MODULE 1:

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? PYTHAGORAS

COMMON (MIS)UNDERSTANDING Philosophos
OF PHILOSOPHY ● Not a possessor of wisdom,
❖ Ideas, views, principles, but rather a seeker of it.
perspectives, or beliefs
- Mabaquiao Sophists
❖ “Pilosopo” ● Group of intellectuals who
➢ One who engages in taught oratory for a fee to
reasoning for the purposes individuals aspiring to have a
of covering up an obvious successful career in politics.
truth, annoying someone,
and engaging someone in
Meanings of Philosophy:
an unwelcome
Philosophy as love, pursuit, or study of
argumentation.
knowledge, wisdom, or truth, especially
❖ Academic subjects are
as to the nature of things.
usually taught in colleges, - Pre-Socratics, Plato,
universities, and seminaries. Aristotle

PHILOSOPHY Philosophy as the handmaid of

● Distinguishes between correct
and incorrect forms of
reasoning for the purpose of
knowing or determining what
is true
● Frameworks or bases for
interpreting or making
judgments about the world.
● It is not confined to the
academe.
3 CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY
1. Personal Value System
○ Decisions, Works
Values in life
2. Activity of Reflection
○ Understanding
concept of the world.
3. Foundationalism
○ Foundation of the beliefs
and values of an individual.
Philo(Love) Sophia(Wisdom)
“Love of Wisdom”
theology whose purpose is to elucidate
revealed truth sent to combat heresy.
- Medieval Philosophy
Philosophy as meaning which the world
has for you or as the meaning one has
created or invented in life.
- Frost Jr., Jean-Paul Sartre
Philosophy as analysis of concepts,
styles and reasoning, and the limits of
knowledge.
Philosophy as the handmaid of science
or as reduced to logical analysis.
METAPHYSICS
and
What is there?
the EPISTEMOLOGY
How do we know which is there?
AXIOLOGY
Why are these things in the world
important or at least concerning us?
AISTHETIKOS (Perception)
ETHOS (Character)
LOGIC
Study of the truth and validity of our
arguments
2 TYPES OF PHILOSOPHY
● ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
○ Concerned with analysis
■ Thought, language
logic. knowledge
● CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
○ Concerned with
synthesis
■ Individuals with
society, modernity
with history
■
“Philosophy is the study of being(or
everything), according to its ultimate
explanation, in the light of reason”
- Lorenz Moises Festin
Bertrand Russell’s
“The Value of Philosophy”
2 TYPES OF GOODS
1. Goods of the Body
a. nourishment/Survival
2. Goods of the Mind
“Philosophy is a useless discipline”
- It is wrong to think that
philosophy is a useless discipline
and a waste of time and energy
because it does not promise
definite answers to the
philosophical questions. If we love
science because it gives finite
answers, we must thank
philosophy for making it possible
for science to deal with such
questions.
WHAT IS ETHICS?
“How should one live?” - Socrates
ETHICS: character
Subject matter: Morality
Moralis: proper conduct
● The study of the underlying
principles of morality.
● Aims to question why human
conducts are considered either
moral or not.
● Aims to look for the fundamental
bases of moral evaluations.
ETHICAL UNETHICAL NON-ETHICAL

a. Improve the quality of

Moral Immoral Amoral
life Good Bad Non-moral
RIght Wrong

PHILOSOPHY: Art of Questioning

- Sake of the question ETHICS VS MORALITY
- Not for the sake of any definite Ethics is the discipline that examines
answers the moral standards of an individual
- Questions enlarge our or a society.
conception of what is possible,
enrich our intellectual FOLKWAYS: first set of rules
imagination How things should or should not be
- Diminish dogmatic assurance done.
● Primitive humans promote and
which closes the mind against
protect those that are beneficial
speculation
for their survival & development.

“Wonder is the feeling of a

MORES: basis for the moral aspect
philosopher, and philosophy begins
of human conduct.
in wonder” - Socrates
 ● Formation of rules and
sanctions
LAWS: formalized and codifies
mores to easily manage its many
recipients
● Punishes those who disobey to
that “rules”
ETHOS: sum of the characteristic
usages, ideas, standards, and codes
by which a group is differentiated
and individualized in character from
other groups. “IDENTITY”
ETHICS: the things which were the
standard of right.
MORAL: what belongs or
appertains to the mores. The
category of morals can never be
defined without reference to
something outside itself. (Something
to do with cultural relativism)
Ethics is the discipline that
examines the moral standards of
an individual or a society. In a sense,
Ethics is the study of morality.
- Evangelista & Mabaquiao
ETHICS AS A SUBJECT
3 WAYS IN STUDYING ETHICS
● META-ETHICS
○ Beyond ethics
○ Study of basic ethical
concepts & principles
that aid in the
discussion of Ethics.
● NORMATIVE ETHICS
○ Norma = “right”
○ RIght -angle ruler or
square
○ “How things are or
how they ought to be.”
- Ian Hacking
○ Focuses on the study of
various Ethical
Frameworks or Theories
that aim to guide our
conduct.
○ “Desirable Conduct”
● APPLIED / PRACTICAL ETHICS
○ Application of Ethical
theories towards
specific concerns
○ Sometimes referred to
as Practical Ethics since
the Ethical Theories are
being applied manifest
directly as conduct
NORMATIVE ETHICS
MORAL STATEMENTS VS NORMATIVE
STATEMENTS
NORMATIVE STATEMENT
- A value judgement that claims
that something ought to be the
case is distinct from a factual
judgement.
- Assessed by: standards or
norms instead of empirical data.
Examples:
a. It is illegal to make a U-turn there.
i. Legal Standard
b. There should be unity, balance,
and contrast in your painting
i. Aesthetic Standards
c. Cover your mouth when you
laugh
i. Standard of Etiquette
NATURE OF MORAL STANDARDS
1. Deals with matters that we think
can seriously harm or benefit
human beings.
2. Have universal validity. If it is
morally wrong for person A to do
 act X, then it is wrong to do X for that are merely described
anyone relevantly similar to P. to be happening.
6. Is-Ought Fallacy
3. Thought to have a particularly ● Introduces the
overriding importance, that is problematic derivation of
people feel they should prevail the prescription of an
over other values. action (ought) from
something that occurs
4. Not established by the decisions naturally or something
of authoritarian bodies, nor are that is merely described to
they solely determined by be happening.
appealing to consensus or
tradition.

6 CHALLENGES IN DISCUSSING
MORAL REASONING
ETHICS
STATEMENT (CLAIM)
1. Moral Subjectivism
● An assertion either true or false
● Each individual has their
own ethical point of view.
ARGUMENT
2. Moral Relativism
● Put forward a set of premise and
● Differences in ethical
offer reasons to claim the
point of view on a societal
conclusion
level.
3. Morality and Religion
2 BASIC MODELS OF MAKING
● Introduces questions
MORAL DECISIONS
whether morality is
Deductive Scheme
dependent on religion or
1. DEDUCTIVE MODEL OF MORAL
not.
REASONING
○ Is it possible to
a. General rule : What
come-up with
should be considered
moral standards
ethical or not
void of any religious
b. Specific Example
aspect.
(particular human
4. Morality and Law
conduct)
● Introduces the question
c. Evaluation of that
whether the law should
example based on the rule
be the basis of morality
being used.
or not
Example:
5. Morality and Biology
(1) According to Immanuel Kant, all
● Introduces the question
acts of lying are immoral.
whether moral decisions
(2) Rody lied to his constituents.
are indeed crafted by our
(3) Based on the Ethical Framework
free will or they are just
of Immanuel Kant, Rody is
accidental causes of
immoral.
biological adaptation
brought by natural
Inductive Scheme
selection and other
2. REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM
revolutionary processes
MODEL
 a. Facts (experiences, ideas, (3) Ought to take the interests into
narratives) account in deciding what to do.
b. Relevant pre-existing
beliefs WHAT IS A MORAL PERSON?
c. Judgement of a particular Moral Personhood
conduct 1. Significance
Example: 2. Structure
(4) Rody lied to his constituents 3. Basis
(5) Rody believes that lying is
permissible if it benefits a lot of 1. SIGNIFICANCE
people. a. Human or non-human
(6) Rody’s lies benefit a lot of people, ● possessing the defining
hence, it is moral. features of being a moral
person but not being a
VALID: Premise are true, then the human being.
conclusion has to be true What does it mean to be a moral
INVALID: Deductive argument does not person?
offer conclusive support for the 1. Possess Moral rights
conclusion (Entitlements)
STRONG: The validity is more likely to be 2. Have Moral Duties
true than not (Obligations)
WEAK: The premises are true, but the
conclusion is not probable. 2. STRUCTURE OF MORAL
PERSONHOOD
MORAL / ETHICAL THEORY a. Moral Agents (performer)
● an explanation of what makes b. Moral Patients (Receiver of
an action right or wrong. It says, actions)
in effect, that a particular action is “All moral persons have moral
right (or wrong) because it has rights, but not all have moral
this property, or characteristic duties”

THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL MORAL PERSONS

THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS 1. Sentient
● It serves as guideposts 2. Rational
● “What ought I to do?” 3. Relational
● “Why I ought to do so?”

MORAL/ ETHICAL DILEMMA

● Having 2 conflicting moral
considerations.
● The individual will violate at least
one important moral concern,
regardless of the decision.

CHARACTERISTICS:
(1) It calls for action of some kind to
resolve it
(2) Affects the interests of others
MODULE 2 b. We always do what makes us feel
EGOISM AND ALTRUISM good (Expected benefit)
c. We always do what makes us feel
(Glaucon and Socrates)
good (Avoiding Misery)
THE RING OF GYGES’
“Character is who you are when no Counter Arguments:
one is looking” a. There are things that we do, not
because we want to, but
Glaucon’s view of human nature: because we feel that we ought to.
● completely just-but seemingly
unjust man Ethical Egoism:radical idea
● Completely unjust but seemingly
Self-Interest accounts for all of one’s
just man
obligations.
● Then the actions of the just
would be as the actions of the ● It tells us about what we are
unjust; they would both come at morally required and
last to the same point forbidden to do
● One ultimate moral duty—to
3 CLASSES/KINDS OF GOODS improve your own well-being
1. Desirable in themselves as best you can.
- Harmless pleasures and
enjoyment PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM VS
2. Not desirable in themselves but
ETHICAL EGOISM
as a mean to another end
- Work
3. Intrinsically and instrumentally Claims about Claims about
good human nature or morality, or the
- Knowledge, sight, health about the way ways things
things are should be
-
Glaucon:
“A man is just because it is a necessity. LEVELS OF COMPASSION:
for wherever any one thinks that he can BASIC COMPASSION:
safely be unjust, there he is unjust.” Fundamental and unconditional kind of
compassion. One must consider the
WHY SHOULD WE BE MORAL? interests of others when doing an action
We should choose the life of the (even to a stranger)
“unsuccessful” just person because it is to - “It was simply the correct thing to
our advantage to be moral do”

CONDITIONAL-COMPASSION:
ETHICAL EGOISM
intersecting with other’s interest
Psychological Egoism - “I figured if he remembers my
Self-Interest what motivates human kind gesture later, he might put in
beings. a good word for me”

Arguments: NO COMPASSION
a. We always do what we want to do - “Our other companion”
(Strongest Desire)
DETERMINING PEOPLE’S MOTIVES:
- Testimony and Behavior
3 KINDS OF APPROACHES TO THE
INTEREST OF OTHERS IN DOING AN
ACTION
1. ETHICAL ALTRUISM
a. The Interests of others are
always good reasons to act
or not to act.
b. Basic Compassion
Weak Ethical Altruism “should”
consider the interests of others in
doing an action.
Strong Ethical Altruism ”Must”
always act for the benefit of
others.
2. ETHICAL EGOISM
a. Exemplified by the person
who views the interests of
others as important only
insofar as they converge
with or serves his or her
own interest.
b. Conditional Compassion
3. ETHICAL EGOTISM
a. Never uses the interests of
others as a reason for
action.
b. No compassion.
ETHICAL EGOISM: utang na loob
Indicator: Intentions of the agent
How do they consider their own interest in
light of other people’s interests?
● does not tell you to avoid helping
others
TWO FORMS OF ETHICAL EGOISM
1. Act-Egoism
a. Determining the right
action: apply egoistic
principle to individual acts.
b. What promotes your self
- interest better.
2. Rule-Egoism
a. Determining right action:
if an act falls under a rule
that if consistently
followed would maximize
your self-interest.
“Act A is preferable to act B
because it falls under a rule
that maximizes your
self-interest better than any
other relevant rule applying
to act B”
CRITICISMS OF ETHICAL EGOISM
● Unacceptably Arbitrary
● Endorses wickedness
Is acting in your own self-interest always
wrong?
- “We address ourselves, not to
their humanity but to their
self-love, and never talk to them
of our own necessities but of their
advantages.”
- Adam Smith
ETHICAL ALTRUISM
Act out of a concern for others.
1. Properly taking account the
interest of others in their
practical reasoning
2. Refers to the motives of those
who wish to further other
people’s good in ways that go
beyond what morality strictly
requires.
CRITICISMS OF ETHICAL ALTRUISM
● Lacks proper system of
prioritisation
● Cannot enjoin egoists in pulling
weight
In what instances do you think that
ethical altruism is not right?
MODULE 3: VIRTUE ETHICS
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
(SELECTION)
One does not simply become a
virtuous/Moral person without engaging
virtuous or moral acts.
“Everything has a “telos” (‘end,’
‘purpose,’ or ‘goal’ )”
-Aristotle
“Every art and every scientific inquiry,
and similarly every action and
purpose, may be said to aim at some
good. Hence the good has been
well defined as that at which all
things aim.”
- Aristotle
3 KINDS OF TELOS/ENDS
(1) Instrumental ends
● Attain something apart
from itself like money to
buy goods, goods to satisfy
one’s hunger.
● Means for another end
(2) Final Ends Intrinsic
● Found at the end of the
chain of cause and effect.
○ Satisfaction of
hunger
(3) Supreme ends
● Unconditionally final or
chosen for their own sake
and nothing else.
Characteristics:
- Final
- Self-sufficient
- Attainable Goal of Human
Life
Our supreme end as humans is to
pursue:
EUDAIMONIA: good spirit
Eu = good
Daimon = spirit
FUNCTION OF MAN: needs
excellence
RATIONAL: activity of soul accordance
with reason
VIRTUE: perfection or excellence of
anything in order for it to pursue its end.
In order to attain happiness one must
posses and practice:
ARETE
virtue or excellence
VIRTUE: vir
perfection of a human
VIRTUES: states of character which
makes a person good and capable of
fulfilling their end (telos) as human
persons.
Virtue is not given by nature. It must be
acquired, performed, and actualized
but this discovery is not for everyone.
There will be differences according to
capabilities and experiences.
2 KINDS OF VIRTUES:
1. Intellectual Virtues
Demands experience and time
● Academic excellence,
● Pursuing knowledge
2. Moral Virtues
Outcome of Habit
● Character we project or
act upon
● Mean
THE GOLDEN MEAN
● Virtues : Golden Mean
● Vices: Deficient and Excess
“To be morally virtuous,one must be
able to respond to situations not just
with the correct feeling or action but in
the proper degree, at the right time,
towards the right people,and for the
right reasons.”
- Pasco
PHRONESIS (Practical Wisdom)
Capable of determining that the
intermediate is relative due to their
reasoning. The intermediate itself, in
particular circumstances, however, is
apprehended through perception,not
reason.
“Virtue ethics claims that we cannot tell
whether an act is right or wrong just by
looking at or analysing the act itself;
instead, we must focus on the person
performing the act”.
—--------------------------------------------------
MODULE 4:
TELEOLOGY /
CONSEQUENTIALISM
UTILITARIANISM
Consequences-based perspective,
asserts that the moral worth of an act is
based on the consequences it
produces and treats intentions as
irrelevant.
● Act to produce the greatest
good for the greatest number”
Jeremy Bentham : Quantitative
Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill: Qualitative
Utilitarianism
“All action is for the sake of some end ,
and rules of action, it seems natural to
suppose, must take their whole
character and colour from the end to
which they are subservient.”
– Mill
Happiness is Desirable and the only
thing desirable as an end; all other
things being only desirable as means to
that end.
PLEASURE PAIN
HAPPINESS UNHAPPINESS
ADREED IDEA : Utilitarians believe that
Happiness should drive our morality.
Moral theory should apply equally to
everyone. There is nothing more basic
than the primal desire to seek pleasure
and avoid pain.
THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
(Bentham)
maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
- Property of objects to produce
benefit, advantage and avoid pain
or evil
Felicific Calculus:
“Happiness Score”
Intensity: strength
Duration: timespan
Certainty: likelihood
Remoteness: immediateness or lateness
Fecundity: pleasure produces other
pleasures
Purity: pleasure is not mixed with pain
Extent: number of people who will
experience the pleasure
GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE
(Mill) Standard is not the agent’s own
greatest happiness, but the greatest
amount of happiness altogether.
Good consequences = Good Act
Bad consequences = Bad Act
TYPE OF PLEASURE TO BE VALUED:
Intellectual Pleasure over Physical
Pleasures
 KANTIAN ETHICS
“Act to produce the greatest good for Non -consequentialist ethical theory that
the greatest number” uses duties in determining what is
- This could mean that you might right or wrong
sacrifice your own pleasure for
others. Does not follow “happiness end”
- Your interest counts but no
more than anyone else’s Duty bound to the person’s capacity to
regulate her own reason and reasoning
2 TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM capacity
ACT UTILITARIANISM Short term happiness
(Classical Utilitarianism) A PRIORI PRINCIPLES
Given any situation, you should choose - Reason(Foundation)
the action that produces the Greatest - What can I know?
Good for the Greatest Number - Goodwill (Source)
- What may I hope for?
- Duty (Motivation)
RULE UTILITARIANISM Long term happiness - What ought I to do?
We ought to live by rules that are likely to
lead to the greatest good for the greatest A PRIORI - KNOWLEDGE
number. Independent of experience.
Proposition is true just by thinking and
CRITICISMS / OBJECTIONS reasoning about it
● No intrinsic wrongness(or Ex. Math
rightness) All murder is wrong
● The problem of Injustice
● The value of a person rests in A POSTERIORI - KNOWLEDGE
his/her/their utility Depends in experiences such as
empirical observations
CONCLUSION:
In relation to the welfare of a group, Kant believes that reason alone can yield
consequentialism via utilitarianism, has a moral law.
taught us that the end justifies the
means 3 PROPOSITIONS OF MORALITY
—--------------------------------------------------- GROUNDS OF DUTY
MODULE 5: ● Objective
KANTIAN ETHICS ● Subjective
Religion and Morality should be kept ● Subjective respect for Objective
apart
Action must be done from a sense of
Morality is constant and you don’t need duty, if it is to have moral worth
religion to determine what is right and - Motivation is Duty not feelings
wrong. The moral laws are totally - Reason than desire
knowable using intellect. - Helping is not about you “feel” to
help
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS - Pag naawa ka sa beggar is
Focuses on the right and wrongness of not the right thing to do
action. What makes a choice right - You need to have your
duty
 - Grounding morality to reason
Action done from duty derives its
moral worth, not from the purpose
which is to be attained by it, but from
the maxim by which it is determined.
- Good will
- Not good to be used as a
mean to ends
- Good if it is desired in itself
Duty is the necessity of acting from
respect for the law
● How do we know what the moral
law is?
○ IMPERATIVES
○ Commands
○ Kant: basis for determining
our duty/ key for moral law
HYPOTHETICAL
Represents the practical necessity of a
possible action as a means to achieving
something else that one wills.
“If you want A, then do B”
CATEGORICAL
An action as objectively necessary of
itself, without reference to another end
“Do A” or “You ought to do A”
Sense of unconditional duty that lies
within all of us. Source of moral law
within.
FORMULATIONS OF CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
1. UNIVERSAL LAW OF NATURE
2. HUMANITY FORMULA
3. AUTONOMY FORMULA
a. KINGDOM OF ENDS
FORMULA
TERMS:
Maxim: a personal rule or general
principle that underlies a particular
action
PERFECT DUTIES:
Obligation and Right
Acting out of a sense of duty
IMPERFECT DUTIES:
Inclination to good or bad.
No Obligations.
Acting in accordance with duty
UNIVERSAL LAW OF NATURE
● Act according with that maxim
through which you can at the
same time became a universal
law
● Not related to golden rule
○ Does not have the “Good
will”
○ Egoistic
HUMANITY
● Human as an end to itself
● Don’t use people as an
instrument to meet your ends
● Suicide
○ Not justifiable
You can use people as a mean if it
is consented
AUTONOMY FORMULA
● Rational being is free and
autonomous
● Humans: Collectively free
Free acceptance over compliance
- Human as maker of
universal law
- Should not rely on an
external authority to
determine moral law
Criticisms/Difficulties
- Conflicting duties
- Motivation is unrealistic and too
demanding
- Only persons who are capable of
rational judgement
- Disregards people who are not
capable of rational judgement
- Disable people