Republic of the Philippines

DR. EMILIO B. ESPINOSA, SR. MEMORIAL STATE COLLEGE

OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
(Masbate State College)
www.debesmscat.edu.ph
Mandaon, Masbate

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP (FIRST YEAR)
COURSE MODULE
GE 8 (ETHICS)
SECOND SEMESTER
A.Y. 2022 – 2023

I. PRELIMINARIES

VISION
The Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa Sr. Memorial State College of Agriculture and Technology as a center of social
transformation in Masbate by 2025.

MISSION
The Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa Sr. Memorial State College of Agriculture and Technology shall produce holistically
developed workforce through inclusive quality education for sustainable society.

QUALITY POLICY
The Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa Sr. Memorial State College of Agriculture and Technology as an educational institution
is committed to sustain excellent service delivery for clientele satisfaction by adhering to quality standards,
compliance to legal requirements and continual improvement thereby producing transformed ASEAN communities.

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES GOALS

1. Provide support to student’s activities geared towards academic excellence.
2. Strengthen student’s participation in extension and linkages in line with Arts and Sciences.
3. Conduct research in line with arts, humanities, science and languages.
4. Produce graduates with excellent work ethics and entrepreneurial skills.
5. Promote an academic environment where stakeholders can showcase their unique talents and skills in the field of
Arts and Sciences.

COURSE POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS

1. Attendance
2. Activities, Recitations, Quizzes and Major Examinations (Mid-term and Final)
3. Grading System and Evaluation Procedures

II. ETHICS

A. Definition and Concept

Ethics or moral philosophy, may be defined in a provisional way, as the scientific study of moral judgments.
Ethics is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong.

The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles. The word often refers to any
scheme or philosophy of universal ideals or beliefs. The concept is derived from the Greek word “ethos” which may
mean tradition, habit, character, or attitude. This is not only about the nature of specific courses of action, but it is
also about the goodness of people and what it means to lead a decent life.

As a philosophy, it is a very important discipline because it involves critical thinking, as it explores and
describes fundamental beliefs, standards, ideals, and traditions. Ethics can provide true, specific guidance to our
lives. Ethical principles such as fairness, trustworthiness, responsibility help direct us to cope more effectively with
ethical dilemmas by removing actions that do not adhere to our sense of right and wrong–our own moral interests–
without compromising others. Furthermore, ethics is all about decisions.

Rules and its Importance

Rules refer to a set of guidelines which have been put in place in different countries and communities and
have been accepted by all. Rules are useful tools in guiding and monitoring the interactions of humans in the society.
A rule is a prescribed guide for conduct or action. Rules help guide actions toward desired results.

When used appropriately, rules provide a sense of predictability and consistency for people, thereby
promoting physical, moral, social, and emotional safety. At the heart of ethics is a concern about something or
someone other than ourselves and our own desires and self-interest.

Importance of Rules

Rules are important because they tend to protect the weaker class in the society as they might be in a
disadvantageous position if rules are broken. They provide a stable environment and human co-existence in a society
which leads to peace and development. The process of setting rules aims to craft rules in line with some desired
results. Rules are vital in one’s life because peace and order are maintained, an important ingredient for society’s
development.

A. Branches of Ethics

1. Normative - normative ethics, by definition, examine whether or not a particular act should or should not
be carried out. The purpose of normative ethics, which concerns human behavior in general, is to address
our questions about the essence of human behavior. There are two fields of normative ethics: moral
philosophy and applied ethics or practical ethics. Moral philosophy deals with moral ideas such as what
human beings "must do or how human beings should be." This also deals with our moral obligation, the
meaning of the act, or the purpose of the act. On the other hand, applied ethics is a philosophy that
discusses strong and basic moral issues linked to abortion.

2. Descriptive – ask what do people think is normal. This branch of Ethics does not actually claim that things
are right or wrong, but simply studies how individuals or societies define their morals. What makes
something right or wrong in a specific culture?

While normative ethics usually defines what is right and wrong, descriptive ethics defines morals in terms of
their cultural or personal significance. Morals are seen as part of a greater system that is not objective or unbiased
but is created by a culture, like language. So, while in normative ethics we may say that it is moral to turn in a lost
wallet, in descriptive ethics, we simply define that a certain society sees this as moral. We don’t actually judge it as
right or wrong.

NORMATIVE v. DESCRIPTIVE

NORMATIVE DESCRIPTIVE
Study of ethical action the study of people’s views about moral beliefs
Defines what is right and wrong Defines morals in terms of their cultural or personal
significance
Analyzes how people ought to act Analyzes people’s moral values, standards and
behavior

B. Importance

The Study of Ethics will enable a person to understand better what his conscience is, how he
acquired it, how far he is likely to be able to trust to its deliverances with safety, and how he can improve it
and make it more intelligent.

III. THE MORAL AGENT

A. Morality

Morality can be defined as the standards that an individual or a group has about what is right and
wrong, or good and evil. Morality is not imposed from outside, but innate and can even be unconscious.
We have a fundament urge to connect. Ultimately, it’s our moral qualities that force us to live in harmony
with the unconscious; doing so is the highest form of morality.

Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that
affects other, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.

Morality is a complex of concepts and philosophical beliefs by which an individual determines

whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Often, these concepts and beliefs are generalized and codified
in a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behavior of its members. Conformity to such
codification is called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its
continued existence. A “moral” may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and general
summary of a moral principle, as applied in a given human situation (Darwall, 2005).

“The term morality” can be used either:

1. Descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a
religion), or accepted by an individual for his/her own behavior, or

2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions would be put forward by all
rational persons.

B. Key Features of Morality

To understand morality in its true sense, let us identify six (6) features:

1. People experience a sense of moral obligation and accountability. One cannot doubt successfully a
phenomenon of his own existence-namely, his moral experience. Even secularists like Kai Nielsen
recommend that one “ought to” act or follow some rules, policies, practices, or principles. (Nielsen,
1993)

Even atheist Richard Dawkins declares that there are “moral instructions on how we ought to behave.”
(Dawkins, 2006)

2. Moral values and moral absolute exist. It’s hard to deny the objective reality of moral values-actions
like rape, torture, and child abuse are not just socially unacceptable behavior but are moral
abominations. (Craig 1994).

Some actions are really wrong in the same way that some things like love and respect are truly good.
There are moral absolutes-truths that exist and apply to everyone.

3. Moral law does exist. When we accept the existence of goodness, we must affirm a moral law on the
basis of which to differentiate between good and bad.

4. Moral law is known to humans. Moral law is also called Law of Nature because early philosophers
thought that generally speaking, everybody knows it by nature. Different civilizations and different
ages only have “slightly different” moralities and not a radically or “quite different moralities”. One
cannot present a country where a man feels proud for double-crossing all the people who had been
kindest to him.

5. Morality is objective. Morality is absolute-there is a real right and real wrong that is universally and
immutably true, independent of whether anyone believes it or not.

6. Moral judgments must be supported by reasons. Moral judgments are different from mere
expressions of personal preference-they require backing by reasons, and in the absence of such
reasons, they are merely arbitrary.
 C. Man as a Moral Agent

A moral agent is a being that is “capable of acting with reference to right and wrong”. A moral agent is
anything that can be held responsible for behavior or decisions. “It is moral agents who have rights and
responsibilities, because it is moral agents whom we take to have choices and the power to choose”. If you do
not believe that anything or anyone should ever be blamed or deemed responsible, then you are going against
the idea of moral agency, and denying the concept of responsibilities and rights.

Aristotle and Moral Responsibility

Aristotle was the first to discuss moral responsibility. He stated that it is “sometimes appropriate to respond
to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of his/her actions and/or dispositional traits of character”. He discusses
that “only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and s thus properly subject to ascriptions of
responsibility, namely, one who possesses a capacity for decision”. From Aristotle’s perspective, a decision is a
particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent’s conception of what is good”.

In reference to modern ethical theories, which separate actions and questions about them, Aristotle would
not agree. “Praiseworthy and blameworthy actions are not those which match up to a particular template of rules or
principles. Rather they are ones which flow from, and reveal a certain type of character”. Moral agency is not just
about which rules to follow, it comes from a way of life which Aristotle called the virtuous life, which necessitates a
unison of thought and feeling.

Moral Dilemma

Moral dilemmas are instances when individuals are with conflicting answers to the question, "what is
right?" Answers to this question come from various sources. One is personal experience or the things an individual
gain every day from social interactions. Another source—the one pursued by philosophers-is to obtain moral
judgments by applying the principles of morality. In psychology, a moral dilemma is said to arise when distinct
psychological mechanisms for moral judgment yield conflicting judgments of individual cases. Situations like these
can place a person in a moral conflict, in which several alternative courses of action can have positive and negative
outcomes. Conflict typically involves opposing values, beliefs, and norms. Thus, conflict is rooted not only in
individual behavior but also in different values and norms of the society.

The English Oxford Dictionary defines moral dilemma as a situation in which a difficult choice has to be
made between two courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral principle. In matters of right and
wrong, individuals are expected to have moral principles to guide them in moral decision-making. In philosophy, a
moral dilemma is based on a distinction between what one foresees (or could and should have foreseen) as a result
of his or her voluntary action (free will) and what, in the strict sense, he or she intends to do.

Moral dilemma relates primarily to the principle of double effect that takes root in the teachings of St.
Thomas Aquinas. In his work Summa Theologica, St. Thomas introduces the principle of double effect in his
discussion on the permissibility of self-defense. He himself holds that killing one's assailant is justified, provided
that one does not intend to kill him or her. The act of self-defense may have double effect: first, the saving of one's
own life; second, the slaying of the aggressor. He also argues that since one's intention is to save one's own life, the
act is not unlawful. However, St. Thomas maintains that the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional. The
act of self-defense may be rendered unlawful if a man in self-defense shows unnecessary violence.

Important Elements in Moral Decision-making

The New Catholic Encyclopedia lists the principal conditions of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he or she could attain the good
effect without the bad effect, he or she should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly
voluntary.

3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately as the bad effect. In other words, the
good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be
using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.

4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.
 In his book Ethics, Paul Glenn further describes when one performs an act, not evil in itself, from there
flows two effects—one good and one evil. One may perform such an act when the following essential conditions are
fulfilled:

1. The evil effect must not precede the good effect. It is a fundamental principle of ethics that evil may
never be willed directly, whether it be a means or an end to be achieved. One cannot do evil so good may
come of it. As the saying goes, “the end does not justify the means."

2. There must be a reason sufficiently grave calling for the act in its good effect. If this condition cannot
be fulfilled, then there is no adequate reason for the act at all, and the act is prohibited in view of its evil
effect. The sufficiency of the reason must be determined by the nature, circumstances, and importance of
the act.

3. The intention of the agent (person, doer) must be honest. If the person really wills the evil effect, then
there is no possibility that the act is acceptable. The direct willing of evil is always against reason and, hence,
against the principles of ethics.

Steps in Solving a Moral Dilemma

Making moral decisions is a rational, step-by-step process that requires the careful analysis of alternatives
and their consequences. Using the principles that govern moral decisions, the following steps are suggested:

1. Examine the acts in relation to the agent.

The immorality of human acts is determined by examining the acts in themselves in their relation
to the agent (person, doer who performs them. The agent and the facts surrounding the act must be
assessed.

2. Determine the consequences of the acts.

The second step of testing the morality or immorality of a human act is called consequentialism.
The principle of consequentialism suggests that one must weigh the consequences of a human act to
determine whether it is moral or immoral.

3. Identify the intention of the acts.

For St. Thomas, the morality or immorality of the act resides in the intention of the person. If the
agent intends to cause harmful consequences, then the act is immoral.

4. Decide in accordance to divine and natural laws which govern moral life.

St. Thomas holds that not all aspects of the human person are either moral or immoral. Nonetheless, he
suggests that divine and natural laws are the criteria by which people can judge the morality or immorality of their
moral decisions especially when they are faced with moral dilemmas. In pursuit of moral decisions, the human
person must discern and make all the right choices by relating them to divine law and the ultimate good of humanity.

Key Points

 Moral dilemmas are instances when individuals are confronted with conflicting answers to the question,
'what is right?" As social problems intensity, people tend to experience situations in which a difficult
choice or decision has to be made, especially when they are faced with moral dilemmas.

 Thus, making moral decisions is a rational, step-by-step process that requires careful analysis of
alternatives and their consequences.

 The principle of consequentialism suggests that one must look into the consequences of a human act to
determine whether it is moral or immoral.

 Nonetheless, the morality or immorality of the act resides in the intention of the person.

 In pursuit of moral decisions, therefore, a person must discern and relate his or her moral decisions to
divine law to make all the right choices in life.
V. FREEDOM AND MORALITY

A. Freedom and Moral Acts

In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in the moral domain, at the
question: what should I do?

In summary, Kant’s says that the moral law is only that I know myself as free person. Kantian freedom is
closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which means law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a law that I
created myself. It is therefore, respect its commitment to compliance with oneself.

Practical reason legislates (makes laws and requirements) of free beings or more precisely the causality of
free beings. Thus, practical reason is based on freedom, it is freedom.

Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural causality each event is the effect of
another, and so on to infinity. Unlike the phenomenon of man, the moral rule is free, i.e., it has the power to self-
start condition. Kant ethics is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.

Kant’s Morality and Freedom

To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act according to a law I give myself.
Whenever I act according to the laws of nature, demands of social convention, when I pursue pleasure and comfort,
I am not acting freely. To act freely is not to simply choose a means to a given end. To act freely is to choose the
end itself, for its own sake.

The capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that special dignity that things and animals
do not have. Respecting this dignity requires us to treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in themselves.

To arrive at a proper understanding of Kant’s notion of moral law and the connection between morality,
freedom and reason, let’s examine these contrasts:

1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality) – Only the motive of duty, acting according to the law I give myself
confers moral worth to an action. Any other motive, while possibly commendable, cannot give an action
moral worth.

2. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy (freedom) – I am free when my will is determined autonomously, governed
by the law I give myself. Being part of nature, I am not exempt from its laws and I’m inclined or compelled
to act according to those laws (act heteronomously). My capacity for reason opens another possibility, that
of acting according to laws other than the laws of nature: the laws I give myself. This reason, “pure
practical reason”, legislate a priori – regardless of all empirical ends.

3. Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives (reason) – Kant acknowledges two ways in which reason can
command the will, two imperatives. Hypothetical Imperative uses instrumental reason: If I want X, I must
do Y. (If I want to stay out of jail, I must be good citizen and not rob banks). Hypothetical Imperative is
always conditional.

If the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical. If the action
is represented as good in itself, and therefore necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, the
imperative is categorical.

Categorical Imperative is non-conditional. “It is concerned not with the matter of the action and its presumed
results, but with its form, and with the principle from which it follows. And what is essentially good in the
action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may.
Role of Freedom in Morality

The personal aspect of morality- which might more properly be called ethics- is about the cultivation of
virtue: the development of character traits so that choosing the good becomes a matter of habit. But a person, in
order to be truly virtuous, must be free to cultivate virtues, or not. There is no virtue in being temperate when you
are being forced not to indulge. There is no virtue in being charitable when someone is forcing you to give up what
is not yours. Virtue can be guided by cultural traditions and social institutions, but it cannot be coerced. A virtues
man must also be a free man.

Freedom is so precious that God will not override it, even when we badly misuse that freedom. In other
words, we can’t get where we’re going if we’re not free to walk the road. Thus, freedom is essential to a genuinely
good human life at all the levels of morality.

Freedom: The Foundation of Moral Act

Freedom is humans’ greatest quality and it is a reflection of our creator. Freedom is the power rooted in
reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own
responsibility.

Reason (Intellect) and will (moral action) separates human from animals. Freedom is a power rooted in
reason and will, to act or not to act. Good and evil are forged in freedom. To the degree that a person reaches higher
level of freedom, he becomes capable of higher levels of morality. The sinful persons become slave.

Freedom and Free Will

While the existence of freedom is a central premise in Catholic morality, we are not all equally free. There
are many possible limits to our freedom: both external and internal. External freedom is a freedom from factors
outside ourselves that limit or destroy our free will. Internal freedom is a freedom from interior factors that limit our
free will.

Requirement of True Freedom

True freedom is dependent upon truth, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John
8:32). True freedom is oriented toward the good. We should not understand freedom as the possibility of doing evil.
Evil slaves us and diminishes our ability to be free. True freedom requires responsibility. There is no such thing as
irresponsible freedom.

Human Acts vs. Act of Humans

Human acts make use of his knowledge and free will. Example: love your enemy, pray to God, and
sacrifice for others. Acts of human do not make use of his intellect or will knowledge. His action is natural.
Examples of acts of human are breathing, blinking, and sneezing.

Man is created by God as a human person who can begin and control his own actions. He is meant to seek
God and gain perfection by clinging to him. By freedom which is rooted in his intellect and will, man has the power
to act or not to act.

A person is responsible for his voluntary acts. By progress in virtue, in knowledge of good, and in self-
discipline, he gains greater mastery. Man’s responsibility and imputability can be lessened or nullified by ignorance,
fear, habits, or inordinate attachments or other factors.

Every human person must recognize the right of freedom in others. Exercising freedom, especially in moral
or religious matters, is an inalienable right of the human person. This must be protected by civil authorities within
the limits of public order. Human freedom who refused God’s love becomes a slave to sin. The first sin has led to so
many others. Human history attests that the problems of man come from man’s abuse of freedom. Freedom does not
give the man the right to say and do everything, because man’s purpose is not his own earthly satisfaction. Man’s
blindness and injustice destroy the cultural conditions needed for freedom.

B. CULTURE AND MORALITY

Culture

Culture is derived from the Latin word “cultura” or “cultus” which means care or cultivation. Culture as
cultivation implies that every human being is a potential member of his own social group.

Anthropologist Edward B. Taylor, an Englishman, developed one of the classic definitions of culture. He
said, “Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, law, art, moral, custom, and other
capabilities and habits acquired as a member of society.” In other words, culture refers to the totality of the humanly
created world, from material culture and cultivated landscapes, via social institutions (political, religious, economic,
etc.), to knowledge and meaning, something that human has created and learned in a society. His theory defines
culture in descriptive terms as the “complex whole” that makes up social ideas and institutions.

In Taylor’s view, culture includes all aspects of human activity, from the fine arts to popular entertainment,
from everyday behavior to the development of sophisticated technology. It contains the plan, rules, techniques,
designs, and policies for living.

On the other hand, sociologists define culture as the entire way of life followed by people, and everything
learned and shared by people in society. (Hunt, et. al. 1994). According to Landis (1992), culture is a complex set of
learned and shared beliefs, customs, skills, habits, traditions, and knowledge common to members of society.

The Influence of Culture in Moral Development

1. Culture is always social and communal by which the relationship of the people towards one another and
their experience as a people are the culture’s meadow. It is in this relationship and communal experience
that culture influences the moral development of its members. It is important to note that morality as
principle is promoted because primarily of the relationship within the community. Laws and rules and
standards of attitudes and behaviors are set and promulgated by the community to promote that relationship
that binds them together as people. And culture as it is being handed down from one generation to another,
forms as well the morality of that particular generation.

2. The culture defines the normative principles and behaviors of the society. It defines which particular
principle and behavior that should be kept that would serve the best interest of the community. There would
be a definition on what are the principles and behaviors also that should not be promoted or rejected. This
kind of influence of culture in moral development is best seen in terms of relation level. These defined
normative principles and behaviors inform and indoctrinate the members as they live and relate with the
community. These would shape also the kind of moral judgment a person has, which is most of the time
congruent to the general moral judgment.

3. Moreover, a culture, as best exemplified in the experience of the people, develops restrictions and sets
boundaries and limitations as they live and relate with one another. These restrictions and boundaries serve
as protection among themselves. These would create an atmosphere of promoting the welfare of the
community.

4. As culture helps in generating the character and identity of its people, it also includes their moral character.
Culture conditions the mind – the way people think and the way they perceive the world and their
relationship with one another. Henceforth, a culture which characteristic is aggressive tends to be
aggressive in terms of its relationship with one another or with other cultures. A culture like many others
may shape a character that is unjust and mistaken in the general perspective of human morality.

5. The culture identifies the authorities or the governing individuals or groups. They are the symbol of
guidance and control. In many cultures, men are always regarded as the leaders who oversee the order of
the community and give guidance, which is true in patriarchal societies. Through their roles and
responsibilities in the community within the given culture, may it be patriarchy, patriarchy or whatever;
people submit themselves to their authorities. By their very authority as they represent the general
populace, the members look at them as people who promote and keep the set of rules and laws that govern
the community. Their moral judgments are considered essential in moral issues of the community.
C. DYNAMICS OF CULTURE

Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using
the standard of one’s own culture. The goal of this promotes understanding of cultural practices that are not typically
part of one’s own culture. Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is
superior than other culture when compared to systems of morality, law, politics, etc. It is a concept that cultural
norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. This is also based on the idea that there is no
absolute standard of good or evil, therefore every decision and judgment of what is right and wrong is individually
decided in each society. The concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the
perspective of each person within their particular culture. Overall, there is no right or wrong ethical system.
Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and positive conception as compared to
ethnocentrism. It permits to see an individual’s habits, values and morals in the context of his or her cultural
relevance not by comparing it to one’s own cultural values and by deeming these the most superior and greater of
all.

Advantages of Cultural Relativism

1. It is a system which promotes cooperation. For the most part, humanity is strong because of the differences
we all have. Every individual has a different perspective that is based on their upbringing, experiences, and
personal thoughts. By embracing the many differences, we have, the cooperation creates the potential for a
stronger society.

2. It creates a society where equality is possible. In any society, people rise by climbing on top of other
people. It is a socially acceptable way of creating discrimination. Cultural relativism allows the individual
to define their moral code without defining the moral code of others.

3. People can pursue a genuine interest. In the modern society, people are funneled toward certain career
options because of their circumstances. If you can’t afford to go to college, then you pursue a vocational
career or some sort of entrepreneurship instead of a career that requires a graduate degree. If you can’t
afford to buy a house, you go rent an apartment. In cultural relativism, you get to pursue your own interests
without restriction. You set the definitions of what you can have and what you cannot have. When
implemented successfully, each person would get to focus on his/her strengths instead of his/her
weaknesses.

4. Respect is encouraged in a system of cultural relativism. People came from different cultures. They have
different ideas. They pursue different definitions of success. Because such a system promotes the
individual’s definition instead of a group definition, a society can evolve because there is a natural level of
respect built into the process.

5. It preserves human cultures. Humanity is a very diverse set of thoughts, traditions, ideas, and practices.
Many times, the traditions of humanity are set aside so that a set of standards can be appeased. Native and
First Nations tribes in North America did this by signing treaties which would help them to preserve some
lands, but limit their rights by being subject to a new governmental authority. They were forced to trade
some of their culture. Under the theory of cultural relativism, such a trade would not be necessary. It
wouldn’t even be a consideration.

6. Cultural relativism creates a society without judgment. We are so trained to judge others in today’s world
that we don’t give it a second thought. Looking at someone and saying, “Glad that isn’t me,” is a judgment.
Under the theory of cultural relativism, judgment goes away. The only person that judges you is yourself.

7. Moral relativism can be excluded from cultural relativism. Each culture can be treated as an individual
under the theory of cultural relativism. This means the moral codes of a culture can be defined and an
expectation implemented that people follow it. Although other cultures may not set up such a restriction,
and others might say such a restriction isn’t a true form of cultural relativism, people in such a system can
do what makes the most sense for them. You’re focusing on the customs of a culture, not the morality that
is imposed upon those customs.
 8. We can create personal moral codes based on societal standards with ease. To determine if a decision
would be “right” or “wrong”, cultural relativism allows individuals to consult with the standards of their
society or culture. It is a simple test to determine the course that a person should take in such a
circumstance. By consulting with the moral code of the culture, on question must be asked: does the action
conform to the cultural moral code? If it does, then the action is permitted.

9. It stops cultural conditioning. People tend to adapt their attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs to the people they
are with on a regular basis. This is cultural conditioning and it prevents people from having an
individualistic perspective. Cultural relativism stops this.

Disadvantages of Cultural Relativism

1. It creates a system that is fueled by personal bias. Every society has a certain natural bias to it because of
how many humanity operates. People tend to prefer to be with others who have similar thoughts and
feelings, so they segregate themselves into neighborhoods, communities, and social groups that share
specific perspectives. When people are given the power to define their own moral code, then they will do
so based on their own personal bias. There is no longer a group perspective. People follow their own code
at the expense of others.

2. It would create chaos. People who can follow their own moral code because there is no “wrong” or “right”
would be allowed to pursue any life they preferred under the theory of cultural relativism. There is no real
way to protect people in such a society, so each person becomes responsible to protect themselves. It
creates a system that is Darwinian in practicality, where only the strongest can survive.

3. It is an idea that is based on the performance of humanity. May people strive to do good every day. Most
want to see everyone have the chance to pursue happiness in some way. That is why the idea of cultural
relativism often seems to be inviting. The only problem is that people are not perfect. We can be forgetful.
We can lie. Without a group moral code in place to govern decisions, anything could happen whenever we
experience a moment of imperfection.

4. It could promote a lack of diversity. Cultural relativism promotes an individualistic point of view, so
although it seems to promote diversity, it actually removes it from a society. It would allow men to exclude
women from voting once again. It would stop employers from paying someone a fair wage – or even
paying them a wage at all. The only standards that are set by the individual involved, which means
everyone is pursuing his/her own position of strength. We cannot create diversity when the emphasis of a
society is individualistic gain that can come at the expense of others.

5. It draws people away from one another. Although cultural relativism can promote people coming together
to share their strengths, it can also encourage people to draw apart from one another. Each person is
uncertain of what codes and standards another is following, the natural inclination for self-preservation
causes people to draw away.

6. It could limit moral progress. When we look at the idea of moral progress, we think of becoming more
inclusionary instead of exclusionary. This inclusion is reflected in the laws and customs of the culture.

7. It could limit humanity’s progress. We often think of the concept of cultural relativism as progression, but
it isn’t necessarily that way. When you remove the ability to judge one standard from another, then the
comparative process of placing a current society or culture against a past one is removed as well. No
definition of success can be implemented because each is successful in its own way.

8. Cultural relativism can turn perceptions into truth. It’s a dark night and it is warm outside. A teen is
walking down an alley wearing a hoodie and the hood is up. His hands are jammed into his pockets and
there is a bulge in one of them. In this scenario, some people may automatically assume that the teen is up
to “no good.” The bulge might even be a weapon under that assumption. In the world of cultural relativism,
that bias becomes a truth that can be acted upon. It doesn’t matter if the bulge is a gun or a package of
Skittles. The decision to act becomes a righteous one because of the individual truth that the culture
allowed through the bias it perpetrates.
Variations of culture
a. cultural relativism
b. cultural diversity
c. universal culture
d. culture

This is needed in order to have a strong moral character.

a. Increase leadership ineffectiveness
b. Define your core values
c. Practice the habit
d. Achieve peace of mind

29. The ability to perceive or infer information

a. intelligence
b. justice
c. education
d. dignity

Characteristics of Filipino Culture

The following are the characteristics of the Filipino that set them apart from any other culture and society:
(Dumaraos, 2018)

1. The Filipino people are very resilient – in times of calamities and catastrophes, Filipinos always manage to
rise above the challenge. Instead of wallowing they manage to pick themselves up and smile.

2. Filipinos take pride in their families – in the Philippines, it is family first. So whether you are a part of the
immediate family or you belong to the third or fourth generation, you are treated as a family member.
Sometimes, even the closest of friends are considered family, too.

3. Filipinos are very religious – in all corners of a Filipino house, you can find brazen images of crosses and
other religious paraphernalia. They go to church every Sunday, or sometimes even twice or three times a
week.

4. Filipinos are very respectful – from the moment they are born into this world, they are already taught how
to be respectful by using these simple catchphrases – po and opo, words that end sentences when
addressing elders. They also have a culture of pagmamano as another sign of giving respect to elders.

5. Filipinos help one another – more popularly known as bayanihan, Filipinos help one another – without
expecting anything in return – so that undertaking their tasks and responsibilities become much easier.
Sometimes it is called “community spirit”

6. Filipinos value traditions and culture – for Filipinos, traditions in their home and in their home and in
their family are important. They usually set aside a specific day for a certain celebration like festivals,
birthday parties, reunions, etc. and of course, every gathering is dedicated to keeping up with each other
over sumptuous food.

7. Filipinos have the longest Christmas celebrations – even as early as August, you can hear Christmas
songs and jungles being played in the malls or in the restaurants in the Philippines. The mood becomes
festive, with many people shopping and in good spirits. Christmas celebrations last until around the first or
second week of January.

8. Filipinos love art and architecture – just look at the massive and tall buildings everywhere. Filipinos have
a penchant for bringing art and architecture to a whole new level. They love to design creatively, to think
intuitively, and have a passion for anything different and unique.

9. The Filipinos are hospitable people – foreign visitors in the country are treated with the utmost respect.
This trait is usually seen during fiestas and holidays where many Filipinos are giving their best to entertain
their visitors well.
Filipino Family Values

Traditional Filipino values:

1. Paggalang (Respect) – the English translation of paggalang means to be respectful or to give respect to a
person. Examples: using “po”, “opo” and “ho” while conversing with older people, and “pagmano” or
kissing the hands of elders as sign of respect.

2. Pakikisama (Helping Others) – Pakikisama has the connotation of getting along with people in general.
There is a general yearning to be accepted and well-liked among Filipinos. This applies to one and his or
her friends, colleagues, boss, and even relatives. This desire is what steers one to perform pakikisama.

3. Utang na Loob (Debt of Gratitude) – means to pay your debt with gratitude. With utang na loob, there is
usually a system of obligation. When this value is applied, it imparts a sense of duty and responsibility on
the younger siblings to serve and repay the favors done to them by their elders.

4. Pagpapahalaga sa Pamilya (Prioritizing Family) - Pagpapahalaga sa pamilya is in other words, putting

importance on your family. This implies that a person will place a high regard on his/her family and
prioritize that before anything else.

5. Hiya (Shame) – hiya means shame. This controls the social behaviors and interaction- s of a Filipino. It is
the value that derives a Filipino to be obedient and respectful to their parents, older siblings, and other
authorities. This is also a key ingredient in the loyalty of one’s family.

6. Damayan System – extending sympathy for people who lost their loved ones. In case of death of a certain
member of the community, the whole community sympathizes with the bereaved family. Neighbors,
friends, and relatives of the deceased usually give certain amount of money as their way of showing
sympathy.

7. Compassionate – a Filipino trait of being sympathetic to others even the person is a stranger. An example
of this is giving alms to the beggars. This is observed when we hear Filipinos saying, “kawawa naman or
nakakaawa naman”.

8. Fun-loving Trait – a trait found in most Filipinos, a trait that makes them unique that even in times of
calamities and other challenges in life, they always have something to be happy about, a reason to
celebrate.

Social Values of the Filipinos:

1. High regard for amor propio (self-esteem) – self-esteem reflects an individual’s overall subjective
emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is the decision made by an individual as an attitude
towards the self. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself, as well as emotional states, such as
triumph, despair, pride, and shame (Hewitt, 2009). One who is insensitive to others is said to lack a sense
of shame and embarrassment, the principal sanction against improper behavior. This great concern for self-
esteem helps to maintain harmony in society and within one’s particular circle, but it also can give rise to
clannishness and a willingness to sacrifice personal integrity to remain in the good graces of the group.

2. Smooth interpersonal relationships – an interpersonal relationship is the nature of interaction that occurs
between two or more people. People in an interpersonal relationship may interact overtly, covertly, face-to-
face or even anonymously. Interpersonal relationships may occur with friends, family, co-workers,
strangers, chat room participants, doctors or clients.

3. Personal alliance system – this scheme is anchored on kinship, beginning with the nuclear family. A
Filipino loyalty goes first to the immediate family; identity is deeply embedded in the web of kinship. It is
normative that one owes support, loyalty, and trust to one’s close kin and, because kinship is structured
bilaterally with affinal as well as consanguineal relatives, one’s kin can include quite a large number of
people.
 4. The Compadre system – bonds of ritual kinship, sealed on any of three ceremonial occasions-baptism,
confirmation, and marriage- intensify and extend personal alliances. This mutual kinship system, known as
compadrazgo or compadre, meaning god parenthood or sponsorship, dates back at least to the introduction
of Christianity and perhaps earlier.

5. Utang na loob – a dyadic bond between two individuals may be formed based on the concept of utang na
loob. Although it is expected that the debtor will attempt repayment, it is widely recognized that the debt
(as in one’s obligation to a parent) can never be fully repaid and the obligation can last for generations.
Saving another’s life, providing employment, or making it possible for another to become educated are
“gifts” that incur utang na loob. Moreover, such gifts initiate a long-term reciprocal interdependency in
which the grantor of the favor can expect help from the debtor whenever the need arises and the debtor can,
in turn, ask other favors. Such reciprocal personal alliances have had obvious implications for the society in
general and the political system in particular.

6. Suki relationship – in the commercial context, suki relationships (market-exchange partnerships) may
develop between two people who agree to become regular customer and supplier. In the marketplace,
Filipinos will regularly buy from certain specific suppliers who will give them, in return, reduced prices,
good quality, and, often, credit. Suki does more than help develop economic exchange relationships.
Because trust is such a vital aspect, it creates a platform for personal relationships that can blossom into
genuine friendship between individuals (Dolan, 1991).

7. Friendship – friendship often is placed on at par with kinship as at the most central of Filipino
relationships. Certainly, ties among those within one’s group of friends are an important factor in the
development of personal alliance systems. Here, as in other categories, a willingness to help one another
provides the prime rationale for the relationship.

Weaknesses of the Filipino Character

1. Passivity and lack of initiative – acceptance of what happens, without active response or resistance.

2. Colonial mentality – colonial mentality more strictly refers to the attitude the Filipino feel that products
coming from other countries are more superior than the local products.

3. Kanya-kanya syndrome – Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a feeling of envy and
competitiveness towards others, particularly one’s peers who seem to have gained some status or prestige.
There seems to be a basic assumption that other’s gain is one’s loss.
The kanya-kanya syndrome is also evident in the personal ambition and the drive for power and status that
is completely insensitive to the common good. Personal and in-group interests reign supreme. This
characteristic is also evident in the lack of a sense among people in the government bureaucracy. The
public is made feel that service from these offices and from these civil servants is an extra perk that has to
be paid for.

4. Extreme personalism – Filipinos view the world in terms of personal relationships and the extent to which
one is able to personally relate things and people determines the recognition of their existence and the value
given to them. There is no separation between an objective task and emotional involvement. This
personalism is manifested in the tendency to give personal interpretations to actions, i.e., “take things
personally.”

5. Extreme family centeredness – while concern for the family is one of the Filipino’s greatest strengths, in
the extreme it becomes a serious flaw. Excessive concern for the family creates an in-group to which the
Filipino is fiercely loyal to the detriment of concern for the larger community or for the common good.
6. Lack of discipline – Procrastination is one reason of lack of self-discipline. Lack of willpower, motivation
and ambition are also causes for lack of self-discipline.

7. Lack of self-analysis and reflection – there is a tendency in the Filipino to be superficial and even
somewhat flighty. In the face of serious problems, both personal and social, there is lack of analysis or
reflection.
 8. Ningas cogon – a Filipino attitude of being enthusiastic only during the start of new undertaking but end
dismally in accomplishing nothing.

9. Gaya-gaya Attitude – a Filipino attitude of imitating or copying other culture specifically in mode of
dressing, language, fashion, trend, or even haircut.

UNIVERSAL VALUES

Basic Universal Values

A value is a quality that weans people things, events or situations. The term is used to designate the moral
characteristics that are inherent in a subject piety, responsibility, secularism, respect, etc.

Universal, however, is an adjective that is related to what belongs or which relates to the universe. The
concept refers to the set of all things created and what is common to all its kind.

These definitions enable us to approach the notion of universal value. Universal values are formed by
implied behavioral standards that are necessary to live in a harmonious and peaceful society.

Schwartz Concept of Universal Values

S. H. Schwartz, along with a number of psychology colleagues, has carried out empirical research
investigating whether there are universal values, and what those values are. Schwartz defined “values” as
“conceptions of the desirable that influence the way people select action and evaluate events (Sen, 1990).

Schwartz’s results from a series of studies that included surveys of more than 25,000 people in 44 countries
with a wide range of different cultural types suggest that there are fifty-six specific universal values and ten types of
universal value. Below are each of the value types, with the specific related values alongside:

1. Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources.
2. Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.
3. Hedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
4. Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
5. Self-Direction: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring.
6. Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for
nature.
7. Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequest
personal contact.
8. Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or
religion provide.
9. Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate
social expectations or norms.
10. Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.

Schwartz also tested an eleventh possible universal value, ‘spirituality’ or ‘the goal of finding meaning in life’,
but found that it does not seem to be recognized in all cultures.

UN Charter on Universal Values

The values enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter, respect for fundamental human rights, social
justice and human dignity, and respect for the equal rights of men and women, serves as overarching values to
which suppliers of goods and services to the UN are expected to adhere.

Basic Universal Human Values

The function of most of these basic values to make it possible for every human to realize or maintain the
very highest or most basic universal core values of life, love and happiness. Hereunder are some of the basic
universal human values:
 1. Happiness – In the ancient past, the founders of the big religions in the world have already taught about the
reward for a religious life by an afterlife in Paradise, Heaven, or Nirvana etc., to enjoy there an ultimate and
eternal happiness. And from this we can understand that in fact eternal happiness is the ultimate value of all
religious people…For nobody would like to go to any dull or miserable Paradise or so.
2. Peace – Peace has to be seen as a basic condition for freedom and happiness, for without peace there
cannot be real freedom. Wherever there is fight, threat or hostility, our freedom and happiness are inhibited
or totally prevented.
3. Love – Love in general sense can be best defined as feelings, or an experience of deep connectedness or
oneness with any other human being, any animal, plant, tree, thing, or unnamable. Love can also be
experienced as something far beyond any comprehension, and totally indescribable.
4. Freedom – Freedom means the experience of unrestricted, and to be as much as possible independent of
the social pressure of others. A basic condition for happiness is however the experience of an inner, or
mental freedom; freedom from all kinds of stress, worry, anxiety, problems, obligations and fears, often
directly or indirectly caused by the respectless egocentric or power-oriented mentality of many others in
our society.
5. Safety – Safety means free of threat, fear and survival-stress. Without safety, people tend to live out of their
individual survival instinct, and long-term insecurity creates an egocentric survival-mentality. Without
safety, people in a society are burdened by emotional fear, helplessness, and anxiety.
6. Intelligence – Intelligence has been defined in many different ways to include the capacity for logic,
understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem
solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as
knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
7. Human respect – The most basic principle of any social community is feelings of connectedness which
come out of our perception, empathy and awareness that the other human is basically as we are ourselves.
This creates trust and a friendly attitude towards the other. Out of this empathy and the awareness that the
other is basically as we are ourselves and the resulting feelings of connectedness, we feel a natural and
spontaneous respect for the other.
8. Equality – Equality originates from equalis, aequus, and aequalitas. These are all old French or Latin
words. These French/Latin words means even, level and equal.
Every person has certain claims to equality. There are two very important forms of legal of formal
equality. One is equality before law and equal protection of law. What is to be noted here is that the legal
member of the legal association can legitimately claim that all citizens must be treated equally by law and
no discrimination is to be allowed.
9. Justice – It is the proper administration of the law; the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under
the law. In general, justice is needed to realize and maintain our highest human values of freedom, peace,
life, love and happiness; and injustice can prevent or inhibit these highest human values.
10. Nature – Understanding our physical dependence of nature, and our awareness of being part of it are
needed to see the basic value of nature. Man is part of nature, and our very human existence is dependent of
nature and its ecology. And hence, our highest human values of life itself and freedom, safety, peace, love
and happiness can only be realized in harmony with nature.
11. Health – World Health Organization (WHO) defined health as being “a state of complete physical, mental,
and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. In 1986 WHO also said that
health is “a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing
social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.”

The Human Dignity

The English word dignity comes from the Latin word, dignitas, which means “worthiness.” Dignity implies
that each person is worthy of honor and respect for who they are, not just for what they can do. In other words,
human dignity cannot be taken away. It’s an inalienable gift given to us by God, and every other good thing in life
depends on the safeguarding of our fundamental dignity. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it,
“recognition of the inherent dignity…of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world.”

Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake, and to be treated ethically.

Moral Character
 Moral character or character is an evaluation of an individual’s stable moral qualities. The concept of
character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as empathy, courage,
fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the assemblage of
qualities that distinguish one individual from another-although on a cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to
which a social group adheres can be said to unite and define it culturally as distinct from others. Psychologist
Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as “a disposition to express behavior in consistent patterns of functions
across a range of situations” (Timpe, 2008)

A moral character is defined as an idea in which one is unique and can be distinguished from others.
Perhaps it can assemble qualities and traits that are different from various individuals. It implies to how individuals
act, or how they express themselves. In another words, it is “human excellence,” or unique thoughts of a character.
When the concept of virtue is spoken, this would emphasize the distinctiveness or specialty, but it all involves the
combination of qualities that make an individual the way he or she is.

Importance of Having a Strong Moral Character

When you have a strong moral character, you’ll be judged by who you are rather than who you pretend to be. Below
are some of the consequences of having a strong moral character (Sonnenberg, 2016):

1. Achieve peace of mind. People with character sleep well at night. They take great pride in knowing that
their intentions and actions are honorable. People with character also stay true to their beliefs, do right by
others, and always take the high ground.
2. Strengthen trust. People with character enjoy meaningful relationships based on openness, honesty and
mutual respect. When you have good moral character, people know that your behavior is reliable, your
heart is in the right place, and your word is good as gold.
3. Build a solid reputation. People with character command a rock-solid reputation. This helps them attract
exciting opportunities “like a magnet”.
4. Reduce anxiety. People with character carry less baggage. They’re comfortable within their own skin, and
they accept responsibility for their actions. They never have to play games, waste precious time keeping
their stories straight, or invent excuses to cover their behind.
5. Increase leadership effectiveness. Leaders with character are highly effective. They have no need to pull
rank or resort to command and control to get results. Instead, they’re effective because they’re
knowledgeable, admired, trusted, and respected. This helps them secure buy-in automatically, without
requiring egregious rules or strong oversight designed to force compliance.
6. Build confidence. People with character don’t worry about embarrassment if their actions are publicly
disclosed. This alleviates the need for damage control or the fear of potential disgrace as a result of
indiscretions.
7. Become a positive role model. People with character set standard for excellence. They live their life as an
open book, teaching others important life lessons through their words and their deeds.
8. Live a purpose-driven life. People with character live a life they can be proud of. They’re driven to make a
difference and to do right by others rather than trying to impress others with extravagance.
9. Build a strong business. Doing the right thing is good business. Everything else being equal, talented
people would rather work for – and customers, and communities. While unprincipled business tactics may
provide short-term result, it’s NOT a long-term strategy.

Development of Moral Character

If you believe developing your character is an endeavor you want to pursue, here are some steps to show
you how:

1. Define your core values. Know what is most important to you by determining your values for your
professional and personal life. These are the principles that are the foundation for your priorities, choices,
actions, and behaviors.
2. Practice the habits. Pick one or two of the traits of good character to practice for several weeks. Write
down the actions you want to take of the behaviors you define that reflect this trait, and implement them in
 your daily life and interactions. Wear a rubber band on your wrist or create other reminders to help you
practice.
3. Find people with character. Surround yourself with people who reflect the character traits you want to
embrace. They will inspire and motivate you to build these traits in yourself. Try to avoid people who have
a weak character and make bad decisions.
4. Take some risks. Start taking small actions toward a goal or value that involve some level of risk. When
you face the possibility of failure and challenge yourself toward success, you become mentally and
emotionally stronger and more committed to your principles.
5. Stretch yourself. Create high standards and big goals for yourself. Expect the best of yourself and
constantly work toward that, even though you will have setbacks and occasional failures. Every stretch
builds your confidence and knowledge that your character is getting stronger.
6. Commit to self-improvement. Realize that building your character is a life-long endeavor. It is something
that is practiced both in the minutiae and the defining moments of your life. There will be times you step up
to the character traits you embrace and other times you falter. By remaining committed to personal growth
and learning about yourself, your character will naturally improve, even though the failures.

Some Good Character Traits to Practice

1. Attract the trust and respect of other people.

2. Allows you to influence others.
3. Changes your perspective about failure.
4. Sustains you through difficult times or opposition.
5. Improves your self-esteem, self-respect, and confidence.
6. Creates a foundation for happy, healthy relationship.
7. Helps you stay committed to your values and goals.
8. Improves your chance of success in work and other endeavors.

Character Traits that Impact One’s Happiness

Good character consists of defining your values and integrity based on time-tested principles and self-
reflection and having the courage to live your life accordingly.

1. Integrity. Integrity is having strong moral principles and core values and then conducting your life with
those as your guide. When you have integrity, you maintain your adherence to it whether or not other
people are watching.
2. Honesty. Honesty is more than telling the truth. It’s living the truth. It is being straightforward and
trustworthy in all of your interactions, relationships, and thoughts. Being honest requires self-honesty and
authenticity.
3. Loyalty. Loyalty is faithfulness and devotion to your loved ones, your friends, and anyone with whom you
have a trusted relationship. Loyalty can also extend to your employer, the organizations you belong to, your
community, and your country.
4. Respectfulness. You treat yourself and others with courtesy, kindness, deference, dignity and civility. You
offer basic respect as a sign of your value for the worth of all people and your ability to accept the inherent
flaws we all possess.
5. Responsibility. You accept personal, relational, career, community, and societal obligations even when they
are difficult or uncomfortable. You follow through on commitments and proactively create or accept
accountability for your behavior and choices,
6. Humility. You have a confident yet modest opinion of your own self-importance. You don’t see yourself as
“too good” for other people or situations. You have a learning and growth mindset and the desire to express
and experience gratitude for what you have, rather than expecting you deserve more.
7. Compassion. You feel deep sympathy and pity for the suffering and misfortune of others, and you have a
desire to do something to alleviate their suffering.
8. Fairness. Using discernment, compassion, and integrity, you strive to make decisions and take actions
based on what you consider the ultimate best course or outcome for all involved.
9. Forgiveness. You make conscious, intentional decisions to let go of resentment and anger toward someone
of an offense – whether or not forgiveness is sought by the offender. Forgiveness may or may not include
pardoning, restoration, or reconciliation. It extends both to other’s and to one’s self.
10. Authenticity. You are able to be your real and true self, without pretension, posturing, or insincerity. You
are capable of showing appropriate vulnerability and self-awareness.
 11. Courageousness. Inspite of fear of danger, discomfort, or pain, you have the mental fortitude to carry on
with a commitment, plan, or decision, knowing it is the right or best course of action.
12. Generosity. You are willing to offer your time, energy, efforts, emotions, words, or assets without the
expectation of something in return. You offer your time, energy, efforts, emotions, words, or assets without
the expectation of something in return. You offer these freely and often joyously.
13. Perseverance. Perseverance is the steadfast persistence and determination to continue on with a course of
action, belief, or purpose, even if it’s difficult or uncomfortable in order to reach a higher goal or outcome.
14. Politeness. You are knowledgeable of basic good manners, common courtesies, and etiquette, and are
willing to apply those to all people you encounter. You desire to learn the skills of politeness in order to
enhance your relationships and self-esteem.
15. Kindness. Kindness is an attitude of being considerate, helpful and benevolent to others. It is motivated by
a positive disposition and the desire for warm and pleasant interactions.
16. Lovingness. The ability to be loving toward those you love means showing them through your words,
actions, and expressions how deeply you care about them. It includes the willingness to be open and
vulnerable.
17. Optimism. Optimism is a sense of hopefulness and confidence about the future. It involves a positive
mental attitude in which you interpret life events, people, and situations in a promising light.
18. Reliability. You can be consistently depended upon to follow through on your commitments, actions, and
decisions. You do what you say you will do.
19. Conscientiousness. You have the desire to do things well or to the best of your ability. You are thorough,
careful, efficient, organized, and vigilant in your efforts, based on your own principles or sense of what is
right.
20. Self-discipline. You are able, through good habits or willpower, to overcome your desires of feelings in
order to follow the best course of action or to rise to your commitments or principles. You have a strong
sense of self-control in order to reach a desired goal.

Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, a comprehensive stage theory of moral development
based on Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment for children (1932) and developed by Kohlberg in 1958. Cognitive
in nature, Kohlberg’s theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one decides whether a behavior is
right or wrong. Thus, the theoretical emphasis is on how one decides to respond to a moral dilemma, not what one
decides or what one actually does.

The framework of Kohlberg’s theory consists of six stages arranged sequentially in successive tiers of
complexity. He organized his six stages into three general levels of moral development (Encyclopedia Britannica).

Level 1: Pre-conventional level

At the pre-conventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rules imposed by authority figures are
conformed to in order to avoid punishment or receive awards. This perspective involves the idea that what is right is
what one can get away with or what is personally satisfying. Level 1 has two stages.

Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation – Behavior is determined by consequences. The individual will obey in
order to avoid punishment.

Stage 2: instrumental purpose orientation – Behavior is determined again by consequences. The individual focuses
on receiving rewards or satisfying personal needs.

Level 2: Conventional level

At the conventional level, conformity to social rules remains important to the individual. However, the
emphasis shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and social approval. The individual strives to
support rules that are set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the government in order to win their approval or
to maintain social order.
Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation – Behavior is determined by social approval. The individual wants to
maintain or win the affection and approval of others by being a “good person.”

Stage 4: Law and order orientation – Social rules and law determine behavior. The individual now takes into
consideration a larger perspective, that of societal laws. Moral decision making becomes more than consideration of
close ties to others. The individual believes that rules and laws maintain social order that is worth preserving.

Level 3: Post-conventional or principled level

At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the perspective of his or her own society.
Morality is defined in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies. The individual
attempts to take the perspective of all individuals.

Stage 5: Social contract orientation – Individual rights determine behavior. The individual views laws and rules as
flexible tools for improving human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are expectations to rules, the
majority, it does not bring about good for people and alternatives should be considered.

Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation – According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning.
However, he claimed that some individuals will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is
determined by one’s self-chosen ethical principles of conscience. These principles are abstract and universal in
application. This type of reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be
affected by the decision.

Arguments Against Kohlberg’s Theory

How does this theory apply to males and females? Kohlberg (1969) felt that more males than females move
past stage four in their moral development. He went on to note that women seem to be deficient in their moral
reasoning abilities. These ideas were not well received by Carol Gilligan, a research assistant of Kohlberg, who
consequently developed her own ideas of moral development. In her groundbreaking book, in a “Different Voice:
Psychological Theory and Women’s Development”, Gilligan (1982) criticized her former mentor’s theory because it
was based only on upper class white men and boys. She argued that women are not deficient in their moral
reasoning – she proposed that males and females reason differently. Girls and women focus more on staying
connected and the importance of interpersonal relationships.

Moral development plays an important role in our social interactions. Understanding how and why
individuals make decisions regarding moral dilemmas can be very useful in many settings. Kohlberg’s theory of
moral development provides a framework in which to investigate and begin to comprehend how moral reasoning
develops within individuals.

THE ACT

Ethical Requirements

Introduction

Based on Hare’s view, to prescribe acting in accordance with a universal moral principle from which, in
conjunction with statements specifying one’s beliefs concerning the relevant facts, the judgment can be derived. To
in turn determine whether one can prescribe acting in accordance with a universal principle is to determine whether
one would actually choose to perform that action if one knew that one would have to play, in a series of possible
worlds otherwise identical to the actual world, the role of each person (including oneself) who would be affected.
Moreover, it is not enough that one simply imagines oneself, with oneself as being in their place while having, in
turn, their interests and desires.

Reason and Impartiality

The ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others. We are
capable of acting toward others in such a way as to increase or decrease the quality of their lives. We are capable of
helping or harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding when we are doing the one and
when the other. This is so because we have the capacity to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and
recognize how we would be affected if someone were to act toward us as we are acting toward others.

It is said that reason gives rise to ethical discourse and healthy debate and engagement and if this is true,
the question must be asked: have we lost all reason that we can resort to insults, that we fail to engage one another in
a constructive and thoughtful way, even as we differ ideologically and politically?

It is said that “reason requires impartiality” and this statement has serious implications for truthfulness and
reason.

Reason and impartiality are not absolute to any particular group of people, group of people, while morality
is absolute. Whatever is considered wrong morally within a certain group of people cannot be debated through
reason. Morality decides the outcome first and then employs reason to justify it. For impartiality, fairness is given
more importance where people are supposed to be treated equally before the law. While morality may apply
generally to a particular group of people, the same cannot be said of reason and impartiality because they help in
understanding the moral perception, for example impartiality introduces an aspect of treating people the same, which
is a moral issue.

REASON

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying
logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information
(Kompridis, 2000). It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science,
language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.
Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality.

Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The philosophical field of logic studies
ways in which humans reason formally through argument (Hintikka, 2013). Reason is a declaration made to explain
or justify action, decision, or conviction.

The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being of
others – that warrant our praise – and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others – and thus warrant our
criticism. Developing one’s ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human nature a strong tendency
toward egoism, prejudice, self-justification, and self-deception. These tendencies are exacerbated by powerful
sociocentric cultural influences that shape our lives – not least of which is the mass media. These tendencies can be
actively opposed only through the systematic cultivation of fair-mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and
deep concern for the welfare of others. We can never eliminate our egocentric tendencies absolutely and finally. But
we can actively fight them as we learn to develop as ethical persons.

Reasons have everything to do with ethics: If you have no good reasons for an act or a belief, then you
can’t have thought it through very well and maybe you shouldn’t be doing it or believing it at all. It’s quite scary to
think that there are people out there who are voting, protesting, financing causes, or running campaigns without any
clear idea of why they are doing it. Each and every one of us should be clear about our reasons for our values,
beliefs, and behaviors, and we should each be able to give a reasoned account of them to others.

Predicting Consequences

Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of an action before we act. There are always
consequences of an action we think is right, and when we try to be good persons, and usually these include
unintended as well as intended outcomes.

When the likely beneficial outcomes of acting on an ethical presumption seem to outweigh the likely
adverse outcomes, then predicting consequences confirms our presumption.
 But when we predict that the adverse consequences will outweigh the beneficial consequences, even when
we are obeying an ethical rule or following an inspiring story, then we should consider whether to make an
exception to the rule or to look a different story for guidance.

We must remember, however, that before we act, we can never know for certain what the consequences
will be. Therefore, we should take care in predicting what will result from acting on an etical presumption.

In doing ethics, we look at rules (about duty and rights) and at stories (about character and relationships) to
construct a presumption, and then test this presumption by predicting what we do know (and don’t know) about the
likely consequences of acting on it.

Impartiality

Impartiality also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a principle of justice holding that

decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to
one person over another for improper reasons (Wikipedia).

Someone who is impartial is not directly involved in a particular situation, and is, therefore, able to give a
fair opinion or decision about it. We might be impartial because this promotes our desire to be fair or because it
promotes our well-being and self-respect and earns us social approval. Or we might appeal to the social good, or to
the inherent badness of violating impartiality.

Impartiality makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class, or political opinions. It
endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided closely by their needs, and to give priority to the most
urgent cases of distress.

Consequences of the Fundamental Principle of Impartiality

The consequences of the principle of Impartiality are as follows:

1. It establishes one of its key values: non-discrimination, which is one of the most important elements of all
aspects of the protection of the human being: human rights law, humanitarian law, refugee law.
2. Although the need to “enjoy the confidence of all” is mentioned about the principle of Neutrality, this also
applies to the principle of Impartiality. Only an impartial action can give the image of an organization that
can be trusted by people to be assisted or protected. Therefore, systems have to be put in place to ensure
that the people benefiting from the action of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are those whose vulnerability
is the highest.
3. Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside. To illustrate the difference
between the two notions: a National Society that refuses to provide its services to a specific group of
people, because of their ethnic origin, fails to observe the rule of non-discrimination; whereas a National
Society staff member who, in the exercise of his functions, favors a friend by giving him better treatment
than that given to others, contravenes the principle of impartiality. Therefore, staff and volunteers should be
trained to ensure that correct behavior becomes almost a reflex.

Reasons and Impartiality as Requirement of Ethics

In the Euthyphro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would prosecute his own father for
murder. The conventional assumption he seems to be making is that filial relationships impose special constraints
that may override other considerations, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro, by contrast, a murder is a murder.
The fact that it was committed by his father has no bearing upon what he is required to do about it. He must
prosecute his father just as he would be a stranger.

In the dialogue, the issue is quickly dropped, unresolved. This brief passage can serve as an emblem of a
perplexing range of problems that bedevil ethical theory – problems now typically grouped together under the
heading of impartiality. In one way or another, all of these problems concern the way in which modern moral
philosophy seems to force detachment from self-interest, privileged personal relationships, the demands of the
moment, and a fully situated first-person point of view, in favor of aggregate or common good, equal and universal
relationships, long-range considerations, and the point of view of a disinterested, omniscient observer.

There are at least three distinct elements that run through these problems, namely:

1. We grant the powerful and persistent force of self-interest in our lives, and assume that morality must
somehow give us reasons for constraining such motives;
2. We grant that rules and principles of conduct will be useless or counter-productive in purely local or short-
range terms, and assume that morality must give us reasons for acting in principle inspite of it;
3. We grant that our favorites and friends have special claims on our attention, and assume that morality must
give us reasons for occasionally denying such claims.

Morality, thus, requires that we should not play favorites, or manipulate rules to our personal advantage, or
make ad hoc exceptions for ourselves. In that sense it requires us to be impartial (Becker, 1991).

Reasons and Feelings

Broadly stated ethics is “concerned with making sense of intuitions” (Light, et. al, 2003) about what is right
and good. We do this by reasoning about our feelings. Biologists verify that “Emotion is never truly divorced from
decision making, even when it is channeled aside by an effort of will” (Blakeslee, et. al, 2007). Physicists now
confirm that seeing the world with complete objectively is not possible, as our observations affect what we perceive
(Werner, 2002).

Moral philosopher Mary Midgely (1983) writes “Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it, and vice
versa. There is no siding onto which emotions can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought.” We rely on our
feelings to move us to act morally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane.

Scientific evidence supports this approach to ethics. As children, we manifest empathy before developing
our rational abilities, and there is evidence for the same order of development in the evolution of the human brain
(Carey, 2007). “Empathy is a unique form of intentionality in which we are directed toward the other’s experience”.
This involves feeling, at least to some extent, what another person is feeling.” In empathy we experience another
human being directly as a person – that is, as an intentional being whose bodily gestures and actions are expressive
of his or her experiences or states of mind” (Thompson, 2007).

Empathy enables us to identify with others, and may generate a “perception of the other as a being who
deserves concern and respect.” This does not guarantee ethical conduct, but it makes morality possible”. Aid to
others in need would never be internalized as a duty without the fellow-feeling that drives people to take an interest
in one another. Moral sentiments came first; moral principles second” (de Waal, 2007).

Conscience, at its best, reflects our integration of moral sentiments and principles. We should test our
conscience, however, by explaining to others the reasons for our moral presumptions, and we should listen carefully
to concerns they may have. This is especially important when dealing with ethical issues among family members or
friends, but applies as well to concerns about the environment.

Moreover, both our feelings and our reason reflect our participation in a moral community, or more likely
several moral communities. As children, our moral community is our family, which soon broadens to include our
friends and then is defined by the rules of our school. As adults, our moral community extends from our family to
our friends (at work, in our neighborhood or a support group, and perhaps in our religious community), to our city,
our country, the people of the world whose moral and legal rights are defined by international law, and perhaps also
to a moral community that includes non-human organisms and ecosystems.

Ethics vs Feelings

Many times, there’s a conflict between what we naturally feel and what is considered to be ethical. Our
subconscious reaction to a news event might be hatred, jealousy or other negative feelings, but we might not be able
to morally argue why we feel that way.
 My guess is that the human race developed those subconscious reactions as an evolutionary mechanism to
survive. Our ancestors wouldn’t have been able to find and obtain food if they hadn’t fought for it. Arguing about
ethics would’ve meet that you’ll have to stay hungry and die.

The problem is most of our feelings in today’s world are unethical, politically incorrect or even outright
harmful. It takes a great deal of effort to retrospect and self-analyze our feelings to judge whether they are ethical or
not.

Let us take a few common examples and see how to tackle those feelings. Groupism, Patriotism, Dunbar’s
number, Negative feelings to content on Social Networks.

1. Groupism

a. Natural feeling:
I am part of a group. I am supposed to help this group become better. I am also supposed to compete with
other groups.

b. Reasoning:
Being part of a herd made it easier for us ancestors to survive in the wild. There were so many survival
benefits that belonging to a group brought. Naturally, our ancestors started developing good feelings about
belonging to a group.

c. Ethical viewpoint:
help the group. Help other groups too. There is no compelling reason to compete in today’s times of peace.

2. Patriotism

a. Natural feeling:
I was born in a place. I am supposed to help people in the geographical vicinity around me. There are
human-decided borders that define my country. Those outside the border don’t deserve that much attention as those
inside the border do.

b. Reasoning:
Patriotism is Groupism in a higher scale. Most borders were drawn for political benefits by a small group of
individuals running that country. There have been countless stories of propaganda by governments to motivate
people to join their wars to fight people over borders. We humans tend to justify these efforts as noble.

c. Ethical viewpoint:
wars are always bad. There is no reason to be proud of your country just because you were born in it. It is
okay to be in your country and help your country because you are used to it. But it is also okay to move to other
countries and help those countries.

3. Dunbar’s number

a. Natural feeling:
I cannot maintain more than 150 stable relationships.

b. Reasoning:
Our brains have limited capacity and it becomes mentally hard to maintain more relationships.

c. Ethical viewpoint:
Acceding to the Dunbar’s number promotes Groupism \. Just as we push ourselves to become better
humans, we should also try to push the Dunbar number limit further. Accepting that all life forms in this world (and
outside the world if life exists) are part of the same group counters the negative effects of Groupism.

4. Ethical feelings to content on social Networks

a. Natural feeling:
 I hate what’s being posted on Facebook. They are just stupid selfies, people gloating their achievements or
just distracting, unproductive content.

b. Reasoning:
Many of us have been taught to compete with others since our childhood. We tend to compare ourselves
with others.

c. Ethical viewpoint:
we don’t have to compete with our friends. We can applaud their life achievements without comparing our
lives with theirs. We don’t have to look down upon those who seek attention. Comedians, actors and other
entertainers are attention-seeking. But we don’t look down upon them.
It is up to us to filter out noise in our lives. Social networks aren’t thrusted into our face. We can choose to
stay away from them if they are noisy. Or even better, adjust the content shown in our feed and tailor it to our
comfort.

Steps in Moral Reasoning Model

Ethical reasoning is how to think about issues of right or wrong. Processes of reasoning can be taught, and
the college or university is an appropriate place to teach these processes because so often it is taught no place else,
and because it is essential for a success adulthood. Although parents and especially religious institutions may teach
ethics, they do not always teach ethical reasoning. Academic courses are the logical place to teach the cognitive
process of reasoning especially as ethical issues relate to the content of a particular discipline. No matter how
knowledgeable one is about his/her profession, if the knowledge is not backed by ethical reasoning, long-term
success in the career is likely to be severely compromised.

Ethical reasoning is hard because there are so many ways to fail. Ethical behavior is far harder to display
than one would expect simply on the basis of what we learn from our parents, from school, and from our religious
training (Sternberg, 2009). To intervene, individuals must go through a series of steps, and unless all of the steps are
completed, they are not likely to behave in an ethical way, regardless of the amount of training they have received in
ethics, and regardless of their levels of other types of skills.

Given the fact that ethical dilemmas may not always be readily resolved through the use of codes of ethics,
it might be useful to have a framework in which to analyze and make ethical decisions. The following ethical
decision-making model comes from the work of Corey et. Al. (1998).

Step 1: Identify the problem. What facts make this an ethical situation?
Step 2: identify the potential issues involved. What level of ethical issues are we dealing with: systematic,
corporate, or individual?
Step 3: review relevant ethical guidelines. Given the facts and the ethical issues, what alternative actions are
possible in this situation?
Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. Who will be affected by the alternatives and to what degree?
Step 5: Obtain consultation. Use ethical principles to decide on the best alternative. The ethics of each of the most
plausible alternatives is best assed using ethical principals or rules.
Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. Can the best alternative be put into effect? Having decided
on one alternative, we need to see whether there are any practical constraints which might prevent that alternative
from being acted upon.
Step 7: List the consequences of the courses of action.
Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action, implementing the best alternative. Having selected
the best alternative which is not ruled out by practical constraints, we need to decide on the steps necessary to carry
it out.

The Difference Between Reason and Will

Will, generally, is that faculty of the mind which selects, at the moment of decision, the strongest desire
from among the various desires present. Will does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism for
choosing from among one’s desires. Within philosophy the will is important as one of the distinct parts of the mind
– along with reason and understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling
deliberate action.

When we become conscious of ourselves, we realize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving,
striving, wanting, and desiring. These are characteristics of that which we call our will. Schopenhauer affirmed that
we can legitimately think that all other phenomena are also essentially and basically will. According to him, will “is
the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting
force of nature, and also in the deliberate conduct of man.” Schopenhauer (1998) said that his predecessors
mistakenly thought that the will depends on knowledge. According to him, though, the will is primary and uses
knowledge in order to find an object that will satisfy its craving. That which, in us, we call will is Kant’s “thing
itself”, according to Schopenhauer.

Moral Theories

Through the ages, there have emerged multiple common moral theories and traditions. We will cover each
one briefly below with explanations and how they differ from other moral theories.

Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories, unlike virtue and deontological theories, hold that only the
consequences, or outcomes, of actions matter morally. According to this view, acts are deemed to be morally right
solely on the basis of their consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a
lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.

Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the
result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain
situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably
good.

Consequentialism is based on two principles:

1. Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act;
2. The better consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act.

It gives us this guidance when faced with normal dilemma: A person should choose the action that
maximizes good consequences and it gives this general guidance on how to live: People should live so as to
maximize good consequences.

Moral Subjectivism. Right and wrong is determined by what you, the subject, just happens to think or ‘feel’ is right
or wrong. In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind,
and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ lose their meaning because
so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is ‘right, there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral
subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone’s behavior assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they
think or feel is right. This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is
legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples’ actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about
moral issues (Brandt, 1959).

Moral Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary
because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes
and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference
or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right merely means that it is that
judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.

There are different types of Moral Subjectivism:

1. Simple Subjectivism: the view that ethical statements reflect sentiments, personal preferences and feelings rather
than objective facts.

2. Individualist Subjectivism: the view originally put forward by Protagoras, that there are as many distinct scales
of good and evil as there are individuals in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which maintains that every
human being ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
3. Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally right is for it to be approved of
by society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right for people in different societies and different
periods in history.

4. Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal
observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and David Hume
espoused early versions of the Ideal Observer Theory, and Roderick Firth (1917-1987) is responsible for a more
sophisticated modern version.

5. Ethical Egoism: Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act contrary
to your self-interest.

Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism – that we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical
egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some ‘higher’ goods example, wisdom, political
success, but rather that we will ideally act so as to maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forego some
immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving some long-term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping
others. However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist will claim that
the altruist helps others only because he/she wants to (perhaps because he/she derives pleasure out of helping others)
or because he/she thinks there will be some personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of
genuine altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical
Egoism –

Reference:

Ethics for College Students

By: Roman D. Leaño, Jr.
Arthur B. Gubia-on