A.

Foundation of moral acts

i. Definition of freedom
Freedom is the state of being entirely free. Many governments claim to guarantee freedom, but
often people do not, in fact, have the absolute freedom to act or speak without restraint.
ii. Branches of ethics

Descriptive Ethics
Descriptive ethics deals with what people actually believe (or made to believe) to be right or
wrong, and accordingly holds up the human actions acceptable or not acceptable or
punishable under a custom or law.
However, customs and laws keep changing from time to time and from society to society. The
societies have structured their moral principles as per changing time and have expected people to
behave accordingly. Due to this, descriptive ethics is also called comparative ethics because it
compares the ethics or past and present; ethics of one society and other. It also takes inputs from
other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and history to explain the moral
right or wrong.
Normative Ethics
Normative Ethics deals with “norms” or set of considerations how one should act. Thus, it’s
a study of “ethical action” and sets out the rightness or wrongness of the actions. It is also
called prescriptive ethics because it rests on the principles which determine whether an action is
right or wrong. The Golden rule of normative ethics is “doing to other as we want them to do to
us“. Since we don’t want our neighbours to throw stones through our glass window, then it will
not be wise to first throw stone through a neighbour’s window.  Based on this reasoning,
anything such as harassing, victimising, abusing or assaulting someone is wrong. Normative
ethics also provides justification for punishing a person who disturbs social and moral order.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kant’s deontological ethics, Mill’s consequentialism
(Utilitarianism) and the Bhagwad Gita’s Nishkam Karmayoga are some of the theories in
Normative Ethics.
Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics focuses on one’s character and the virtues for determining or evaluating ethical
behaviour. Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas were major advocates of Virtue ethics. Plato
gave a scheme of four cardinal virtues viz. prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude
(courage). His disciple Aristotle categorized the virtues as moral and intellectual. He identified
some of the moral virtues including “wisdom”.
Deontological ethics
Deontological ethics or duty ethics focuses on the rightness and wrongness of the actions rather
than the consequences of those actions. There are different deontological theories such as
categorical imperative, moral absolutism, divine command theory etc.
First famous deontological theory is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical  Imperative or Kantianism.
Kant said that the human beings occupy special place in creation and there is an ultimate
commandment from which all duties and obligations derive. The moral rules, as per Kant, should
follow two principles viz. universality and principle of reciprocity.  By universality, he meant
that a moral action must be possible to apply it to all people. By principle of reciprocity, he
meant said “do as you would be done by. Such premise of morality is found in all religious
systems, including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc.
Second famous deontological theory is Moral absolutism. It believes that there are absolute
standards against which moral questions can be judged. Against these standards, certain actions
are right while others are wrong regardless of the context of the act. For example, theft is
wrong, regardless of context in which theft was carried out. It ignores that sometimes wrong act
is done to reach out to right consequence.
Third deontological theory is Divine command theory. It says that an action is right if God has
decreed it to be right. As per this theory, the rightness of any action depends upon that action
being performed because it is a duty, not because of any good consequences arising from that
action.
Consequentialism (Teleology)
Consequentialism or teleological ethics says that the morality of an action is contingent with the
outcome of that action. So, the morally right action would produce good outcome while morally
wrong action would produce bad outcome. Based on the outcome, there are several theories such
as Utilitarianism {right action leads to most happiness of greatest number of
people}, Hedonism {anything that maximizes pleasure is right}, Egoism {anything that
maximizes the good for self is right}, Asceticism {abstinence from egoistic pleasures to achieve
spiritual goals is right action}, Altruism {to live for others and not caring for self is right
action}.
The core idea of consequentialism is that “the ends justify the means“. An action that might not
be right in the light of moral absolutism may be a right action under teleology.
Meta Ethics
Meta Ethics or “analytical ethics” deals with the origin of the ethical concepts themselves. It
does not consider whether an action is good or bad, right or wrong. Rather, it questions – what
goodness or rightness or morality itself is? It is basically a highly abstract way of thinking about
ethics. The key theories in meta-ethics include naturalism, non-naturalism, emotivism and
prescriptivism.
Naturalists and non-naturalists believe that moral language is cognitive and can be known to be
true or false. Emotivists deny that moral utterances are cognitive, holding that they consist of
emotional expressions of approval or disapproval and that the nature of moral reasoning and
justification must be reinterpreted to take this essential characteristic of moral utterances into
account. Prescriptivists take a somewhat similar approach, arguing that moral judgments are
prescriptions or prohibitions of action, rather than statements of fact about the world.
Applied Ethics
Applied ethics deals with the philosophical examination, from a moral standpoint, of particular
issues in private and public life which are matters of moral judgment. This branch of ethics is
most important for professionals in different walks of life including doctors, teachers,
administrators, rulers and so on. There are six key domains of applied ethics viz. Decision
ethics {ethical decision making process}, Professional ethics {for good
professionalism}, Clinical Ethics {good clinical practices}, Business Ethics {good business
practices}, Organizational ethics {ethics within and among organizations} and social ethics.
It deals with the rightness or wrongness of social, economical, cultural, religious issues also. For
example, euthanasia, child labour, abortion etc.
 iii. Moral foundation theory
Professor Haidt identifies five moral foundations: (1) harm/care, (2) fairness/reciprocity, (3)
ingroup/loyalty, (4) authority/respect, and (5) purity/sanctity.15 These foundations are,
essentially, an umbrella covering the entire realm of moral concerns. Each foundation has its
own evolutionary history, its own virtue system, and its own limitations.
1. Harm/Care Haidt states that the first foundation, harm/care, evolved from a maternal
sensitivity to suffering in offspring. Over time, this sensitivity grew from a mere familial trait to
a general dislike of suffering. The harm/care foundation gives rise to specific virtues and vices.
Under this foundation, societies value kindness and compassion, and condemn cruelty and
aggression. Yet, despite the general tendency to regard cruelty and aggression as vices, the
theorists note that compassion is not inevitable; it can be turned off by many forces, including
the other four systems . . . .” For example, cruelty and aggression may be virtuous when obeying
authority or acting out of loyalty to the group.
2. Fairness/Reciprocity The fairness/reciprocity foundation arises from “cooperation among
unrelated individuals” and “alliance formation.” In short, this foundation evolved because
cooperative groups held an evolutionary advantage over uncooperative groups. From this
foundation comes perhaps the most universally recognized virtue—justice. Further, Haidt argues
that guilt, anger, and gratitude are derived from this foundation. Again though, foundations may
conflict; thus, “self-serving biases” can override concerns about fairness, harm, and justice.
3. Ingroup/Loyalty The ingroup/loyalty foundation evolved from “living in kin-based groups.”
Virtues and emotions relating to trust, patriotism, heroism, and sacrifice arise in this foundation.
Here, betrayal, dissent, and criticism of the group are immoral. Interestingly, Haidt explains that
when considering the ingroup foundation, resistance to diversity is understandable; it is a
weakening of the group. On the other hand, “rituals that strengthen group solidarity (such as the
pledge of allegiance)” are viewed as virtuous.
4. Authority/Respect The authority/respect foundation elevates virtues that facilitate the
hierarchical social structure. By valuing authority and respect, social life functions fluidly
because the need for physical force and fear decreases, replaced by voluntary deference.
Emotions like awe and admiration and the virtues of duty and obedience reflect this foundation.
Failure at the top of the hierarchy, i.e., bad leadership, is condemned. Dissent against authority
may be seen as immoral and anti-social.
5. Purity/Sanctity The purity/sanctity foundation is an evolutionary by-product of the emotion of
disgust. Haidt states that disgust functions as a “guardian of the body.” Disgust deters humans
from eating rotting meat, feces, vomit, etc., thereby avoiding sickness. Over time, however,
disgust evolved into a social emotion. It governs bodily activity: “those who seem ruled by
carnal passions (lust, gluttony, greed, and anger) are seen as debased, impure, and less than
human . . . .” But those who deny bodily impulses? They are elevated.
 B. Three levels of moral dillemas
Many search for the keyword “What is moral dilemmas.” Also called ‘ethical
dilemmas,’ moral dilemmas are situations in which a difficult choice has to be made
between two courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral principle. It is
safe to say that at the very least, moral dilemmas involve conflicts between moral
requirements.

The Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

We can classify moral dilemmas according to levels: (a) personal, (b) organizational, and (c)
structural.

a. Personal Dilemmas
Simply put, these personal dilemmas are those experienced and resolved on the personal level.
Since many ethical decisions are personally made, many, if not most of, moral dilemmas fall
under, or boil down to, this level.

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre gave an example or a case that could exemplify a personal
moral dilemma:

“Sartre tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The
student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the
student’s mother was living with him, and he was her one consolation in life.’

“The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn
between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his
mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the
defeat of an unjust aggressor.” (“Moral Dilemmas,” n.d.)

We can give many other examples of personal moral dilemmas. If someone makes conflicting
promises, he faces a moral conflict. When an individual has to choose between the life of a child
who is about to be delivered and the child’s mother, he faces an ethical dilemma.

b. Organizational Dilemmas
Basically, ethical cases encountered and resolved by social organizations are organizational
moral dilemmas. This category includes moral dilemmas in business, medical field, and public
sector.

For example, a hospital that believes that human life should not be deliberately shortened and
that unpreventable pain should not be tolerated encounters a conflict in resolving whether to
withdraw life support from a dying patient. This is a common moral dilemma faced by healthcare
organizations and medical institutions.

Moral dilemmas also arise in professional work. Administrative bodies in business are
confronted with situations in which several courses of action are possible but none of them
provide a totally successful outcome to those affected by the decision or actions taken.
These moral dilemmas in business involve issues about corporate practices, policies, business
behaviors, and the conducts and relationships of individuals in the organizations. Other business-
related dilemmas pertain to the social responsibility of businesses, employee rights, harassment,
labor unions, misleading advertising, job discrimination, and whistle blowing.

On the part of public sector, government leaders and employees have a moral duty to act in a
manner that is fair and unbiased. They should be loyal to the public and ought to put public
interest before personal gain, and fulfill duties of competency, integrity, accountability, and
transparency.

Having said that, public officials nonetheless may encounter foreseeable moral dilemmas in
fulfilling these ideals. So ethical or moral dilemmas which arise include the following examples:

-whether or not to favor family, friends, or campaign contributors over other constituents;

-favoring the agenda of one’s political party over a policy one believes to be good for the
community;

– dealing with conflicting public duties inherent in serving both as a council member and as a
member of an agency or commission;

– resigning from organizations in which membership may give rise to future conflicts;

– becoming whistle blower even if it means potentially derailing a policy objective one is
pursuing; and,

– accepting gifts if it is legally permitted but creates the appearance of impropriety.

c. Structural Dilemmas
These structural moral dilemmas pertain to cases involving network of institutions and operative
theoretical paradigms. As they usually encompass multi-sectoral institutions and organizations,
they may be larger in scope and extent than organizational dilemmas.

An example is the prices of medicine in the Philippines which are higher compared to other
countries in Asia and in countries of similar economic status. Factors affecting medicine prices
include the cost of research, presence of competition in the market, government regulations, and
patent protection.

The institutions concerned may want to lower the costs of medicine, thereby benefiting the
Filipino public, but such a move may ruin the interests or legal rights of the involved researchers,
inventors or discoverers, and pharmaceutical companies which own the patent of the medicines
or healthcare technologies.

An example of dilemma which is also structural in nature is that of Universal Health Care
(UHC). Locally applied, it is called “Kalusugan Pangkalahatan” (KP). It is the provision to every
Filipino of the highest possible quality of health care that is accessible, efficient, equitably
distributed, adequately funded, fairly financed, and appropriately used by an informed and
empowered public.
“Kalusugan Pangkalahatan” (KP), as a government mandate, aims to ensure that every Filipino
shall receive affordable and quality health benefits by (ideally) providing adequate resources –
health human resources, health facilities, and health financing.

Nonetheless, health financing is first and foremost a big issue here. Government could set aside
bigger budget for health for the implementation of this provision. But then, this would mean
cutting down allocations on other sectors (such as education or public works.).

C. Minimum requirement for morality

Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality Reason is the basis or motive
for an action, decision, or conviction. As a quality, it refers to the capacity for logical,
rational, and analytic thought; involves justification/ justifying.

Reason is a necessary requirement for morality. In the case of moral judgments, they require
backing by reasons. Truth in Ethics entails being justified by good reasons. Moral truths are
objective in the sense that they are true no matter what we might want or think.

Impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are equally
important. It is a principle of justice. Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal
and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties. It assumes that every
person, generally speaking, is equally important, that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more
significant than anyone else.

D. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

Humans are motivated by end goals and need to have a purpose, something to pursue.
Aristotle considers the purpose or ends: the final reason for that function’s existence.
Aristotle used the Greek term telos to describe the inherent purpose of each thing, the
ultimate reason for each thing to be the way it is. To return to the earlier examples, the telos
of the knife is not just to cut (the function), but to cut sharply (the purpose). Human telos is
not just to think rationally, but to think rationally in service of a final end.

Aristotle defines the telos for humans as Eudaimonia. The best condition possible for
humans is happiness through leading a meaningful and virtuous life. He distinguishes
between a means and an end. A means always has another end, while a final end has no
further means. Aristotle argues there is only one final end for humans. It is through this
analysis of ends and means that he concludes that our final end is eudaimonia.

Yet, we as individuals are not all the same. We are all driven to provide something that is
core to our identity. Each of us may have a special calling in life, a specialized function that
makes us who we are. It may be what we study in college, like finance, engineering, or
marketing. You may be inherently best at providing a specialized skill like being an
 electrician, carpenter, etc. Or, your purpose might be to serve other people by being a leader,
doctor, teacher, or parent. The same analysis can be applied to an organization.

What is an organization’s telos? We established that an organization’s function is to

coordinate human rationality to create products and services. What is the end? Those
products and services are created to meet a need: the need of the consumer or community
member. Therefore, the organization’s telos is to provide value to the user of the products or
services. For example, if your organization makes integrated circuit devices for a computer
manufacturer, the end purpose of the organization is to deliver that product with the quality
and timing expected by the customer, the computer manufacturer.

Aristotle’s tool for Virtue Ethics

Aristotle views a virtues leaning too far to either side, excess or deficiency, as inappropriate and
therefore vices. It’s good to be courageous, but an excess of courage might result in unnecessary
risks. And, of course, an deficiency in courage means becoming a victim. So in any given
situation, a person must “aim at the mean” or the intermediate condition between the two vices in
order to achieve virtue.

This is known as Virtue Ethics. It places the emphasis on high character and not on duty or
seeking good consequences. So, true courage would be a balance between too much courage,
recklessness, and too little courage, cowardice. A person is courageous out of practice rather than
duty or to produce some desired effect. The Golden Mean is a means of assisting a person in
practicing good character as they strive to make it second nature. It is not, however, a decision
making procedure. Aristotle insist that no ethical theory can actually facilitate decision making.
Your decision in a given matter is intended to aim at the virtue.

Aristotle believed that the good life lived from exercising capacity to reason. Practicing virtue is
a practice of intellectual reason. Aristotle did not promote virtue in itself as being ethical though.
He wrote that the study of ethics is not precise. So, modern virtue ethicists believe that a good
ethical theory is necessarily imprecise. Rather than giving precise rules as in the case of
deontology and utilitarianism. These are two competing ethical theories.

Striking a balance in certain situations may be warranted. This can be a good exercise in
heuristics. But using this as a standard of measure for determining the truth between two things
can actually lead to a logical fallacy.

In Aristotle’s work, phronesis is the intellectual virtue that helps turn one’s moral instincts into
practical moral action by providing the practical know-how needed to turn virtue into successful
action and enables phronimos to weigh up the importance of different virtues and competing
goals in a given moral situation. While moral virtues enable us to achieve the end, phronesis,
makes us adopt the right means to that end. Both moral virtues and phronesis work in tandem. In
the absence of the former, phronesis degenerates into a “certain cunning capacity for linking
means to any end rather than to those ends that are genuine goods for man”. Whereas, in the
absence of phronesis, we may be lost in the moral maze.