GEC 7: Ethics

1. Title of the Module

Chapter IV: Western Ethical Frameworks and Principles

2. Introduction

The goal of Western Ethics is generally for individuals to achieve self-direction and
self-understanding which have direct impact on ethical decision making. Our intangible
decision making as to determine what is right or wrong permeates everyday life. Ethical
problems are often complex and novel; they present themselves in unique contexts in
which conflicting principles are at stake. Ethics should concern all levels of life: acting
properly as individuals, creating responsible organizations and governments, and making
our society as a whole more ethical.

The first part presents an overview of the fundamental ethical frameworks and
principles. It introduces frameworks for ethical thinking and decision-making. These
ethical frameworks and principles represent the viewpoints from which students may seek
guidance as they make moral decisions.

The second part discusses virtue ethics which focuses on the development of the
character of the individual who must confront ethical dilemmas. Virtue ethics recognizes
that resolution of difficult problems depends, above all, on the character (that is, on the
virtues) of the people making decisions. It is important to note that, strictly speaking, virtue
ethics is very particular on character rather than on specific actions.

The third part discourses on Kantian ethics where the rightness or wrongness of
actions neither depends on their consequences nor on the character of individuals but
rather on whether these actions fulfill our duty. There are certain types of actions that are
absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness
than the alternative. This theory asserts that there is a supreme principle of morality, an
unconditional command or universal duty for all human beings.

The fourth part focuses on Utilitarian Ethics where moral judgments are based on
the outcomes of a decision or an action. If the outcomes of an action are considered to
be useful, workable and positive, or to give rise to benefits, then that action is held to be
morally right. Conversely, if the outcome causes harm, then the action is held to be
morally wrong. The judgement of right or wrong depends on the consequences of the
decision or action.

The last part discusses Rawls’ justice as fairness which he proposed as an

alternative to utilitarianism. Rawls asserts that each individual has certain rights that
cannot be sacrificed simply for others to obtain more benefits. His theory revolves around
the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which would, in turn, guarantee a
just and morally acceptable society. The first principle guarantees the right of each person
to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others. The second
principle states that social and economic positions are to be (a) to everyone's advantage
and (b) open to all.

3. Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
1. explain the three broad areas of ethical study;
2. evaluate the different ethical frameworks;
3. compare and contrast ethical frameworks and principles;
4. explain virtue ethics;
5. explain Kantian ethics;
6. explain utilitarian ethics; and
7. explain Rawl’s principle of justice and fairness.

4. Learning Content

Topics for Chapter IV

Topic 1: Basic Areas of Ethical Study
Topic 2: Virtue Ethics
Topic 3: Kant and Right Theory
Topic 4: Utilitarianism
Topic 5: Justice and Fairness

5. Teaching and Learning Activities

a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion

6. Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading

“A Historical Survey of Western Ethics” (n.d.) Retrieved from

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/183836/9/08%20chapter%203.pdf
Baggini, Julian (2016). Philosophy: key texts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in modern society. Philippines:
MUTYA Publishing House, Inc.
Follesdal, A. (2015). John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. In Philosophy of Justice (pp. 311-328).
Springer, Dordrecht. Retrieved from http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-Rawls-JasF.pdf
Grayling, A. C. (2019). The history of philosophy. United Kingdom: Penguin Books UK
Kantian Ethics (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm#:~:text=Kant's%20theory%20is%20an%20ex
ample,it%20as%20The%20Categorical%20Imperative.
Rachel, James and Stuart Rachels. (2018). Elements of moral philosophy, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rawls, J. (n.d.) A theory of justice. Retrieved from
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/c/chalmersk/econ184sp09/johnrawls.pdf

7. Flexible Teaching Learning Modality (FTLM) adopted

Modular Distance Learning (MDL) – Module

Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Edmodo, Email,
Messenger, Zoom
8. Assessment Task

a. Reflection Paper
b. Reaction Paper
c. Module Exercises/Activity
d. Critique Paper
e. Situation Analysis
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 1: Basic Areas of Ethical Study

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. identify the three basic areas of ethical study; and
2. explain the three basic areas of ethical study.

Introduction

A framework is defined as a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices

that constitutes a way of viewing reality (Framework, n.d.) We may understand basic
theories as frameworks in ethics as a system of rules, ideas, notions, theories, or
principles that assists man in his moral decisions and judgments.

In Ethics there are three major areas of study: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and
applied ethics. Under these major subject areas are various ethical theories as
frameworks.

1. Normative Ethics

Normative ethics was regarded as that branch of ethical inquiry that considered
general ethical questions whose answers had some relatively direct bearing on practice
(Normative Ethical theories, 2020). In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of
proper behavior (Fieser, n.d.). Normative Ethics is concerned with the standard and
criteria by which we can judge man’s actions to be morally right or morally wrong. This
was the prevalent form of ethics in philosophy until the end of the 19th Century. It includes
a consideration of the importance of human freedom, and a discussion of the limits of a
human’s responsibility for moral decisions and for the consequences of actions) (Ethics,
9).

The crucial thesis of normative ethical ethics is that there is only one ultimate
principle or standard of moral conduct, whether it is a solitary law or a set of rules. It
stresses three elements: the person who performs the act (the agent), the act, and the
consequences of the act. Generally, there are three categories of normative ethical
theories: deontology, teleological ethics and virtue ethics.

Deontology

Deontological normative ethical theories place the locus of right and wrong in
autonomous adherence to moral laws or duties (Deontological Theories 2002). It
emphasizes the correlation between duty and morality of human acts.
 In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good
because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the
product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least
some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences
for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions
as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and
“Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” (Deontological ethics,
n.d.)

Also called duty-based ethics, deontology is interested with what man does, not
with the consequences of his actions. It advises people to do the right thing because it is
the right thing to do and keep away from wrong things because they are wrong. People
are counseled to do the right thing, even if that produces more harm than doing the wrong
thing. People have a moral obligation to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad result.

Teleological Ethics

This theory of morality derives duty or moral obligation from what is good or
desirable as an end to be achieved (Teleological ethics, n.d.). It believes that the
rightness or wrongness of a human act is contingent on its outcome. Hence, a human act
is considered morally right if it produces a good outcome. Since the moral goodness of a
human act is dependent only on its results, the more good results a human act produces,
the better or more right that human act is. The results of a human act generally eclipse all
other considerations.

Every teleological moral theory locates morality in the outcomes of human actions.
Teleological ethical theorists contend that every human act is teleological in the sense
that man reasons about the means of realizing certain goals. Thus, all moral conduct is
goal-directed.

Virtue ethics

This is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue
in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring
about good consequences (Athanassoulis, N. n.d.). Therefore, the fundamental
component of moral behavior is the person’s character rather than ethical duties and rules
about the acts themselves or consequences of particular actions. This moral theory is
character or person-based rather than action based because it places special emphasis
on the moral character of the person executing the act.

Virtue ethics is primarily concerned with traits of character that are

essential to human flourishing, not with the enumeration of duties.
It falls somewhat outside the traditional dichotomy
between deontological ethics and consequentialism: It agrees with
consequentialism that the criterion of an action’s being morally right
 or wrong lies in its relation to an end that has intrinsic value, but
more closely resembles deontological ethics in its view that morally
right actions are constitutive of the end itself and not mere
instrumental means to the end (Virtue ethics, n.d.).

Virtue ethics is not only concern with the morality of individual acts, but it is also a
source of counsel as to the type of attributes and behaviors human beings should realize.
It does not just focus its attention on particular moral acts, rather more concerned with
the whole of a person's life. It believes that a moral being is someone who lives virtuously,
someone who possesses and actually applies the virtues he has learned.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.

Watch your words, they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
- Frank Outlaw

2. Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations,

and scope of moral values, properties, and words. (Meta-ethics, n.d.) It is an inquiry about
the nature of ethical assertions, attitudes, and evaluations. Meta-ethics belongs to the
three branches of ethics considered as framework, the others being normative
ethics and applied ethics.

Garner and Rosen (1967), claimed that there are three kinds of meta-ethical
problems, or three general questions:

1. What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments? (moral semantics)

2. What is the nature of moral judgments? (moral ontology)
3. How may moral judgments be supported or defended? (moral epistemology)

The first meta-ethical problem or general question investigates the meaning of the
terms: good, bad, right and wrong. Question of the second kind inquires on the
universality or relativity of moral judgments. The third problem raises the question on our
ability to know if a human act is right or wrong, if at all. Garner and Rosen (1967), argued
that answers to the three basic questions are not unrelated, and sometimes an answer to
one will strongly suggest, or perhaps even entail, an answer to another.

Meta-ethical theories are commonly categorized semantically as either cognitivism

or non-cognitivism; substantially as either universalism or relativism; and
epistemologically as empiricism, rationalism, or intuitionism.

Moral Cognitivism versus Moral Non-Cognitivism

a. Moral Cognitivism holds that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are
apt for truth and falsity (Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism, 2018). It claims that
ethical sentences convey propositions that are capable being true or false. It also
declares that right and wrong are matters of fact. Moral realism and ethical
subjectivism are the two most common forms of cognitivism.

a.1 Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the position that ethical
sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, that is,
features independent of subjective opinion (Shafer-Landau,2015). It assumes that
moral values are objectively true and their truth does not depend or
are independent of our opinions, perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes of them.

a.2 Ethical Subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that the truth or
falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or
hypothetical) attitudes of people (Brandt ,1959). Contrary to moral realism, ethical
subjectivism argues that there are no objective moral truths. The truth or falsity of
ethical propositions is dependent on our opinions, perception, beliefs, feelings or
attitudes towards them. Ethical sentences are arbitrary because they do not
convey unchanging truths.

b. Moral Non-cognitivism holds the view that ethical statements lack truth-value which
means they are neither true nor false. According to Garner and Rosen (1967),
noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that moral judgments are capable of being
objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world. If moral statements
cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism
implies that moral knowledge is impossible (Garner and Rosen,1967). Moral truths are
not the type of truths that can be known.

b.1 Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not
express propositions but emotional attitudes (Garner and Rosen,1967). It assumes
that the purpose of ethical propositions is to convey emotions of approval or
disapproval. To a certain degree they are also imperatives meant to sway the frame
of mind of other people.

Moral Universalism versus Moral Relativism

a. Moral Universalism which is also called moral objectivism proposes

that ethical implications of an action is universally applicable to everybody,
regardless of circumstance. It believes that there is a universal moral
system which applies to anyone which transcends culture, nationality, race,
religion, sexuality or other distinguishing feature.

b. Moral Relativism is a philosophical position which believes that moral

judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for
instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely
privileged over all others (Westacott, n.d.). Moral judgments differ from person to
 person and are all equally valid and no one’s belief of right and wrong is really
better than any other. There is no objective and ultimate standard of morality, so
each moral judgment about right and wrong is relative to a person’s cultural,
social, historical or personal circumstances and preferences.

Moral Empiricism versus Moral Rationalism versus Moral Intuitionism

a. Moral Empiricism is an ethical perspective which assumes that moral knowledge

is based on one’s experiences and observations. It claims that moral learning and
knowledge is not possible without experience. This ethical view is an extension of
empiricism in epistemology that states that knowledge comes only or primarily
from sensory experience (Psillos and Curd, 2010). Empiricism emphasizes the
role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate
ideas or traditions (Forrest and Kaufmann, 2008). Other forms of moral
empiricism suggest that moral truths are reducible to matters about man’s
judgments and beliefs or cultural practices and therefore are recognizable by
observation and experience of their practices.

b. Moral Rationalism is a view in meta-ethics (specifically the epistemology of

ethics) according to which moral principles are knowable a priori, by reason alone
(Capps and Pattinson, 2017). It considers reason as the main source and test of
moral knowledge. Because of reason, certain moral truths exist and that the
intellect can directly grasp these truths.

c. Moral Intuitionism argued that moral truths are self-evident, that is, evident in
and of themselves and so can be known without the need of any proof or
reasoning. What is morally right or morally wrong is self-evident in nature and
cannot be known through human experience.

Intuitionism teaches three main things: (1) There are real objective moral
truths that are independent of human beings. (2) These are fundamental truths
that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except
other moral truths. (3) Human beings can discover these truths by using their
minds in a particular, intuitive way (Intuitionism, n.d.).

The concepts of right and wrong and objective moral truths do exist and
culture does not change those. A fundamental moral truth is like any fundamental
truth and no one can't attempt to break it down any further because things that are
moral good are simply morally good. Man has the ability to intuitively know if
something is right or wrong.

Intuitionism does not mean that all moral decisions are reached by
relying on intuition. Intuition enables the discovery of
the basic moral truths, and everyday moral decision-making then
involves thinking about the choices available and making moral
judgements in an ordinary sort of way. (Intuitionism, n.d.)
3. Applied ethics

Applied ethics, in a broad sense, refers to any use of philosophical methods

critically to examine practical moral decisions and to treat moral problems, practices, and
policies in the professions, technology, government, and the like (Applied ethics, 2020).
As a problem-solving branch of ethics, it strives to find out the application of moral
knowledge into practice. In other words, it bridges ethical theory and practical and feasible
solutions. It has produced principle-based attitude toward ethical issues which in many
instances result in solutions to particular problems that are not globally acceptable.

This discipline studies difficult moral questions and controversial moral issues that
human beings actually face in their lives like: abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, suicide,
cloning humans, vaccination, harassment, discrimination, gay or lesbian relations, war
tactics, animal rights, capital punishments or nuclear war and environmental issues.

Some of the key areas of applied ethics are: bioethics, environmental ethics,
business ethics, sexual ethics, and social ethics.

Bioethics

This is branch of applied ethics that studies the philosophical, social, and legal
issues arising in medicine and the life sciences (Chadwick, n.d.). Bioethics devotes its
time and attention in studying the moral controversies brought about by advances
in biology and medicine. It is concerned with scientific advances that can alter the way
we understand health and illness and, ultimately, the way we live and die. It is
multidisciplinary because it draws contributions from many different academic disciplines
or professional specializations such as philosophy, theology, history, anthropology, law,
medicine, nursing, health policy, social work and the medical humanities.

Issues that are considered in bioethics include: cloning, surrogate motherhood,

human genetic engineering, genomics, stem cell research, organ donation and
transplantation, transplant trade, medical and genetic data privacy, cyber-
attacks against medical devices and systems, biohacking, biological differences based
on inequalities in wealth, bioterrorism, technological sexuality, assisted reproductive
technologies, ethical issues on brain imaging and testing, nanotechnologies (using small
particles to deliver medicine or other medical treatments), and genetically modified food.

Environmental Ethics

This is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human
beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human
contents (Environmental ethics, 2015). It deals with man’s moral obligation to the
preservation and care of the non-human world.
 Environmental ethics rests on the principle that all life forms on earth have the right
to live. Human beings and nature are closely linked with each other because they depend
on one another for their existence. Owing to their inseparable relationship, the guiding
principles of man’s life and his ethical values should include it. By destroying the
environment and its non-human contents, man unjustly and immorally denies its right to
live.

The topics for debate in environmental ethics include: global climate change, the
depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems, water and
air pollution, waterways, the use of fertilizers, animal experimentation, and endangered
species preservation.

Business Ethics

This can be understood as the study of the ethical dimensions of productive

organizations and commercial activities (Business ethics, 2016). It is interested in the
analyses of the ethical problems and principles in the manufacture, supply, advertising,
and selling of products and services.

Business ethics is beyond just a moral code of right and wrong in the workplace.
Over and above their obligation to the law, business organizations must be conscious of
the moral impact of their activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities
and the environment in all aspects of their operations.

More than knowledge and experience in managing a business the interests of the
community are of paramount importance. There should be a balance between the
purpose of business, which is to make money and its unwritten social responsibilities to
its employees and society.

Corporate governance, employee rights, unions, insider trading, bribery,

misleading advertising, discrimination, corporate social responsibility, fiduciary
responsibilities, and even slavery are some of the controversial subjects addressed in
business ethics.

Sexual Ethics

This is commonly understood as the study of human sexuality and sexual behavior.
It seeks to investigate thoroughly moral behavior regarding with whom people have sex
and how they do so. It is an attempt to bring about a comprehensive understanding of the
moral conduct of interpersonal relationships and sexual practices from social, cultural,
religious, medical, legal and philosophical perspectives.

Sexual ethics explores topics such as procreation, abortion, contraception,

adultery, extramarital sex, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, polyamory, seduction,
flirting, prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, masturbation, incest, rape,
sadomasochism, bestiality, pedophilia, sexually transmitted infections, genital
modification and mutilation, teenage pregnancy, celibacy, and marriage.

Social Ethics

This is an analysis of the set of rules, guidelines, values, behaviors and

responsibilities people have toward themselves, each other, and the world as a whole.
The collection of social principles regulate relationships within a society, specifically with
regard to determining what is considered morally right, just and noble. The rules which
society judges acceptable are expected to be followed because they are meant to guide
people in their ethical choices and values.

Social ethics teaches what each person will and will not tolerate from each other
within society. To maintain social equilibrium, the welfare of society as a whole must be
placed ahead of the interests of any individual. People in a society cannot do as they
please. There are social norms and laws that prescribe boundaries and encourage social
responsibility.
Social ethics validates if people’s decisions and actions cause harm to society or
the environment. Each person is responsible to act in manner that benefits his society
and not solely himself.

Social ethics closely and thoroughly examines problems such as: environmental
pollution, global warming, antisocial behavior, poverty, malnourishment, lack of access to
food and clean water, access to clean and affordable living, unemployment,
homelessness, discrimination and violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, political
corruption, prostitution, sexual abuse, rape, early pregnancy, same-sex marriage, birth
control, HIV/AIDS, prostitution, gay marriages, gender issues, child labor, lack of
proper access to education, the shortage of schools, the lack of infrastructure, alcoholism,
food and drug safety, suicide, drug abuse, capital punishment, animal abuse, human
rights, women's rights, children’s rights, world population, organ & body donation,
euthanasia & assisted suicide, death penalty, consumer debt and bankruptcy, judicial
reform, censorship, gun control, terrorism, nuclear weapon production, immigration,
tobacco, nuclear proliferation, cancer, health care reform, religious conflict & war, political
polarization, government accountability, lack of access to credit, eating disorders, obesity
and the lack of physical fitness programs.
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 2: Virtue Ethics

Nominal Duration: 4.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. identify the different concepts in virtue ethics;
2. analyze the various perspectives of virtue ethics;
3. ascribe the appropriate virtues that befit a certain individual; and
4. explain how virtues become values.

Introduction

Virtue Ethics began in ancient Greek philosophy. Socrates was thought to have
facilitated its beginning and was subsequently developed considerably by Plato, Aristotle,
and the Stoics. Normative ethical philosophies constitute virtue ethics which stresses
being rather than doing. Morality, in virtue ethics, originates from the character of the
human person, instead of just a reflection of the actions (or consequences thereof) of the
human person.

A virtue is generally agreed to be a character trait, such as a habitual action or

settled sentiment (Carr and Steutel,1999). Virtue (arete in Greek) is a positive trait that
renders a human person good. A virtue is different from feelings, as claimed
by Hursthouse (1999):

A virtue such as honesty or generosity is not just a tendency to do what

is honest or generous, nor is it to be helpfully specified as a “desirable”
or “morally valuable” character trait. It is, indeed a character trait—that is,
a disposition which is well entrenched in its possessor, something that,
as we say “goes all the way down”, unlike a habit such as being a tea-
drinker—but the disposition in question, far from being a single track
disposition to do honest actions, or even honest actions for certain
reasons, is multi-track. It is concerned with many other actions as well,
with emotions and emotional reactions, choices, values, desires,
perceptions, attitudes, interests, expectations and sensibilities. To
possess a virtue is to be a certain sort of person with a certain complex
mindset. (Hence the extreme recklessness of attributing a virtue on the
basis of a single action.)

Virtue ethics addresses the question, “What sort of person must I be to be an

excellent person?” rather than “What is my duty?” Virtues are habitual, excellent traits
that are intentionally developed throughout one’s life.
1. Socrates’ Ethics

Socrates, (born c. 470 BCE, Athens [Greece]—died 399 BCE, Athens), Greek
philosopher whose way of life, character, and thought exerted a profound influence on
ancient and modern philosophy.

Socrates was a widely recognized and controversial figure in his native Athens, so
much so that he was frequently mocked in the plays of comic dramatists.
(The Clouds of Aristophanes, produced in 423, is the best-known example.) Although
Socrates himself wrote nothing, he is depicted in conversation in compositions by a small
circle of his admirers—Plato and Xenophon first among them. He is portrayed in these
works as a man of great insight, integrity, self-mastery, and argumentative skill. The
impact of his life was all the greater because of the way in which it ended: at age 70, he
was brought to trial on a charge of impiety and sentenced to death by poisoning (the
poison probably being hemlock) by a jury of his fellow citizens.

Plato’s Apology of Socrates purports to be the speech Socrates gave at his trial in
response to the accusations made against him (Greek apologia means “defense”). Its
powerful advocacy of the examined life and its condemnation of
Athenian democracy have made it one of the central documents of Western thought
and culture. (adapted from Kraut,R., 2020)

Though there are no primary texts of the teachings of Socrates, (but with the
recordings of Plato), it is known that Socrates was an avid promoter of moral reasoning
and critical thinking among the citizens of Athens.

Socrates’ Moral Philosophy

Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on the pursuit of
virtue rather than the pursuit, for instance, of material wealth (Brickhouse and Smith,
1990). He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of
true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a
populace (Nichols, 1987). As manifested in his actions, Socrates lived up to his beliefs.
Known for his strength of mind, which was beyond reproach, he accepted his death
sentence when many opined he would clearly run away from Athens, as he believed he
could not escape or oppose the desire of his community.

Socrates concentrated on human behavior and tried to discover what makes a

virtuous life. He thought that a virtuous life is the key to man’s happiness. Virtue and
happiness are inextricably linked, such that it would be impossible to have one without
the other. The soul is the seat of knowledge and virtue.

Virtue is not something to be taught or acquired through education, but

rather it is merely an awakening of the seeds of good deeds that lay
dormant in the mind and heart of a person. Knowing what is in the mind
 and heart of a human being is achieved through self-knowledge (Ramos,
2010).

This knowledge which leads to virtue must be discovered by man if he wants a

virtuous and happy life. Moreover, man must not only know the rules of right living, he
must also live them. Socrates concluded that true knowledge means wisdom which, in
turn, means virtue. For him, knowledge is virtue. Knowledge and virtue are the same
thing. To know what is good means to do what is good. This is the connotation of the
Socratic dictum: “Know yourself”.

When he equated virtue and knowledge, Socrates had in mind a

particular conception of virtue. For him, virtue meant fulfilling one’s
function. As a rational being, a person’s function is to behave rationally.
At the same time, every human being has the inescapable desire for
happiness or the well-being of his or her soul (Stumpf, 1999).

In Socrates’s ethical teachings, what is unlikely to escape observation is that there

are specific virtues which fashion a common thread. Socrates believed that the most
important characteristic a person must possess are virtues, foremost of which are the
philosophical or intellectual virtues. Socrates stressed that “the unexamined life is not
worth living [and] ethical virtue is the only thing that matters” (Duignan, 2009).

2. Plato’s Ethics

Plato, (born 428/427 BCE, Athens, Greece - died 348/347, Athens),

ancient Greek philosopher, student of Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE), teacher
of Aristotle (384–322 BCE), and founder of the Academy, best known as the author of
philosophical works of unparalleled influence. He is believed by some people to have
been the most outstanding philosopher to have ever lived.

Building on the demonstration by Socrates that those regarded as experts

in ethical matters did not have the understanding necessary for a good human life, Plato
introduced the idea that their mistakes were due to their not engaging properly with
a class of entities he called forms, chief examples of which were Justice, Beauty, and
Equality. Whereas other thinkers—and Plato himself in certain passages—used the term
without any precise technical force, Plato in the course of his career came to devote
specialized attention to these entities. As he conceived them, they were accessible not to
the senses but to the mind alone, and they were the most important constituents of
reality, underlying the existence of the sensible world and giving it what intelligibility it has.
In metaphysics Plato envisioned a systematic, rational treatment of the forms and their
interrelations, starting with the most fundamental among them (the Good, or the One);
in ethics and moral psychology he developed the view that the good life requires not just
a certain kind of knowledge (as Socrates had suggested) but also habituation to healthy
emotional responses and therefore harmony between the three parts of
the soul (according to Plato, reason, spirit, and appetite). His works also contain
discussions in aesthetics, political philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology, and
the philosophy of language. His school fostered research not just in philosophy narrowly
conceived but in a wide range of endeavors that today would be called mathematical or
scientific. (adapted from Meinwald, C.C., 2020)

Plato’s reasoning was based on his belief that there are two realms of reality: first
is the realm of Forms and the second realm is the world of Appearances.
Plato’s Moral Philosophy

Plato believed that the realm of Forms contains the essence of concepts and
objects, and even the essence of object’s properties. He considered the world of Forms
to be the real world, though humans do not live in that world.

Central to Plato’s philosophy is his Theory of Forms which states that there are
two distinct levels of reality which exist: the visible world (or the world of the senses) and
the intelligible world of Forms (or the abstract world of thought) that stands above the
visible world and gives it being. For example, we are able to identify a courageous person
because we have a general conception of Courage itself, and we are able to identify the
courage in a person only because we have this conception of Courage in the abstract. In
other words, the courageous people we observe are courageous only because they
participate in the more general Form of Courage. This Form of Courage is itself invisible,
eternal, and unchanging, unlike courageous people in the visible world who grow old and
lose their courage when they die.

The Theory of Forms envisions an entire world of such Forms, a world

that exists outside of time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage,
Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the changes and imperfections
of the visible world (Plato, n.d.)

Plato also believed that there is a form for morality. He considered it as the highest
of all forms which he termed as the Form of Good. This Form of Good is a single Form
by virtue of which all good things are good. For him, those who grasp the nature of the
Good will always perform good actions while bad actions are results of not understanding
the true meaning of the Good. For man to be good it is his responsibility to take care of
himself by bringing back the rulership of reason. To become good or virtuous, he must
always follow the lead of reason, with passions and appetites on a tight leash.

The peculiar function of the rational part of man is to seek the true goal of
human life, and it does this by evaluating things according to their true nature.
Although the passions or appetites might lead us into a world of fantasy and
deceive us into believing that certain kinds of pleasures will bring us happiness,
it is the unique role of reason to penetrate the world of fantasy, to discover the
true world and thereby direct the passions to objects of love that are capable
of producing true pleasure and true happiness (Stumpf, 1999).
 Plato maintained that the intellect should be sovereign, the will second, and the
emotions subject to intellect and will. The just person, whose life is ordered in this way,
is therefore the good person.

3. Aristotle’s Ethics

Aristotle was known to be Plato’s pupil. He regarded happiness as the goal of

human existence. Aristotle, born 384 BCE, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece – died
322, Chalcis, Euboea), ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, one of the
greatest intellectual figures of Western history. He was the author of a philosophical and
scientific system that became the framework and vehicle for both
Christian Scholasticism and medieval Islamic philosophy. Even after the intellectual
revolutions of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, Aristotelian
concepts remained embedded in Western thinking. (Adapted from Amadio, A. and Kenny,
A., n.d.)

Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy

For Aristotle, moral virtues are habits of action that conform to the golden mean, the
principle of moderation, and they must be flexible because of differences among people
and conditioning factors.

Aristotle’s great contribution to ethics can be sourced from three different versions
of his moral philosophy: the less well known Eudemian Ethics (Ethica Eudemia),
Nicomachean Ethics (Ethika Nikomacheia) his best-known work on ethics, and Great
Ethics (Magna Moralia ). The first two works were said to be his notes for lecturing, and
the third was presumably the notes of his lectures made by one of his students. The
Nicomachean ethics was generally regarded by scholars as the Ethics of Aristotle. The
Eudemian ethics and Great Ethics have never been studied by more than a handful of
scholars.

a. Telos

Aristotle believed that everything has a telos (Greek term for end, purpose, or goal)
In his teleological view, he raised the question to what end, purpose or goal do different
things aim constantly. The philosopher went as far as saying that telos can encompass
all forms of human activity (Baggini, 2016). Aristotle explained that the telos of the
blacksmith is the production of a sword, while that of the swordsman's, which uses the
weapon as a tool, is to kill or incapacitate an enemy (Grayling, 2019). On the other hand,
the telos of these occupations are merely part of the purpose of a ruler, who must oversee
the direction and well-being of a state (Grayling, 2019). This maybe further illustrated in
the way one can say that the telos of education is man’s development; the telos of work
is the nourishment and fulfillment of humankind; and the telos of acts of human sexuality
in marriage is twofold: procreation and the expression of mutual love and enrichment of
the couple. Within this teleological view, there are telos that are subordinate to
other telos since all activities have their own particular ends. For Aristotle, these
subordinate telos can become the means to achieve more fundamental telos (Baggini,
2016).

In arranging things in classes, Aristotle categorized men as “rational animals,” which

signifies that their end, purpose or goal is rational. To put it simply, our responsibility is to
bring into reality our full potential as rational animals. If we are not fully rational, we are
distancing ourselves from our authentic essence.

This teleological view gives Aristotle’s Ethics a clear sense of direction.

Our goal in life is to achieve our true nature, and this true nature consists
essentially of rationality. The purpose of a moral education, then, is to
teach us how we may become perfectly rational and immune to the
temptations of our lower animalistic parts. (Nicomachean Ethics, n.d.)
b. Eudaimonia and arete

When Aristotle raised his question, “what is the ultimate purpose of human
existence? He believed that an important goal should be to pursue “that which is always
desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else” (Pursuit of Happiness, 2018).
Aristotle thought that everything has a purpose and, according to that purpose, man must
decide whether things are good or bad. He thought that the ultimate end and purpose of
mankind is Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is often translated as happiness, however it was
also understood as welfare, flourishing, or well-being. Eudaimonia is believed to be
attained through the exercise of virtue, practical wisdom, and rationality. Aristotle claimed
that it is innate in man to seek happiness. The nature and purpose of human action tend
towards happiness, which Aristotle termed as eudaimonia (Soccio, 2007).

Aristotle argued that what distinguishes man from animal is his rationality. He
asserted that pleasure alone cannot result in happiness because animals are driven by
the pursuit of pleasure and according to Aristotle man has greater capacities than animals
(Pursuit of Happiness, 2018). Aristotle’s theorized: the function of man is to live a certain
kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle, and the function of a good man is
the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed it is
performed in accord with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, then happiness
turns out to be an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue (Aristotle, 2004). For him,
happiness is not pleasure, nor is it virtue, rather it is the exercise of virtue (Pursuit of
Happiness, 2018).

The idea of virtue (arête) is of paramount importance to Aristotle’s philosophy of

happiness. Arete fundamentally means "excellence" of any kind but is also understood
as "moral virtue”. It is tied to the idea of man living up to his full potential. It expresses a
conscious striving towards being the best one can be. Man is excellent when he
demonstrates his unique telos or purpose. Since rationality is man’s unique, defining
quality, he manifests arete (excellence) if he correctly uses his reason, principally in
relation with moral choice. Man’s happiness is the perfection of his essence. His
happiness is contingent on the exercise of his reason. The exercise of man’s rationality
is the supreme good.
 Aristotle maintained that in aiming for happiness, the most essential element is to
have a complete virtue or good moral character (Pursuit of Happiness, 2008). Happiness
involves, through the course of an entire life, choosing the ‘greater good’ not necessarily
that which brings immediate, short term pleasure (Pursuit of Happiness, 2008). Every
human act must always aim at its proper end. Pleasure, though it has value cannot be
considered as the ultimate end or good for which every man must aim. Happiness is not
void of pleasures, however, pleasures are an intrinsic effect, not the appropriate aim.
Since pleasure is linked to the irrational part of the soul, happiness should not be
associated with pleasure. Pleasure, wealth, honor, fame and success are not the goals
of life because these would not lead man to eudaimonia (the highest or fullest happiness).
The highest and fullest happiness, according to Aristotle, comes from a life of reason and
contemplation-not a life of inactivity or imbalance but a rationally ordered life in which
intellectual, physical, and social needs are all met under the governance of reason and
moderation (Soccio, 2007). Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of one's life,
hence it is a goal and not a temporary state. (Pursuit of Happiness, 2008).

Man develops virtue or good moral character through habit and practice rather
than through instruction and reasoning. By practicing generosity, justice, friendship,
honesty, courage, justice, patience, temperance, modesty and other virtues man acquires
an honorable and moral character. If man continuously and consistently hones virtuous
habits, he will be able to make the right choice when faced with moral challenges.

To achieve a virtuous life in the best manner, man must live with the polis (city) or
society which Aristotle called a political association. Every man needs a social life. No
man would choose to live without others because by nature man is social animal destined
to live with others. The goodness or badness of all human acts depends on its effect on
others.

c. The Golden Mean

Aristotle differentiated intellectual virtues from moral virtues. The former are
exercised in the process of thinking while the latter are exercised through action. He
thought that a moral virtue as a character trait should be practiced habitually. A person
who is gentle should be constantly gentle, not just gentle occasionally. For a moral virtue
to be deeply-rooted in one’s personality one must keep on exercising it so it becomes
habitual. It must be performed without fail or without any doubt or hesitation. Hence, to
become genuinely gentle one must keep doing gentleness until gentleness comes
naturally and effortlessly and becomes one’s second nature.

Aristotle believed that every moral virtue is a mean which rests between two
extremes states. The golden mean or golden middle way is the desirable middle between
two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency (Aristotle, 2004). Moral goodness
means a balance between these two extreme vices. However, moral virtue does not lie
exactly at the center of two vices. According to Aristotle, any action that is done or
indulged excessively or insufficiently would go out of bounds and would become
unreasonable and improper to the nature of the human being (Reyes, 1989). The golden
mean is some sort of sliding scale or yardstick for deciding what is virtuous. It is concerned
with development of good character. Virtue is achieved and preserved by avoiding these
two extremes. A person should choose what lies between the two much and the not
enough. Every human act that comes from the golden middle way should be ruled by
reason, which commands the desires and passion into a balanced whole.

Each moral virtue is a kind of moderation as it is directed toward a moderate

amount or the mean between two corresponding vices, one of excess and one of
deficiency. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he presented some moral virtues:

Excess (vice) Mean (virtue) Deficiency (vice)

Rashness Courage Cowardice
Licentiousness Temperance Insensibility
Prodigality Liberality Illiberality
Vulgarity Magnificence Pettiness
Vanity Magnanimity Pusillanimity
Ambition Proper ambition Unambitiousness
Irascibility Patience Lack of spirit
Boastfulness Truthfulness Understatement
Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
flattery Friendliness Cantankerousness
Shyness Modesty Shamelessness
Envy Righteous indignation Malicious enjoyment

The table of virtues above shows only an approximation and applies differently to
different people. It is not designed as a set of exact rules. Aristotle believed that a
genuinely virtuous person will have no need of rules because he will consistently act
properly.

For Aristotle, virtue is an all-or-nothing affair. We cannot pick and choose

our virtues: we cannot decide that we will be courageous and temperate
but choose not to be magnificent. Nor can we call people properly
virtuous if they fail to exhibit all of the virtues. Though Aristotle lists a
number of virtues, he sees them all as coming from the same source. A
virtuous person is someone who is naturally disposed to exhibit all the
virtues, and a naturally virtuous disposition exhibits all the virtues equally
(Pedemonte, 2014).

Aristotle’s golden mean was not intended as a one-size-fits-all method. The middle
way that he advised people to follow is relative. Since it is subjective, what he considered
was the mean that is good for a particular person. There is no universal mean or middle
way that is applicable to every situation and to every single person. The golden
mean or golden middle way is meant to assist a person in living a virtuous life. It requires
a long moral training. Moreover, it must be noted that not every action has a middle way.
Adultery, spite, envy and such are bad, whether they are done a little or much, just as
temperance and courage are forever good (Aristotle, 2004).

It is indeed challenging to attain the mean but Aristotle admonished those who are
trying hard to achieve it: What is necessary first in aiming at the mean is to avoid that
extreme which is the more opposed to the mean. Since of the two extremes one is a more
serious error than the other, and since hitting the mean accurately is hard, the second-
best thing… is to take the lesser of the evils (Aristotle, 2004).

d. Phronesis

Aristotle believed that to be virtuous one must find the mean of a virtue, i.e., the
desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency.
Achieving this balance is arduous. To assist a person in his search for the mean he must
determine the proper path in a certain situation, and according to Aristotle this requires
phronesis. The Greek term phronesis is commonly translated as prudence or practical
wisdom.

Phronesis is an intellectual virtue rather than a moral virtue because we

learn it through instruction and not practice, but it is very closely
connected to the moral virtues. Without phronesis, it would be impossible
to practice the moral virtues properly. A person who has all the right moral
virtues knows what ends to pursue, but without phronesis, that person
will not know how to set about pursuing the right ends. Contrary to
modern assumptions, Aristotle is telling us that having one’s heart in the
right place is not good enough: being a good person requires a kind of
practical intelligence as well as a good disposition. (Nicomachean Ethics,
n.d.)

Phronesis guides man in his deliberate moral choice in order to act rightly. It is of
central importance in the formation of virtuous character and in living a good life.
Phronesis is not achieved through formal education or training. It is not intellectual value
gained by finishing a degree in a school rather it is a moral and intellectual virtue rooted
innately in man. Phronesis or the natural ability to form sound judgments and decisions
throughout life can be acquired by anybody even without educational background. It is
obtained and developed through social interaction and real life experiences. The ability
to determine what is worth doing requires constant practice. For Aristotle, “the end of a
practice is some ethically worthwhile good that is internal to, and inseparable from, the
practice and only exists in the practice itself” (Carr, 2005). Practical wisdom can be
acquired through experience. Practical wisdom can be likened to a skill like cooking. One
can’t just read a cookbook expect to become a master cook or a chef. One actually has
to get into a kitchen and start working with different ingredients to make a particular dish.
So it is with practical wisdom. One becomes more and more practically wise the more
decisions one makes. Knowledge of the wise things to do is not adequate, one must
actually do it to become adept at it through experience.
 According to Aristotle, practical reasoning is not a methodological, rule-governed
skill that can first be taught in theory and then applied in practice (Carr, 2005). It evolves
through self-understanding honed by correct reasoning and experience. Phronesis as
practical wisdom guides a person to learn and determine the good to be desired and evil
to be avoided in order to behave rightly in society. Bradshaw (2009) thought that practical
wisdom is the ability to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason. Phronesis
requires the power to rationally and carefully think of actions which results into desired
effects.

A person acquires phronesis as he advances to maturity and moves away from

rules and subsequently permits him to adjust to a more autonomous, person-centered
and virtue-centered morality. Phronesis is the path to true happiness and excellence.

4. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Ethics

St. Thomas Aquinas, Italian San Tommaso d’Aquino, also called Aquinas,
byname Doctor Angelicus (Latin: “Angelic Doctor”), (born 1224/25, Roccasecca, near
Aquino, Terra di Lavoro, Kingdom of Sicily [Italy]—died March 7, 1274, Fossanova, near
Terracina, Latium, Papal States; canonized July 18, 1323; feast day January 28, formerly
March 7), Italian Dominican theologian, the foremost medieval Scholastic. He developed
his own conclusions from Aristotelian premises, notably in the metaphysics of
personality, creation, and Providence. As a theologian, he was responsible in his two
masterpieces, the Summa theologiae and the Summa contra gentiles, for the classical
systematization of Latin theology, and, as a poet, he wrote some of the most gravely
beautiful eucharistic hymns in the church’s liturgy. His doctrinal system and the
explanations and developments made by his followers are known as Thomism. Although
many modern Roman Catholic theologians do not find St. Thomas altogether congenial,
he is nevertheless recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its foremost Western
philosopher and theologian. (adapted from Chenu.M.D. (2019)

Aquinas’ Moral Philosophy

a. Law

St. Thomas Aquinas’ typology of laws is of paramount importance to his moral

philosophy. He defined law as an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated
by the one who is in charge of the community” (ST, I-II, q. 90, a. 4). Law is considered an
ordinance of reason because it is in accordance with reason or logic and not entirely in
the will of the lawgiver. It is for the common good for the reason that the purpose of law
is the benefit of the community it binds, and not only the welfare of the legislator or
members of a legislative body. It is promulgated in order that the law can be clearly
recognized by or familiar to all people. It is enacted by the one who is in charge of the
community and not on the basis of random choice or personal whim by just anybody.

Aquinas proposed four kinds of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine.
 Eternal law is described as nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as
directing all actions and movements (ST, I-II, q. 93, a. 1). It is God's plan for everyone
and everything in the world. It is God’s will, not entirely understood by men. Eternal law
is God’s governance of the universe as its supreme ruler. All created creatures are subject
to this eternal law which directs them to their appointed end.

Natural law is the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law (ST I-II, q. 91,
a. 2.). It is the sharing in the Eternal Law by intelligent creatures. The first principle of the
natural law is good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided (ST I-II, q. 94, a. 2.).
Guided by reason, all men are bound to live their rational nature. Through choice and
reason man participates in the eternal law for his direction and preservation. The natural
law is universal since it includes all men of every period of time.
Human law is commonly interpreted as positive laws which are enacted and
enforced in human societies. Aquinas argued that human laws are only valid if they
conform to natural law. If a law is unjust, then it is not actually a law, but a perversion of
law (ST, I-II, q. 95, a.2). For a human law to be a true law it must always be directed to
the common good. Human law is an application of natural law and cannot depart from the
essence of the natural law. Since natural law is too wide to present clearly defined rules,
the human law’s accurate rules of behavior are generally assumed to spell out what the
natural law instructs.

Divine law is God’s law as divulged in the scripture. It is shared to men through
revelation which is derived from eternal law. This biblical law which contains divine
commands is organized into two parts: Mosaic Law (Old Testament) and New Law (New
Testament). They exhort moral conduct and promise heavenly reward.

In the hierarchy of law, Aquinas believed that human laws originated from natural
law which is a rational participation of man in the eternal law. For this reason, eternal law
is the highest, followed by natural law, and then human law.

Of the four kinds of law, natural law is of prime importance in Ethics. Natural law
is God’s imprint on human beings. Through the light of reason embedded by God in every
man, he is directed to acts and goals appropriate to him. Among created beings, human
beings alone possess the natural tendency to use reason to lead their lives. The natural
law strongly urges men to pursue and do what is good and to avoid evil. Reason discloses
particular natural laws that are good for men such as self-preservation, procreation,
education of children, the desire to know God, and the pursuit of peaceful life in society.
Reason also illuminates the minds of men to comprehend things that are evil such as
murder, adultery, theft, suicide, racism, bullying, and lying.

b. Elements of Moral Act

Aquinas analyzed human acts on the basis not only of their agreement to the
natural law but also of their elements. He proposed three elements which combine to
constitute the morality of any human act: the object, the end and the circumstances. If
any one of these elements is immoral, the entire human act is rendered immoral. For a
human act to be considered moral, all three elements must be either morally good or at
least morally neutral. If even one of the three elements is morally bad, then the whole
human act is deemed immoral.

Simply put, the object of a human act, is “what the exterior action is about,”
according to Aquinas (ST, I-II, q. 18, a. 6). The object of the human act is what one would
see if he were to witness the act itself. It is the action done or the act itself. One cannot
perform an act if one is not doing anything. The action done is the object of the act; say,
of studying, exercising, drinking, etc. The object of a human act may be regarded as
containing a further specification -e. g., studying in the library for the final examination,
exercising in the gym to stay in shape, drinking clean water. A human act thus specified
may, when considered in itself, be good, bad, or indifferent; thus, to study in the library
for the final examination is good in itself, to kill oneself is bad in itself, and to eat fruit is in
itself an indifferent act.

For a human act to be treated as good, its object, whether viewed in itself or as
further specified, must be free from all defect or at least indifferent. In some human acts,
the object alone is sufficient to conclude whether the human act is morally evil or not but
insufficient in other human acts, hence, the end or intention must also be evaluated.

The end of a human act is what a person had in mind when he performed an act.
It indicates the intention or purpose of the person executing an act. This intention or
purpose can cause a morally good act either good or evil, and can cause a morally neutral
act either good or evil. A good end can never make a human act good if its object is evil.
If the object is evil, even if done with the best of intentions, one cannot transform the
human act into good.

Stealing from wealthy individuals (object is evil) in order to improve the life of the
poor (good end) a la Robin Hood is still stealing. Turning to abortion (object is evil) in
order to reduce the number of births, to steer clear of unwanted children, and to properly
bring up children (intentions are good) is still abortion. A good end or purpose cannot
make a morally bad act good. No one is permitted to do evil for a good intention.

The circumstances of a human act refer to the different particular characteristics

that encompassed the act. Described in basic terms, the circumstances are the context
in which the human act is performed. The circumstances are such things as who, what,
where, how, when, and with whose help, are needed in determining the morality of an
individual act.

Circumstances increase or decrease the moral goodness or badness of human

acts. A person’s responsibility is increased or decreased by the circumstances. They can
make an evil act less severe by making it more acceptable or less evil, or they can make
an act worse. For example, the consequences of cheating are aggravated or mitigated
depending on who copied, what was copied, where did it happen, how was it copied,
when was it copied, and with whose help was it done. However, they do not lessen the
moral quality of human acts. Circumstances do not make an evil human act good or right.
Murder is morally wrong regardless of the circumstances.

Contrariwise, circumstances can make a good human act, evil. Circumstances can
increase one’s guilt (e.g. when a teacher cheats his students) or decrease one’s guilt (e.g.
when a student tells a white lie to save his classmate from being expelled).

c. Happiness and virtues

Aquinas argued that every human act is directed towards ends. He claimed that
man’s final end is happiness. Every man seeks happiness and is naturally bound to it.
Hence, he is not free to choose or reject it. However, not every man concur as to whether
or where it is achieved. Aquinas thought that man's true happiness does not consist of
wealth, bodily pleasures, fame, honor or in any created worldly good. Man will be unable
to find the greatest happiness in this life, because final happiness consists in a
supernatural union with God (ST, I-II, q. 2, a. 8). The final object of man's will can only be
realized in God, who is the origin of all good. No other good on earth can completely
satisfy man with the ultimate good he seeks.

If, therefore, we speak of man's last end as of the thing which is the end,
thus all other things concur in man's last end, since God is the last end
of man and of all other things. If, however, we speak of man's last end,
as of the acquisition of the end, then irrational creatures do not concur
with man in this end. For man and other rational creatures attain to their
last end by knowing and loving God: this is not possible to other
creatures, which acquire their last end, in so far as they share in the
Divine likeness, inasmuch as they are, or live, or even know (ST, I-II, q.
1, a. 8).

In the present life an imperfect happiness can be attained by man by living a life
according to reason. Aquinas held that perfect happiness could only be achieved through
a vision of God. This is possible because God has infused in man the longing to know
Him. Man has to purify his soul in order to get a perfect knowledge of God. When man
reaches this, every sadness or worry will be replaced by a pure and everlasting
happiness.

Aquinas declared that happiness is called man's supreme good, because it is the
attainment or enjoyment of the supreme good. (ST, I-II, q. 3, a. 1). He believed that
happiness is attained by cultivating virtues which enable man to comprehend the essence
of happiness and inspire man to seek it. Aquinas defined virtue as a good habit, which is
a good quality of a person demonstrated by his actions and reactions over a substantial
period of time (Porter, 1994). Habit is a quality that inclines man to act in a particular
manner. It can be good or evil. Its moral quality can be decided by whether the mode is
suitable to the things nature (ST, I-II, q. 49, a. 2). It is good habit if it conforms with man’s
nature otherwise, it is bad habit. It is in conformity with man’s nature if it does not go
against the development of man.
 Aquinas distinguished acquired habits from infused habits. The acquired habits are
cultivated by man through his own powers repeatedly, deliberately and consistently in
spite of obstacles. Infused habits are directly acquired from God. Man needs acquired
habits to direct him to his natural end and lead him to the good as defined by human
reason. However, he is unable to reach his supernatural end through his natural abilities
alone. Man must receive the infused virtues from God to attain his supernatural and
ultimate end which is his supernatural union with God.

Aquinas introduced at least two types of infused virtues: moral and theological.
Aquinas employed Aristotle’s definition of moral virtue as a habit of choosing the mean
appointed by reason as a prudent man would appoint it (ST, I-II, q. 59, a. 1). Defined by
reason, moral virtue is able to direct man’s appetite so that it seeks and chooses only
what is good. There are four moral (also called cardinal) virtues: prudence, justice,
temperance, and fortitude. Below is a short description of the four Aquinian moral virtues.

• Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true
good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving
it.
• Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to
give their due to God and neighbor
• Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of
pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods.
• Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and
constancy in the pursuit of the good.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church: Article 7: The Virtues, n.d.)

According to Aquinas virtues are called theological because they have God for
their object, both in so far as by them we are properly directed to Him, and because they
are infused into our souls by God alone, as also, finally, because we come to know of
them only by Divine revelation in the Sacred Scriptures (Delany, 1910). Through God’s
sanctifying grace, man receives the theological virtues directly from Him. These virtues
are faith, hope, and charity which ordain every man to God who is his ultimate and
supernatural end. They originate from God, otherwise these virtues would fall short of the
supernatural end.
The theological virtues permit man to take part in God’s divine life. They establish
the foundation for man’s moral life because they lead, direct, and provide life to all other
virtues. They are offered to man by God and it is up to him to determine whether or not
he wants to receive and apply them in his life. What follows are brief definitions of the
three theological virtues:

• Faith is the infused virtue, by which the intellect, by a movement of the

will, assents to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the motive of
intrinsic evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible authority of God
revealing (Waldron,1912).
• Hope is defined as a Divinely infused virtue, acts upon the will, by which
one trusts, with confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to attain
life everlasting (Waldron,1912).

• Charity is a divinely infused virtue, inclining the human will to cherish God
for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of God
(Waldron,1912).
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 3: Immanuel Kant and Right Theory

Nominal Duration: 4.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. define deontological ethics;
2. differentiate Hypothetical and Categorical imperative; and
3. apply Deontological Ethics to a situation.

Introduction

Was there ever a time when you really desired to do something good but you were
frustrated because the results didn’t turn out to be well? Do not be in despair! For in this
module, your efforts are surely appreciated and are therefore recognized.

The deontological ethics theory argues that the rightness and wrongness of an
action is determined basing from the intention of the moral agent (the actor). However,
this doesn’t end here. The next question would be, is it an acceptable action? Immanuel
Kant is very particular in addressing this question by contending that one should always
accord with the imperative that one should not do an action unless it can become a
universal act. He simply argues that one should make sure that every time we act, it
should be an acceptable action for everyone including ourselves in case others will do it
to us too. In one way or another, it is likened to the golden rule which states that we should
not do to others what we do not want others do unto us.

The most crucial question is; how often should we do what is right? Immanuel Kant
argued that it is our outmost duty to ALWAYS do what is right and therefore what is good
no matter what the circumstances are because it is just this way that we can act out of
reason and mostly out of goodwill which is the only thing that is good in itself.

Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics

The term Deontology comes from the Greek word, deon, which means, duty.
Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of duty. Man has the moral duties to do
things which is the right to do and moral duties not to do things which is wrong to do.
Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t depend on its consequences. Rather, an
action is right or wrong in itself.

Most deontological theories recognize two classes of duties. First, there are
general duties we have towards anyone. These are mostly prohibitions, e.g. do not lie, do
not murder. But some may be positive, e.g. help people in need. Second, there are duties
we have because of our particular personal or social relationships. If you have made a
promise, you have a duty to keep it. If you are a parent, you have a duty to provide for
your children. And so on.

We each have duties regarding our own actions. I have a duty to keep my
promises, but I don’t have a duty to make sure promises are kept. Deontology claims that
we should each be most concerned with complying with our duties, not attempting to bring
about the most good. In fact, all deontologists agree that there are times when we should
not maximize the good, because doing so would be to violate a duty. Most deontologists
also argue that we do not have a duty to maximize the good, only a duty to do something
for people in need. As this illustrates, many deontologists think our duties are quite limited.
While there are a number of things we may not do, we are otherwise free to act as we
please.

Actions and Intentions

Deontology says that certain types of action are right or wrong. How do we
distinguish types of action? For example, a person may kill someone else. A conventional
description of the action is ‘killing’. But not all ‘killings’ are the same type of action, morally
speaking. If the person intended to kill someone, i.e. that is what they wanted to bring
about, that is very different than if the killing was accidental or if the person was only
intending to defend themselves against an attack.

Actions are the result of choices, and so should be understood in terms of choices.
Choices are made for reasons, and with a purpose in mind. These considerations
determine what the action performed actually is. So deontology argues that we do not
know what type of action an action is unless we know the intention. We should judge
whether an action is right or wrong by the agent’s intention.

Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals

To understand Kant’s moral philosophy, we need to explain a couple of terms and

assumptions. First, Kant believed that, whenever we make decisions, we act on a maxim.
Maxims are Kant’s version of intentions. They are our personal principles that guide our
decisions, e.g. ‘to have as much fun as possible’, ‘to marry only someone I truly love’. All
our decisions have some maxim or other behind them. Second, morality is a set of
principles that are the same for everyone and that apply to everyone. Third, Kant talks of
our ability to make choices and decisions as ‘the will’. He assumes that our wills are
rational, that is we can make choices on the basis of reasons. We do not act only on
instinct. We can act on choice, and we can consider what to choose using reasoning.

Kant argues that the fundamental principle of morality is this: ‘Act only on that
maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’.
Why does he come to this conclusion?

a. The Good Will

 Kant begins his argument by reflecting on whether anything is morally good
‘without qualification’. He argues that only the ‘good will’ is. Anything else can either be
bad or contribute to what is bad. For instance, intelligence and self-control are good – but
they can enable someone to do clever or difficult bad things, if that is what they choose.
Power can be good, but it depends on what use we put it to. Nor is happiness good without
qualification. If someone is made happy by hurting others, their happiness is morally bad.
So we evaluate happiness by morality. Having a morally good will is a precondition to
deserving happiness.

Kant then makes a second claim. What is good about the good will is not what it
achieves. It doesn’t derive its goodness from successfully producing some good result.
Rather, it is good ‘in itself’. If someone tries their hardest to do what is morally right but
they don’t succeed, then we should still praise their efforts as morally good.

b. Duty

What is our conception of the morally good will? Kant argues that to have a good
will is to be motivated by duty. This is best understood by examples. Suppose a shop-
keeper sells his goods at a fixed price, giving the correct change, and acting honestly in
this way. Of course, this is the morally right thing to do. But this doesn’t show that he has
a good will, since acting like this is just in his self-interest. So we can act in accordance
with duty, but without being motivated by duty. Kant controversially claims that this applies
just as much to doing good things for other people when that is what we want to do and
enjoy doing. Doing good things for others is right and should be praised and encouraged,
but these actions don’t necessarily have moral worth. If someone was to do something
good for others even when they didn’t want to, but just because they believe that it is the
morally right thing to do, that would show that they have a good will. So to have a good
will is to do one’s duty (what is morally right) because it is one’s duty (because it is morally
right).

But what is morally right? What does a goodwill will? Here, things get tricky. A good
will isn’t good because it aims at certain ends, because there are no ends that are good
without qualification. We can’t, for instance, say that the good will aims at the general
happiness, because happiness isn’t always morally good. So the good will must, in some
way, be good ‘in itself’, just on the basis of what it is like as a will. What makes a will good
is something about the maxims it adopts. However, it can’t be what the maxims say, i.e.
what they aim at. A puzzle …

Another puzzle arises if we consider this in terms of motives. What is it to want to

do one’s duty because it is one’s duty, if we can’t say what one’s duty is? It can only be
the thought of doing one’s duty ‘as such’. But what is that?

To solve these puzzles, we need to recall Kant’s assumptions. Maxims are

principles of choice. They are subjective – you have yours, I have mine. What makes
them different is what they are about, what they aim at and why. But what they have in
common is that they are all principles. Now, morality is a set of principles for everyone.
So the concept of duty is the concept of a principle for everyone. So, somehow, the good
will is a will that chooses what it does, motivated by the idea of a principle for everyone.
This is ‘not an expected result’, Kant says.

How can this idea serve as a motive or criterion for the good will? Kant rephrases
it: to have a good will, I should act only on maxims that I can also will everyone to act on.
He later calls this principle the ‘Categorical Imperative’. I can adopt this as a maxim, a
principle of choice. I choose only to make choices on the basis of maxims that everyone
could act on. But this maxim doesn’t specify any particular end or goal (such as
happiness). It only mentions the idea of a principle for everyone, a universal law.

We need to understand the Categorical Imperative in more detail. But first, an

example: suppose I am tempted to make a promise with no intention of keeping it, e.g. I
might borrow money (because I want the money) on the promise to pay it back, but I don’t
intend to pay it back. We can show that this is wrong. Suppose everyone acted on this
maxim. Then everyone would know that everyone acts on this maxim. In that situation,
making a false promise like this would be impossible. No one would trust my promise,
and I can’t make a promise unless someone believes it. So I can’t will it to be a universal
law.

Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

An ‘imperative’ is just a command. ‘Hypothetical Imperatives’ are statements about

what you ought to do, on the assumption of some desire or goal. They specify a means
to an end. So ‘if you want to see the show, you ought to get to the theatre at least 15
minutes early’ is a hypothetical imperative. In this example, the assumed desire or goal
is explicit: the imperative is presented as a conditional, with the desire described in the
antecedent (‘you want to see the show’), and the command in the consequent (‘get to the
theatre at least 15 minutes early’). But hypothetical imperatives can leave the assumed
desire or goal implicit, e.g. ‘Eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day’ (if you
want to stay healthy).

Why can’t I just say ‘I want to see the show but refuse to get there early’ or ‘I want
to be healthy but refuse to eat fruit and vegetables’? Why ought I to do these things, given
what I want? Because these are the means to my end. Kant argues that willing the end
entails willing the means. It is an analytic truth that someone who wills the end wills the
means. To will an end is to will an effect. But the concept of an effect contains the concept
of a cause. Hence, to will an effect, you must will the cause. The cause is the means. (It
is important here that you don’t merely want the end, but actually will it.)

Hypothetical Imperatives can be avoided by simply giving up the assumed desire

or goal. Suppose I don’t want to see the show – then I don’t need to get to the theatre
early. Suppose I don’t want to be healthy – then the imperative to get my ‘five-a-day’
doesn’t apply to me. (Of course, it is odd not to want to be healthy, and we may wonder
if I really do not want to be healthy – perhaps I do, but I can’t be bothered… In this case,
I want to be healthy, but I don’t will it.) In other words, it is possible to ‘opt out’ of a
hypothetical imperative.

This is not true of morality, we usually think. Moral duties are not hypothetical. They
are what we ought to do, full stop. They are your duty regardless of what you want. They
are ‘categorical’. Kant has also argued that moral duties aren’t a means to some further
end, because what makes an action good is that it is willed by the good will. All categorical
imperatives – our moral duties – are derived from one, the Categorical Imperative: ‘Act
only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law’.

How are categorical imperatives possible? Why is there something that we ought
to do, regardless of what we want? Kant argues that moral duties depend just on our
being rational. We need to understand further just what this means.

The Two Tests

There are two different ways in which we could fail to be able to will our maxim to
become a universal law.

1. Contradiction in Conception – refers to the situation in which everyone acted on that

maxim is somehow self-contradictory. We saw an example of this in the case of making
a false promise, above. Another example: suppose you want a gift to take to a party, but
you can’t afford it, so you steal it from the shop. Your maxim is something like: ‘To steal
something I want if I can’t afford it’. This can only be the right thing to do if everyone could
do it. However, if we could all just help ourselves to whatever we wanted, the idea of
‘owning’ things would disappear. Now, by definition, you can’t steal something unless it
belongs to someone else. Stealing presupposes that people own things. But people can
only own things if they don’t all go around helping themselves whenever they want. So it
is logically impossible for everyone to steal things. And so stealing is wrong! (at least
stealing just because one wants something).

2. Contradiction in Will - this is more difficult to understand. The maxim is not self-
contradictory, but we cannot rationally will it. Consider a refusal to help other people, ever.
It is logically possible to universalize the maxim ‘not to help others in need’. The world
would not be a pleasant place, but this is beside the point. Kant does not claim that an
action is wrong because we wouldn’t like the consequences if everyone did it (many
philosophers and students have misinterpreted Kant on this point). His test is whether we
can rationally will that our maxim be a universal law. Kant argues that we cannot will that
no one ever help anyone else. How so?

a. A will, by definition, wills its ends (goals).

b. As we said above, to truly will the ends, one must will the necessary means.
c. Therefore, we cannot will a situation in which it would be impossible for us to achieve
our ends.
d. It is possible that the only available means to our ends, in some situations, involves the
help of others.
e. We cannot therefore will that this possibility is denied to us.
f. Therefore, we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps anyone else. To do so
is to cease to will the necessary means to one’s ends, which is effectively to cease to
will any ends at all. This contradicts the very act of willing.

Morality and Reason

Kant argued that it is not just morally wrong to disobey the Categorical Imperative,
it is also irrational. As the tests show, disobeying the Categorical Imperative involves a
self-contradiction. Through the Categorical Imperative, reason both determines what our
duties are and gives us the means to discover them. Furthermore, we intuitively think that
morality applies to all and only rational beings, not just human beings. In Douglas Adams’
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Arthur Dent protests to the Vogons, aliens who are
going to destroy the Earth, that what they are doing is immoral. But morality doesn’t apply
to beings that cannot make rational choices, such as dogs and cats (pets misbehave,
they don’t act morally wrongly).

With this link, we can explain the nature of morality in terms of the nature of reason.
Morality is universal, the same for everyone; so is reason, says Kant. Morality and
rationality are categorical; the demands to be rational and moral don’t stop applying to
you even if you don’t care about them. Neither morality nor rationality depend on what we
want.

The Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

Kant gives a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, known as the

Formula of Humanity: ‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the
same time as an end’. Why does he say this, and what does it mean?

Let us return to the idea of the good will. Only the good will is good without
qualification. Another way of saying this is that it is the only thing of unconditional value.
Everything else that is valuable depends, in some way, on the good will. For instance,
intelligence is valuable for all sorts of purposes. In other words, it is valuable as a means
to an end. Its value, then, depends on the value of its end. What gives its end value? We
do, says Kant. Something is only an end if it is adopted by a will. It is our adopting
something as an end that gives it value. Because I have desires and purposes, various
things in the world are valuable to me.

So far, value is subjective. However, this does not apply to other people (or rational
beings generally). Your value is not simply your value to me as a means in relation to
some purpose or desire I have. It is not even your value to you (you might have very low
self-esteem, and wrongly underestimate your value). We have ‘intrinsic worth’, which Kant
identifies as ‘dignity’.
 What gives us this dignity is our rational will. The will has unconditional value as
the thing which gives value to everything else. So in the second formulation above, by
‘humanity’, Kant means our ability to rationally determine which ends to adopt and pursue.

Kant says that because people are ends in themselves, we must always treat them
as such, and never ‘simply’ as a means. Note that he does not say we cannot use people
as a means, but that we can’t use them only as a means. We rely on other people in many
ways as means to achieve our own ends, e.g. people serving me in a shop are a means
to getting what I want to buy. What is important, says Kant, is that I also respect them as
an end.

To treat someone simply as a means, and not also as an end, is to treat the person
in a way that undermines their power of making a rational choice themselves. It means,
first, that we should appeal to other people’s reason in discussing with them what to do,
rather than manipulate them in ways that they are unaware of. Coercing someone, lying
to them, stealing from them, all involve not allowing them to make an informed choice. If
they are involved in our action in any way, they need to be able to agree (or refuse) to
adopt our end as their own.

Second, treating someone as an end also means leaving them free to pursue the
ends that they adopt. The value of what people choose to do lies in their ability to choose
it, not just in what they have chosen. So, we should refrain from harming or hindering
them. This is to respect their rationality. Third, someone’s being an end in themselves
means that they are an end for others. We should adopt their ends as our own. What this
means is that we should help them pursue their ends, just as we pursue our own ends.
In other words, the second formulation requires that we help other people. This should be
one of our ends in life.
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 4: Utilitarianism

Nominal Duration: 1.5 Hours

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
1. differentiate Act Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism;
2. cite a personal experience when the theory of utilitarianism is applied; and
3. critique the theory of utilitarianism.

Each time we act, we have a goal in mind. When we say goal, it usually pertains
to the end of that certain action. End usually answers the question; what do we want to
achieve in doing such action? Sometimes, we tend to measure the rightness and
wrongness of our actions basing from its end. If the end is good, then the action is right
but if it is not, then the action is wrong. When we do this, we usually adhere to the principle
of ‘teleological ethics’. Teleology came from the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning end or
purpose thus, teleology is an ethical theory that determines the rightness or wrongness
of an action basing from our particular goal. Thus, an act is right if and only if it, or the
rule under which it falls, produces, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a
greater good.

Consequentialism falls under teleological ethics. What makes it more specific

than the broader sense of teleology is that it focuses on the consequences or the outcome
of an act itself. It does not ponder on the intention of the agent, the nature of the act nor
the traditional moral norms. It determines the rightness and wrongness of the act basing
from the result of the act per se. If the result is good, then the act is right if the results are
bad, then the act is wrong.

It is noteworthy to consider that not all teleological theories are consequential but
all consequentialist theories are teleological. Note that not all teleological theories are
consequential because one may have the good intention of doing an action does making
it teleologically right but when one eventually does the action and the results are bad
then it is consequentially wrong. Moreover, all consequentialist theories are teleological
because the consequence/result of an act is a part but does not cover the entire
end/goal of an act.

One of the most plausible consequentialist theories is Utilitarianism. It came from

the Latin word ‘utilis’ meaning ‘useful’. De Guzman et.al. (2018) It states that what is
useful is good, and that the moral values of actions are determined by the utility of its
consequences. Arguing that the consequences of an act is what make it either moral or
immoral, it explains that those actions that bring about favourable effects are moral while
those that produce damaging results are immoral.
Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism in general can be applied to either particular actions hence it is called

‘Act Utilitarianism’ or it can also be applied to general rules thus being addressed to as
‘Rule Utilitarianism’.

Act Utilitarianism - is an ethical philosophy which holds the principle that the rightness
of an act is determined by its effect in the general happiness (Moore and Bruder 2005,
285). The Act Utilitarianism believes that the utilitarian principle should be applied to
particular acts in particular situation or circumstances on a case by case basis. The issue
here would be the possible results of each particular act and those results will be the
means in order to determine the morality of an action. If the consequences led to the
attainment of the happiness of the greatest number of people, then the action is
considered to be morally acceptable.

In act utilitarianism, therefore, the principle of utility is applied directly to every

alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which
brings about the best results, or the least amount of bad results.

Rule Utilitarianism – maintains that the principle at issue should be used to test moral
rules, and then the rules can be utilized in order to decide on which moral judgment is
right or wrong under the circumstances. Therefore, Rule Utilitarianism considers the
possible results in the light of a rule (Timbreza, 1993, 31.). Hence, in rule utilitarianism,
the principle of utility can be used to decide the validity of rules of conduct (moral
standards or principles).

Difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism

In order to clearly illustrate the difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule
Utilitarianism, we can take this case: Supposing that by murdering a thief, the killer would
increase the general happiness. In his regard, act utilitarianism would say that it is
morally acceptable to murder the thief. However, a rule utilitarian, would say that if the
society considered murder as unlawful, then the general happiness would be diminished
in view of the rule of conduct. In this case, rule utilitarianism seems to be much more
Kantian than the act utilitarianism.
 MODULE CONTENT

Topic 5: Justice and Fairness

Nominal Duration: 4.5 Hours

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
1. explain John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness;
2. enumerate and apply the different distributive norms into real life scenarios; and
3. analyze a present day issue (Train Law) using the abovementioned theories.

This topic deals with the ethical framework of Justice and Fairness. We are always
confronted with the question whether justice can be really attained or is it just a concept
that is always discussed (especially in ethics) but remains to be a theory. Moreover, we
are always confused whether if one thing is fair, does it necessarily mean that it is equal??
If so, is it just? And finally, we oftentimes question ourselves what shall be our role in
building a just and humane society and if we play these roles responsibly, what is in it for
us?

In order to answer the abovementioned questions, we shall be delving with John

Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness, The theory of Distributive Justice and the Citizen’s
Responsibility to the State [and the state’s responsibility in return] with the hope of
rekindling the fire in our hearts burning with passion and desire to become a productive
and responsible citizens of the society where we belong into.

John Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness

Rawls is considered as a major social and political philosopher of the 20th century.
In his work entitled Theory of Justice, he upheld the idea that justice is fairness. The idea
became the basis for social institutions to not confer morally arbitrary lifelong advantages
on some persons at the expense of others. This idea of John Rawls became one of the
bases for the contemporary moral philosophy and an alternative to the utilitarian system.

According to Rawls, the basis of morality is justice. Justice, he said, is the first
virtue of social institutions as truth is of system of thought (Rawls, 1999). As a reaction
to the ethical principle of utilitarianism and intuitionism which according to Rawls, had
dominated the philosophical tradition, he believed that no matter how elegant and
practical the ethical system could be but it is untrue then it must still be rejected and no
matter how efficient and well-arranged the laws and institutions are but they are unjust,
then it must be reformed or abolished.
The moral principle of John Rawls is a brilliant synthesis of the strength of
utilitarianism and of the deontological views of Immanuel Kant and Willian William David
Ross. It was also an avoidance of the apparent lack of justice in utilitarianism as he built
on the fundamental notion of the ultimate dignity of human beings in the ethics of
Immanuel Kant and William David Ross. From these deontological views, Rawls
formulated his own concept of social morality, which served as the basis of social justice.
Rawls two (2) Principles of Social Justice

1. The Liberty principle is concerned with political institutions

“Each person has the same and indefeasible [permanent] claim to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
liberties for all.”

This means that everybody has the same basic liberties which can never be taken
away. This first principle is very Kantian in that it provides for basic and universal respect
for individuals as a minimum standard for all just institutions.

In the same way as Rawls gave as examples most of the liberties in the US bill of
rights, it is in this analogy that we can consider our basic rights as stated in the 1987
Philippine Constitution as our basic liberties:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Phil.
Const.)

It is also noteworthy to consider that Rawls added some liberties from the broader
area of human rights, like freedom of travel. Rawls recognized the right of private
individuals, corporations, or workers to own private property. But he omitted the right to
own the "means of production" (e.g., mines, factories, farms). He also left out the right to
inherit wealth. These things were not basic liberties in his view.

Moreover, Rawls agreed that basic liberties could be limited, but "only for the sake
of liberty." Thus, curbing the liberties of an intolerant group that intended to harm the
liberties of others may be justified. (John Rawls and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)

2. The Principle concerning Social and Economic Institutions

However, while everybody’s basic liberties are equal (political institutions), it is an

undeniable fact that inequalities (social and economic institutions) do ‘really exist’ in our
present time. Rawls’ second principle allows such inequalities but under certain
conditions. (John Rawls and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)

“Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

1.2.1 first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of (fair equality of opportunity); and
1.2.2. second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the Difference Principle)”
 Rawls’ second principle of Social Justice recognized that a society could not avoid
inequalities among its people. In real world, inequalities result from things such as
person’s inherited characteristics, social class, personal motivation, and even ‘luck’. Even
so, Rawls maintained that a just society ought to find ways to lessen inequalities in areas
where it can function.

Thus, dividing his second principle into 2 parts:

2.1. Fair Equality of Opportunity

The first part, fair equality of opportunity, requires that citizens with the same
talents and willingness to use them have the same educational and economic
opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor, black or white, male or
female and so on and so forth.

By "offices and positions" in his Second Principle, Rawls meant especially the best
jobs in private business and public employment. He said that these jobs should be "open"
to everyone by the society providing "fair equality of opportunity." One way for a society
to do this would be to eliminate discrimination. Another way would be to provide everyone
easy access to education. (De Guzman et.al. 2018)

2.2. The Difference Principle

The most controversial element of his theory of social justice was his Difference
Principle. He first defined it in a 1968 essay. "All differences in wealth and income, all
social and economic inequalities," he wrote, "should work for the good of the least
favored."

Later, when he wrote A Theory of Justice, he used the phrase, "least-advantaged

members of society" to refer to those at the bottom of economic ladder. These might be
unskilled individuals, earning the lowest wages in the society. Rawls favored maximizing
the improvement of the "least-advantaged" group in society. He would do this not only by
providing "fair equality of opportunity," but also by such possible ways as a guaranteed
minimum income or minimum wage. (John Rawls and his Theory of Justice, n.d.)

To wrap up, it is important to remember that Rawls considered a priority over his
principles of social justice; The First Principle (‘basic liberties’) holds priority over the
Second Principle. The first part of the Second Principle (‘fair equality of opportunity’) holds
priority over the second part (‘Difference Principle’). However, he maintains his stand that
both the First and Second Principles together are both necessary for a just society.

The Original Position (The ‘Thought Experiment’)

John Rawls’ “Original Position” (now known as the thought experiment) is likened
to that of John Locke’s and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract theory. Locke and
Rousseau both theorized that our predecessors have entered into a ‘social contract’
between themselves and their leader. The contract included that people would submit
themselves under their ruler (typically a king) while being assured that their natural rights
would be secured. Being a plausible theory aimed for social justice, Thomas Jefferson
subscribed to the Social Contract Theory in writing the Declaration of Independence.

However plausible, political scientists of the 20th century had dismissed the social
contract as an old-fashioned myth. On the contrary, John Rawls as a political philosopher
who focuses on society’s basic institutions aimed to revive the concept thus devising a
hypothetical version. He proposed that unless institutions such as the constitution,
economy and education system functioned in a way just for all, social justice would not
truly exist at all.

The Conditions

The difference between the social contract theory and Rawls’ Original Position is
that Rawls’ theory is not an assembly of real people dealing over a contract. Instead, it is
a hypothetical meeting where participants are only governed by reason and logic while
deliberating and assessing principles of social justice and eventually deciding which will
be the best principle that will be compulsory on their society forever.

In order to assure that the choice of social justice principle would be truly unbiased
and impartial, Rawls included the condition that these fictional participants should be
under the ‘veil of ignorance’ while picking their Social Justice principles.

In ‘being under the Veil of Ignorance’, Rawls would argue that the participants
would not know their sex, age, religion, race, social class, abilities, preferences, life goals
or anything about themselves (thus being governed only under logic and reason). They
would not also know in which society do they belong though they have a general
knowledge on how social institutions function. It is under this state that he is certain that
these fictional participants would be able to choose a fair and impartial contract.

The Choices

Rawls set up his "thought experiment" with several given systems of social justice
principles. The task of the imaginary group members under the "veil of ignorance" was to
choose one system of principles for their own society.

Rawls was mainly interested to see what choice the group would make between
his own Justice as Fairness concept and another called "Average Utility." This concept of
justice called for maximizing the average wealth of the people. (John Rawls and his
Theory of Justice, n.d.)
Making the Choice

Considering that these fictional participants are rational and logical individuals,
they would have to determine first what most persons in most societies want. He argued
that these individuals would determine four basic things which he later on referred to as
‘the primary goods’: (1) wealth and income, (2) rights and liberties, (3) opportunities for
advancement, and (4) self-respect.

Now, after determining these ‘primary goods’, the next question would be how
would these goods be distributed to each of the members in a fair and just manner?
Logically speaking, all of these participants would argue that everybody should have an
equal and thus fair share of their rights and liberties, opportunities for advancement and
self-respect. (The Liberty Principle and the Fair Equality of Opportunity part of the Second
Principle).

However, everyone having equal wealth and income is something that is

impractical for a rational individual. Rawls was certain that these fictional participants
would reasonably conclude that some (but not extreme) inequality of wealth and income
is necessary in a just society. Why so, because people who work harder in order to
improve the status of the society as a whole should be reasonably rewarded.

If equal distribution of wealth and income is impractical, then how should it be

distributed in a just society? Rawls argued that these fictional participants would adopt
the ‘maximin rule’ (maximum – minimum rule) which explains that the safest and therefore
the best choice is the highest minimum. Let us take this for example (John Rawls and his
Theory of Justice, n.d.)

Average Wage Per Hour Legal Minimum Wage

SOCIETY A $20.00 $7.00
SOCIETY B $30.00 $1.00

In the example above, the best choice under the "maximin" rule would be
SOCIETY A, which has the highest minimum wage. Those earning the average wage and
above are doing pretty well as well. SOCIETY B with its higher average wage benefits
those in the middle and at the top income levels, but largely ignores those at the bottom.
This is the flaw of the Average Utility social justice system, according to Rawls.

Rawls contended that these participants would also choose the principles of social
justice that would have the highest benefit for the least privileged because it would be the
best choice if they will be placed in the bottom part of the society later on [remember that
they are ‘under the veil of ignorance’ and therefore do not know which part of the society
do they belong into] therefore, to be on the safe side, they would sensibly pick the principle
of justice that most benefited those at the bottom. [The difference principle part of the
second principle]
 Imagine that I am to buy apples of different sizes for everybody (1 each) I would
tend to look at the sizes of each apple first and would definitely not buy the ones that are
small because if everybody would have to pick from what I have bought, they would
definitely get the larger ones and eventually would leave the smallest one for me. Though
the smallest will be the one left for me, at least I know that it is not smallest from the ones
that I have seen in the market.

It is in this way that Rawls believed that he had demonstrated that his Justice as
Fairness principles, tilted toward the ‘least advantaged’, were the best for forming or
restructuring institutions for a just society. (De Guzman et. Al. 2018)

John Rawls’ Concept of Distributive Justice

The former module (John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness) basically concerns
the just allocation of goods in a society. This Social Justice theory is an example of the
concept called Distributive Justice.

How can one determine whether or not distributive justice exists in a certain
society? It is when, as John Rawls would argue that Inequalities, though present, are not
very evidently and frequently occurring in a certain society. In order to avoid such
inequalities, the society should consider the available quantities of goods, the process by
which goods are distributed, and later, how these goods are allocated to its members.

It is important to consider that not all societies conform to a single distributive norm.
A norm is a standard of behaviour that is acceptable and is therefore designated as
normal within a specific society. In order to determine whether distributive justice has
occurred, one usually turn to the distributive norms into which their group adheres into
and if rewards and burdens are allocated according to such norm, then Distributive
Justice is attained. The following are the common types of distributive norms (“Distributive
Justice,” n.d.):

a) Equity: Members’ outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an

individual who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy)
should receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very little.
Members of large groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on equity.
b) Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal
share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20 %
of the group’s resources should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%
c) Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive
more than those in lower level positions.
d) Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet
those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who
already possess them, regardless of their input.
e) Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources
with those who have less.
 In social psychology, Distributive Justice is perceived as fairness of how rewards
and costs are distributed across group members. Such as for example, when everybody
contributed an equal amount of money to buy snacks and somebody who went to the
comfort room to attend to some personal necessities comes back and suddenly finds out
that there is no more food left for him/her would certainly feel that distributive justice is
not served.

The same is true why students would complain about their group mate who did not
cooperate in making their project yet they all have the same grades at the end of the term
that’s why they did not put his/her name in the list. It is just fair in the context of distributive
justice most especially in organizations where such principle is seen as fairness related
with outputs, decision and allotment of resources.
There are several socio-economic-political theories that are in one way or another
related to Distributive Justice:

1. Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a theory which states that should be given equal treatment. It

upheld the principle that people should be treated as equals; should treat one another as
equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort (Amerson, 2013).

Egalitarianism believed that there should be no relevant differences among people

that can justify unequal treatment. Everyone should be given exactly equal share of a
society’s or a group’s benefits and burdens.

2. Justice – Based on Contribution: The capitalist Justice

Capitalist justice is based on the premise that benefits should be distributed

according to the degree of contribution that each person provides for the benefit of the
society as a whole. In a capitalist society, the privileges that everyone receives are
commensurate with the type of contribution one gives to the community.

How can the value of the contribution of everyone be measured? The capitalist
theorists would claim that one’s contribution can be measured by the amount of work that
one rendered. The greater and harder one works, the greater are the share of benefits.
Based on the premise that hard work should lead to success, the capitalist theorists claim
that if one would be working hard, then success would be imminent. At the same time,
the harder the people work and the greater the quantity of their contribution, the more
persons should receive benefits. For instance, the salesperson who sold more products
should be given greater incentives than those who sold less.

3. Justice-Based on Needs and Abilities: Socialism

As a response to the problem of capitalist justice regarding their insensitivity to the

needs of the people, socialism upheld the idea that “from each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs” (Marx and Engels, 2005). According to the principles of
socialism, work burdens must be distributed according to the ability of the people. At the
same time benefits must also be distributed according to their needs.

People have different abilities. Those who are gifted with greater abilities must
also be given more responsibilities because greater responsibilities cannot just be given
to people who have lesser capabilities. However, those who have greater abilities would
have the tendency to be envied by people. Hence, benefits must be given based on the
needs of every individual.

Taxation and Inclusive Growth: State and Citizen’s Responsibility

Taxation is the system by which a government takes money from people

and spends it on things such as education, health, infrastructure and defense (“Taxation,”
n.d.).

Why is taxation needed? The power of taxation is an inherent and plenary

prerogative of the state; its exercise being only limited by the bill of rights enshrined in the
1987 Philippine Constitution. It is the Legislative Department which primarily exercises
this function. However, Local Government Units (LGUs) are allowed to create their own
sources of revenue (Article X, Section 5). It is stated in article II, Section 25 the “the State
shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” This has been implemented with the
enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 (RA No. 7160).

Taxes help the government fund their projects for economic development. It's also
the lifeblood of government services which include but are not limited to infrastructures,
education, healthcare, social services, government employees’ salaries and everything
related to social welfare and development.

The state’s responsibility to its citizens: Citizen-State Relations: Improving

governance through tax reform (n.d.)

Effective taxation system can help raise the resources needed to deliver essential
services and it is the state’s responsibility to ensure its constituents that their taxes are
spent for the benefit of the majority.

Aside from making sure that taxes levied are spent wisely for the benefits of its
citizens, the state should imbibe the spirit of transparency in order to improve governance
in tax collection for the constituents are aware where their taxes are spent [and is not
corrupted].

Lastly, the state is liable in ensuring its constituents that a principle of justice (e.g.
ability to pay theory) is employed in order to impose a just and humane taxation system
while making sure that everybody is paying their taxes correctly through proper monitoring
and as well as proper imposition of penalties and the like to tax evaders.
The citizens’ responsibility to the state:

The very basic answer to the question what is our responsibility as citizens as
regards to taxation is simply to pay our taxes. Perhaps as students, you would ask that
we are not paying taxes directly to the government so why bother? Indeed you do not pay
direct taxes but you are indeed contributing to the state unconsciously every time that you
purchase goods from the market, order in food chains and restaurants, ride the public
utility vehicles or refuel your private rides in a gasoline station. Even a baby’s milk or a
diaper is taxable. Hence; it is formally true to say that everybody takes a role to play in
nation building through tax paying.

On the other hand, aside from the fact that we are all obliged to pay taxes, this is
not our sole responsibility when it comes to the notion of taxation. It is noteworthy to
consider that getting more involved in nation building through tax paying also entails the
responsibility of being vigilant not only of government expenditures but also of other
peoples’ (co-citizens’) willingness to pay their correct taxes. Being a whistle blower of big
time tax evaders is not the only way to say that we played our role. The simple gesture of
asking for a receipt every time we purchase anything ensures that right taxes are remitted
to the government.
Moreover, we must not forget that availing government services and using
government properties are more of a privilege than just simply a right. Such services and
properties are made available through our taxes. As much as we don’t want to waste our
personal money, remember to take care of government properties and avail necessary
government services with a sense of gratitude because once they are broken or
unnecessarily used/availed, we have wasted not the government’s assets but our taxes
(basically our own money too).

The role of taxation in inclusive growth

Inclusive growth is a concept that advances equitable opportunities for economic

participants during economic growth with benefits incurred by every section of society.

Sustainable economic growth requires inclusive growth. Maintaining this is

sometimes difficult because economic growth may give rise to negative externalities,
such as a rise in corruption, which is a major problem in developing countries like the
Philippines.

Nonetheless, an emphasis on inclusiveness—especially on equality of

opportunity in terms of access to markets, resources, and an unbiased regulatory
environment—is an essential ingredient of successful growth. The inclusive growth
approach takes a longer-term perspective, as the focus is on productive employment as
a means of increasing the incomes of poor and excluded groups and raising their
standards of living.
 Taxation plays a major role in attaining inclusive growth and development. Since
it ponders on equality of opportunity and inclusiveness, proper expenditure of taxes for
government services such as education, health care system, infrastructure and social
services can assure that no Filipino is left behind as we carefully thread the path to
development.

Moreover, proper taxation system and collection for government revenue ensures
a stable and predictable fiscal environment to promote economic growth and investment;
promote good governance and accountability by strengthening the relationship between
government and citizens; and ensure that the costs and benefits of development are fairly
shared.