are also rational. Rationality consists of the mental facts
to constructs ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate surroundings. This
is the capacity for mental abstraction, which arises from the operations of the faculty
of reason. Thus, we have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing. We
can remove ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our surroundings and reflect
on our actions and how such actions affect the world. We can imagine a different
and better world, and create mental images of how we interact with other people in
that world. In the same way, an architect “first” constructs her blueprint of a house
in her mind. When the draft of that construction is drawn, she can then give
instructions to masons and carpenters on how to build the actual house, which
becomes the “second” construction. This happens often in our lives such as when
young girls puts on her nice dress and makeup, when a student writes the outline for
an English essay, or when painter makes initial sketches on a canvass. The first
39 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
construction consists in how we imagine things can be, then we implement that in
the second construction. Through the capacity for imagination and reflection, we
conceive of how we could affect, possible even change, the world we live in.
Thus, we do not only have the capacity to imagine and construct mental
images, but we also have the ability to enact and make real those mental images.
This ability to enact our thoughts is the basis for the rational will. The rational will
refers to the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a manner that is consistent
with our reasons. As far as we know, animals only act according to impulses, based
on their natural instincts. Thus, animals “act” with immediacy (from Latin: I +
medus, or “no middle”) with nothing that intervenes between the impulse and the
action. They do not and cannot deliberate on their actions. In fact, we may say that
animals do not “act” they only “react” to their external surroundings and internal
impulses. In contrast, we humans have reason, which intervenes between impulse
and act. We have the ability to stop and think about what we are doing to evaluate
our actions according to principle. Simply stated, we are not only reacting to our
surroundings and internal impulses but are also conceiving of ways to act according
to certain rational principles.
Right now, for example, you may feel lethargic. Your head feels heavy and
your eyes are droopy. The corresponding impulse is to close your eyes and then fall
asleep. However you’re rational will demand something else. Perhaps, you have to
finish reading this chapter for a quiz tomorrow. That quiz is part of the big picture,
that is, your formation as a student to earn a degree and do productive work. So you
struggle to stay awake; you stand up briefly to stretch your legs. You may have
taken some coffee. Right now, as you struggle to stay awake and understand the
words on this page, your rational will is victorious over your bodily impulses as long
as you stay awake. This demonstrates the triumph of your rational will, the capacity
of a person to be cause of her actions based on reasons and not merely to
mindlessly react to the environment and base impulses. In philosophical discussions
about human freedom, this capacity is called agency, which is the ability of a person
to act based on her intentions and mental states.
Let us go back to Reggie. The moment he discovered that Trent had left his
suitcase in the taxi cab, Reggie reacted according to his rational will to return the
suitcase. He determined that it was his duty to return it in as much as his rationalwill
had conceived such a duty.
AUTONOMY
Kant claims that the property of the rational will is autonomy which the
opposite of heteronomy. These three Greeks words are instructive: autos, heteros
and nomos, which mean “self”, “other”, and “law”, respectively. Hence, when we
40 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
combine auto and nomos, we got autonomy; heteros and nomos to heteronomy.
Crudely stated, autonomy means self-law (or self-legislating) and heteronomy means
other law.
Consider the trivial example of brushings one’s teeth, which is not yet a moral
dilemma but sufficient to explain the difference between autonomy and heteronomy.
When you were a child, did you like to brush your teeth? As far as we can tell,
children do not like to brush their teeth, but parents know that their children should,
to maintain oral hygiene. So parents try to find ways to get their small children o
brush their teeth before going to bed, using a variety of incentives or threats
undesirable consequence. “Hey Ryan”, a mother tell her boy, “go and brush your
teeth now or else your teeth will rot!” “Come on now Liza” a father tells his
daughter “If you brush your teeth in five minutes, I will let you play your computer
game tonight”. In the case of Ryan and Liza, are they autonomous? Certainly not, as
their parents are the ones that legislate the principle those children should brush
their teeth before they go bed and impose such a principle by using threats or
incentives.
Now think of about Ryan and Liza twenty years later when they are in their
mid-twenties. Suppose they brush their teeth every night before they go to bed, and
they do so without the prodding of their parents. At a certain point, perhaps when
they were growing up as teenagers, they both reflected on the whole business of
brushing one’s teeth. Both concluded that they (1) agree with the principle behind it
(oral hygiene) and thus, (2) every right they impose it upon themselves to their teeth
before going to bed. Number 1 refers to act of legislating a principle, while number
refers to the enacting of the principle. Thus, it also refers to the willing of the
adopted principle into reality. Are they autonomous? Yes, certainly. Kant describes
this as follows:
The will thus not only subject to the law, but it is also subject to law in such
way that it gives the law to itself (self-legislating) and primary just in this way they
will can be considered the author of the law under which it is subject.
The description of autonomy is unusual. When we think of someone being
“subject to the law”, we usually think of an imposing authority figure that uses his
power to control the subject into complying with his will. Imagine a policeman who
apprehends a suspected criminal by forcing him on the ground and putting handcuffs
on his wrists. Incidentally, “subject” comes from Latin words sub (under) and jacere
(to throw). When combined, the two words refer to that which is thrown or brought
under something. The will must comply with law, which is the authority figure.
Surprisingly though, the will must give the law to itself. Therefore, the will is,
at the same time, the authority figure giving the law to it. How the rational can will
be subordinate to that which is simultaneously its own authority figure? Isn’t that
contradictory to be subject to the law and yet also be the authority figure for itself?
Thus Kant describes autonomy as the will that is subject to a principle or law.
41 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
imposition of a law by an external authority (a person must brush their teeth before
going to bed). Their parents are the authority figures, and the law is imposed
externally by rewards or punishment. On the other hand, autonomy belongs to the
grown-up and already rational Ryan and Liza, who have adopted such a law about
brushing their teeth. They regularly impose such a law on themselves out of the
enactment of the will to follow the law.
The distinguishing point here is the locus of the authorship of the law. In any
given scenario where a person complies with the law, we ask where the author is,
whether it is external or internal. If the author of the law is external, the will
subjected to an external authority, thus heteronomous will. In contrast, if the author
was the will itself, imposing the law unto itself, then we describe the will as
autonomous. For the 25-year old version of Ryan and Liza who brush their teeth
before going to bed without any prompting from their parents, their adoption of the
childhood law about tooth brushing makes the locus of the authorship internal. Thus,
they are autonomous.
What do you think of Reggie principles that he should benefit from other
people loss because they are careless, and thus do not deserve to keep those things?
Is it still autonomous agency when a person enacts any apparently self-legislated
principle? We may argue that the locus of the authorship of the law was certainly
internal, when he tells himself, “I am entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase”,
based on how we have describes the difference between autonomy and heteronomy-
--self and other. Is that what autonomous properly means? Certainly not.
Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal
impulse. Take a close look at how he describes the distinction in this passage:
The choice that can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which is
determinable only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus) would be an animal
choice (arbitrium brutum). Human choice, in contrast, is a choice that may indeed be
42 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore in itself (without an
acquired skill of reason) not pure, can nevertheless be determined to do actions from
pure will.
Thus there is difference between what determines achoice or decision,
whether it is caused by sensible impulse or by pure reason. On one hand, sensible
impulses are usually bodily and emotional. Bodily instincts and desires, such as the
urge to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse, comprise the set of human
compulsions for survival and the propagation of species of the species. Emotions and
sentiments also make up what Kant considers sensible impulses. Practical examples
are the jealousy from seeing your girlfriend or boyfriend makes eyes at someone,
and the rage from being pushed foully by your opponent in a basketball game. As we
previously claimed, when we discussed the difference between animals and humans,
there is immediacy to sensible impulses. There is hardly anything that comes
between the stimulus and the reaction. Kant calls this set of actions that are caused
by sensible impulse animal choice or arbitrium brutum.
Let us return once again to Reggie and the alternative scenario when we tells
himself, “I am entitled to benefit from this lost suitcase.” Is Reggie acting
autonomously supposing he did not return the suitcase and instead sold its contents
for his own benefits? We asked this at the beginning of this section: It is always
autonomous agency when a person enacts any apparently self-legislated principle?
43 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Certainly not. The difference between human choice and animal choice is crucial to
giving a correct answer here. Autonomy is a property of the will only during
instances when the action is determined by pure reason. When the action is
determined by sensible impulses, despite the source of those impulses being
nevertheless internal, it is considered heteronomous ? Because a sensible impulses is
an “external” to one’s self-legislating faculty of reason. Kant confirms this point when
he states that the action caused by sensible impulses results always only in the
heteronomy of the will because it is what he calls “a foreign impulse”, insofar as the
will does not give itself the law.
But what consists in action that is done by an autonomous will insofar as the
cause of the action is pure reason? What does it mean to act according to pure
reason?
UNIVERSALIZABILITY
To figure out how the faculty of reason can be the cause of an autonomous
action, we need to learn a method or a specific procedure that will demonstrate
autonomy of the will. But before explaining this procedure, it will be helpful to first
make a distinction about kinds of moral theories, namely, substantive and formal
moral theories.
In contrast, a formal moral theory does not supply the rules or commands
straightaway. It does not tell you what you may do or may not do. Instead, a formal
moral theory provides us the “form” or “framework” or the moral theory. To provide
the “form” of a moral theory is to supply a procedure and the criteria for
determining, on one’s own, the rules and moral commands. Metaphorically, we can
think of a cookbook, we are given instructions on how to cook certain dishes, but we
are not given the actual food themselves, which would be “substantive”. In following
a recipe a recipe for sinigang, for example, we may add a slight variation to the
ingredients and sequence of steps. But if we the dish to remain sinigang and not
transform it into some other kind of viand like pchero, we need to follow the steps
relevant to making sinigang. To be exact, a formal moral theory will not give us a list
44 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
of rules or commands. Instead, it will give us a set of instruction on how to make a
list of duties or moral commands.
Kant endorses this formal kind of moral theory. The Grundlegung zur
Metaphysik der Sitten, which he wrotein 1785, embodies a formal theory in what he
calls the categorical imperative, which provides a procedural way of identifying the
rightness or wrongness of an action. Kant articulates the categorical imperative this
way:
Act only according to such maxim, by which you can act at once will that it
become a universal law.
There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative
namely, action, maxim, will and universal law. Kant states that we must formulate an
action as a maxim, which he defines as a “subjective principle of action”. In this
context, a maxim consist of a “rule” that we live by in our day-to-day lives, but it
does not have the status of law or a moral command that binds us to act in a certain
way. Rather, maxims depict the patterns of our behaviour. Thus, maxims are akin to
the “standard operating procedures” (SOPs) in our lives. We act according to a
variety of maxims, even if we are not aware of them. Actually, we become aware of
our maxims when we talk about ourselves, when we reveal our habits and reason
behind them. For example, we tell our friends what we ordinarily do in a certain
specific situations: When the exam week begins, I go to mass so that will be blessed
with good luck. Whenever I meet my crush, I wear my hair in braid so that he will
notice me. These usually personal “policies” that may or may not be unique to us,
but we act according to these maxims nonetheless. This is why Kant calls a maxim a
subjective principle of action. We have many maxims in our daily lives, and we live
according to them.
45 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
This is a specific act under the general category of acts called false promising. Kant
says that the man would be like to make such a promise, but he stops and asks
himself if what he is about to do is right or wrong: Is it really wrong to borrow
money without intending to pay it back? If we were to formulate this act as a maxim,
it would go this way: “When I am need of money, I shall borrow it even when I knw
I cannot pay it back.”
46 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
“could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be consistent itself with itself,
but must necessarily contradict itself”. Thus we conclude that the act of borrowing
money without intending to pay is rationally impermissible. Here, we discover two
ways by which Kant rejects maxims. The universalized maxim becomes either (1) self
contradictory or (2) the act and its purpose become impossible.
47 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
Question: Do you think you have important duty and obligation in our
society?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
48 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
An online news account narrates key officials from both legislative and
executive branches of the government voicing out their concern on the possible ill
effect 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 then Department f 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. Ultimately, for Bro. Luistro to regulate television programs would help in
the development of children’s values.
Mature individuals are aware that it is vital children to go through the process
of building their personality, identity, or character. How does the continuous
exposure to violence on television affect the character that children develop? Is it
possible that constant watching violence on television results in aggression among
children? What is the role of the child’s environment in her capacity to develop into
good individual? These questions are real concerns that society needs to address.
Perhaps, it is best to look closely at how good moral character is developed among
individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this? One theory that can
possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual can develop
moral character is virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good
as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. Previous chapters
emphasized different aspects of ethics: consequences of an act, utilitarianism,
natural inclinations for natural law, and autonomy for deontology. Virtue ethics, on
the other hand, focuses on the formation of one’s character brought about by
determining and doing virtuous act. The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato,
49 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Aristotle, had discourse concerning virtue. But Aristotle’s book entitled Nicomachean
Ethics is the first comprehensive and Programmatic study of virtue ethics.
For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but
can somehow be grasped by one’s intellect. The truth and ultimately, the good are in
the sphere of forms or ideas transcending daily human condition. On the other hand,
for Aristotle, the real is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the
world. What makes nature intelligible is its character of having both form and matter.
Therefore, the truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not
independent of our experience.
When one speaks of the truth, for example, how
beautiful Juan Luna’s Spoliarium is, she cannot
discuss its beauty separately from the particular
painting itself. Same is true with understanding
the good: the particular act of goodness that one
does in the world is more important than any
conception of the good that is outside and beyond
the realm of experience. One sees the ethical
theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day Aristotle(384-322 BCE)
to day living. Aristotle was born in Macedonia and
studied philosophy under Plato in Athens.
HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE He was considered to be brightest among
Plato’s students in the former’s school,
Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by the Academy. He later founded his own
showing that every act that a person does is school, Lyceum, where he became a very
directed toward a particular purpose, aim, or what productive intellectual, having written
the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one numerous works on different topics such
does something, and for Aristotle, a person’s as the theoretical and practical sciences,
manifests a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit and logic. He was also known the tutor of
of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for Alexander the Great who tried to conquer
the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance the world. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
to the body. A person pursues a chosen career, is his major work in moral philosophy.
aiming for a good, that is, to provide a better future
for her family. A person will not do anything which is not beneficial t her. Even drug
user “thinks” that substance abuse will cause her good. Therefore, for Aristotle, the
good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.
One must understand that an individual does an actions and pursuits in life
and correspondingly each of these activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware
that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose but also believes such
purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be used to
achieve an even higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods that
one pursues form a hierarchy of teloi (plural form of telos). Aristotle says:
50 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
…But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, other are
products apart from the 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 many actions, arts, and sciences and their ends also are many; the end of
the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that f
economics wealth. 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 way others fall
under yet others- in all of these, the ends of the masters arts are to be preferred to
all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former the latter is pursued.
When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by
the teacher, she does this for the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of
the course. This purpose of remembering, in turn, becomes an act to achieve a
higher aim which is to pass the examinations given by the teacher, which then
becomes a product that can help the person attain the goal of having a passing mark
in the course. It is important for Aristotle’s that one becomes clear of the hierarchy
of goals that the different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which
actions are higher than the other.
With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about
the highest purpose, which is the ultimate good of human being. Aristotle discusses
the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man. First, the
highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer utilized for the
sake of arriving at a much higher end. In our example above, the purpose of
remembering the lessons in the course, that is why one writes down notes, is not the
final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher
goal. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self sufficient. Satisfaction in life
is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after and
desired, once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already considered as
the best possible good in life. Again, in the example given above, the goal of
remembering the lesson in the course is not yet the best possible good because a
person can still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life.
So what is the highest goal for Aristotle? What goal is both final and self-
sufficient? It is interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question can only be
adequately answered by order individuals because they have gone through
enormous and challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of
knowledge on what the ultimate purpose of a person is. According to Aristotle, older
individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of man is
happiness, or for the Greeks, eudaimonia. Aristotle says:
Now such a thing happens, above 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 nothing resulted from
them we should still choose each 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.
51 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit criterion of being the final
end of a human being. For it is clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and
pleasure are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being means to achieve
happiness for one accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just
richness but also power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and
pleasures. But all of these ends are ultimately for the sake of final end which is
happiness. In itself, happiness seems to be the final end and the highest good of a
person seems to be final end and the highest good of a person since no ther superior
end is still being desired for.
Aristotle continues in saying that happiness is also the self- sufficient end. He
says:
Let us examine this questions, however , on other occasion; the self-sufficient
we now define as that which isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing and
such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things,
without being counted as one good thing among others—if it were so counted, it
would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for
that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and goods, the greater is always
more desirable.
Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for.
No amount of wealth or power can be more fulfilling than having achieved the
condition of happiness. One can imagine a life being wealthy, powerful and
experiencing pleasurable feelings and yet, such life is still not satisfying without
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.
Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and
good that humans aspire for, there are various opinions on what specifically is the
nature of the ultimate telos of a person. One is that happiness is attached with
having wealth and power. Others associate happiness with feelings that are
pleasurable. Some take nobler things like honor and other ideals as constitutive of
happiness. For Aristotle, arguing for or against every opinion proves to be a futile
attempt to arrive at the nature of happiness. Instead, Aristotle shows that one can
arrive at the ultimate good by doing one’s function well.
52 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
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 t one, the other in the sense of possessing one and
exercising thought.
Aristotle says:
…Now, if the function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or
implies a rational principle, and if we say “a so-and so” and “a good so-and-so” have
a function which is the same in kind, for example, a lyre player, and so without
qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name
of the function (for the function of a lyre player is to play the lyre, and that of good
lyre player is to do so well): if is this case, (and we state the function of man to be
certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions f the soul implying a rational
principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance f
these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with
the appropriate excellence. If this is the case) human good turns out be activity of
soul in accordance to virtue , and if there is more than one virtue, in accordance with
the best and most complete.
VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE
53 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by single act. It is
commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle blower, exposing
all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be careful in
judgement of calling immediately that individual as being a “person of virtue.” 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 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.
For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts: the irrational element and the
rational faculty. The irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and
appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspects of the soul follows the natural processes
involved in the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the appetitive
aspects work as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse
that naturally runs counter to reason and most f the time refuses t go along with
reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse,
for example is so strong that one tends to ignore reasonable demands to control
such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect, the desiring faculty of man can
be subjected to reason. Aristotle says, “…Now, even this seems to have a share in
the rational principle…” Desires are subject to reason even though these do not arise
from the rational part of the soul.
In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. One can
rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided
into two aspects: moral, which use concerns the act of doing, and intellectual, which
concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the functionof
reason is exercised.
One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual
faculty of the soul. As stated by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through
teaching. Through time, one learns from the vast experiences in life where she gains
knowledge on these things. 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 (e.g., general theory
on the origins of the things). It helps one understand in general the meaning of life.
Practical wisdom, on the other hand, is an excellence in knowing the right conduct in
carrying out a particular act. In other words, one can attain a wisdom that can
provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives.
In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of
practical wisdom in steering the self toward the right choices and actions. 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 make
54 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
someone already morally virtuous. 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. This distinction draws
a sharp contrast between Aristotle’s understanding of the dynamics of knowledge
and action from that of Socrates’s view that knowledge already contains the ability of
choice or action. Aristotle says:
…This is why some say that all the virtues are forms of practical wisdom and
why Socrates, in one respect, was on the right track while in another, he went
astray; in thinking that all the virtues were form of practical wisdom, he was wrong,
but in saying they implied practical wisdom, he was right. This is confirmed by the
fact that even now all men, when they define virtue, after naming the state of a
character and it’s objects, add “that (state) which is in accordance with the right
rule”; now the right rule is that which is in accordance with practical wisdom. All
men, seem somehow to divine that this kind of state is virtue, viz., that which is in
accordance with practical wisdom.
It seems that for Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of
intellectual excellence. Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally
virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual excellence does not
necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the
good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to
accomplish.
Again, of all things that come to us, by nature, we first acquire the
potentiality and later exhibit the activity (this is plain in the case of the senses; fr it
was not by often seeing or often hearing that we got these senses, but on the
contrary we had them before we used them, and did not come to have them by
using them); but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the
case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we
learn by doing them.
Any craft that one does can be perfected by habitually doing the right action
necessary to be good in a particular craft. Being a good basketball player, for
example, involves constant training and endless hours of shooting the ball and the
right tempo in dribbling the ball. It is only when she properly plays basketball
consistently that she will be recognized as a good basketball player.
The same is true with moral virtue. A moral person habitually chooses the
good and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and
doing the good that a person is able to form her character. It is through one’s
character that others know a person. Character then becomes the identification mark
of the person. For instance, when one habitually opts to be courteous to others and
regularly shows politeness in the way she relates to others, others would start
55 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
recognizing her as well-mannered person. The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely
reflects the meaning of a moral character. One can have mabuting pag-uugali (good
character) or masamang pag-uugali (bad character).
How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the kind f
character that children will develop? One can surmise that if we rely on the above-
mentioned study, children tend to mimic the violence they watch on television and
such habit could develop character that can tolerate behaviours that are hostile in
nature.
This is why when it comes to life choices; one can seek the advice of the
elders in the community, those who gained rich life experiences and practical
wisdom, because they would be able to assist someone’s moral deliberation. Parents
can advice their children on how to behave in front of family members and relatives.
Senior members of the community liked priests, counsellors and leaders may also
guide the young members on how relationships with others are fostered.
However, when practical wisdom guides the conduct of making morally right
choices and actions, what does it identifying as the proper and right thing to do? As
maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or mesotes for the Greeks 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. Aristotle says:
56 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
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 ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passion are neutral
which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong. When
one shows a feeling of anger we cannot immediately construe it as morally wrong
act. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the
degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive
remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended
by someone. One can be excessive in the manner by which she manifests these
feelings, passions, and abilities. But one can also be deficient in the way she
expresses these. For example she may be outraged at the attacks of terrorists and
yet may be insensitive because she is not directly affected.
A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of
targeting the mean is always difficult because every situation is different from one
another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance
where she is in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by
Aristotle, the mean is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being
moral involves seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing
properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean. One can
be angry with someone, but the degree and state of anger depends accordingly with
the nature of the person she is angry with. The aid of reason dictates how humans
should show different anger toward a child and a mature individual. Mesotes
determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. Likewise, an
individual cannot be good at doing something haphazardly but reason demands a
continuous habituation of a skill to perfect an act. Targeting the middle entails being
immersed in a moral circumstances, understanding the experience, and eventually,
developing the knowledge of identifying the proper way or the mean to address a
particular situation.
In relation to the news article, the government and agencies responsible for
protecting and assisting the young on their personal development should act in view
of the middle measure. The government could have dismissed the issue or could
have banned television shows portraying violence. But such extremes censure the
citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in
another issue. Wisely, the government acted on the side of the middle measure by
going through a series of guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of television
airtime for child friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code that
took into account the “sensibilities of children”. It seems that the government acted
in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.
Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived by a person who has a character
identified out f her habitual exercise of particular actions. One’s character is seen as
a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the good. Secondly, in moral
virtue, the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen
because it is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper
57 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
proportion by which these feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds
that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes totally depends on
what the person identifies as the middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle
adheres to relativism. But Aristotle’s middle is not relative to the person but to the
situation and the circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the
middle, one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper
way that feelings and passion should be dispensed.
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 repetitive and non thought of activities in a person. Habits for Aristotle’s
attempt to establish a union between the person’s moral action and knowledge that
enables him to achieve man’s function.
Aristotle’s clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a
middle point. When a mean is sought, it is in the context of being able to identify the
good act in a given situation. However, when what is involved is seen as bad feeling,
passion, or action, the middle is non-existence because there is no good (mesotes) in
something that is already considered a bad act. When one murders someone, there
is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper way that such
act can be committed. Aristotle states:
But not every action or every passion admits of a mean. For somehave
names that already imply badness, e.g., spite, shamelessness, envy and in the case
of actions, adultery, theft, murder; for all of these and such like things imply by their
names that they are themselves bad, and not the excesses or deficiencies of them. It
is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be
wrong. Nor does goodness or badness with regard to such things depend on
committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way,
but simply to do any of them is to go wrong. It would be equally absurd, then, to
expect that in unjust, cowardly, and voluptuous action there should be a mean, an
excess and a deficiency; for at that at rate there would be a mean of excess and of
deficiency, an excess, and a deficiency of deficiency…
58 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Aristotle also provides examples of particular virtues and the corresponding
excesses and deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the virtues and vices.
59 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
60 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
In the context of conflict, the terms 'justice' and 'fairness' are often used
interchangeably.Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the
requirements of some law. Some maintain that justice stems from God's will or
command, while others believe that justice is inherent in nature itself. Still others
believe that justice consists of rules common to all humanity that emerges out of
some sort of consensus. This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher
than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate
some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it "unjust."
In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to
the proper interests, property, and safety of one's fellows. While justice in the
broader sense is often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness is more
context-bound. Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something
comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to
ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and adhere to a
system of "fair play."
The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play"
for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws or
ones that are more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which the
various types of justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive justice
determine what counts as a "fair share" of particular good, while principles
of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to activity that violates a
society's rules of "fair play." Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and
also that people play by the rules.
People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of
justice and fairness to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
organizations they are part of, as well as their state or government. They want
institutions to treat them fairly and to operate according to fair rules. What
constitutes fair treatment and fair rules is often expressed by a variety of justice
principles.
The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context
of distributive justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues. These
principles all appeal to the notion of desert, the idea that fair treatment is a matter
of giving people what they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for
their effort and productivity, punished for their transgressions, treated as equal
persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these principles may
come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously.
According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that
distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically
comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who
produce more or better products...either by working harder, or by being more
talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should
people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed in
meeting the needs of all members of society.In addition, the idea that justice
61 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
requires the unequal treatment of unequal is in tension with the principle of equality.
This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that
distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there are profits of
$100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest
that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in
effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal
initial distribution may not result in an equal outcome.
A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an
equal outcome in which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor
people would get more money, and richer people would get less. This principle is
sometimes criticized because it does not recognize differences in productive
contributions or distinguish between real needs and purported needs.
Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles
adopted for their own sake, but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal.
For example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need
tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of
belonging among society members.
62 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Related to issues of respect and dignity is the principle of trust. One measure
of fairness is whether society members believe that authorities are concerned with
their well being and needs. People's judgments of procedural fairness result from
perceptions that they have been treated "honestly, openly, and with consideration."If
they believe that the authority took their viewpoints into account and tried to treat
them fairly, they are more likely to support and engage in the broader social system.
63 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
Criteria: (5 points)
Insights- 3 points
Sentence construction/organization- 2 points
Name:_________________________________________________ Date:________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
64 | P a g e
WVSU 2020
65 | P a g e