SOUTH EAST ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC.

National Highway, Crossing Rubber, Tupi, South Cotabato

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

___________________________________________________

LEARNING MODULE
FOR
GE 118 ETHICS

_____________________________________________________

WEEK 1

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 1 of 35
 COURSE OUTLINE

COURSE CODE : GE 118

TITLE : ETHICS
INSTRUCTOR : MR. LEO B. COLOT

Overview:

Ethics are set of moral principles that guide a person’s behavior. These morals are shaped
by social norms, cultural practices, and religious influences. Ethics reflects beliefs about
what is right, what is wrong, what is just, what is unjust, what is good, and what is bad in
terms of human behavior.

General Objective:
a. Define the goodness of man and establish a standard for the same.
b. Decision making skills related to appropriate selection of
a. Moral standards
b. Norms of behavior

c. Overall study of human behavior with a view to assessing what is moral

and what is immoral.
d. Apply judgment on human behavior based on the above standards.
e. Develop personality change into a more morally and respectful person.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Week 1 VISION, MISSION, AND POLICIES

INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS AND THE SCOPES OF LEARNING
Week 2 THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
Week 3 THE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY AND SENSES OF THE SELF
Week 4 UTILITARIANISM
Week 5 THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

INSTRUCTION TO THE LEARNERS:

Each chapter in this module contains a major lesson involving the theories of Ethics, its
definition and importance. The units are characterized by continuity and are arranged in
such a manner that the present unit is related to the next unit. For this reason, you are
advised to read this module. After each unit, there are exercises to be given. Submission
of task given will be during your scheduled class hour.
GETTING STARTED:
What comes to your mind when you hear about the word Ethics? Do you think your

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 2 of 35
religion or religious beliefs are part of learning it? How about the gender issues and
abortion? Can you think of an act that we can say immoral? What do you think is your
part or contribution in helping the people to know about morality?

You will learn all of it and a lot more with our subject Ethics

We wish to know your ideas about your knowledge of morality. Complete the statements
stated below as honestly as you can. All answer is accepted.

1. I believe that only man and women were created by God because
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

2. I describe a successful religious leader

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

3. I define Ethics as
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

4. I am expecting to learn from this subject

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

5. I believe that I could help our government and country through

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 3 of 35
 WEEK 1

VISION
A premier institution that provides quality education and globally empowered
individuals.

MISSION
To produce competent, community-oriented, and globally competitive individuals
through holistic education.

CORE VALUES
 Service
 Excellence
 Accountability
 Innovation
 Teamwork

SEAIT HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. located at National Highway,
Crossing Rubber, Tupi, South Cotabato, was founded by Engr. Reynaldo S. Tamayo, Jr.
and co-founded by Rochelle P. Tamayo, his wife, in 2006. Mr. and Mrs. Reynaldo S.
Tamayo, Jr. were Department of Science and Technology (DOST) scholars in Bachelor of
Information Technology at Cebu Institute of Technology. They wish to help the youth in
Tupi to earn their college degree so they can become productive citizens of the country.
Strongly driven by deep commitment to contribute to nation-building by creating a
landmark of social development through education in Tupi, the couple planned to realize
this particular dream with the all-out support of the entire Tamayo family. With the Tamayo
family as the couple’s stronghold, they thought of opening a higher education institution
in 2006. However, they decided to open first a technical-vocational school in the said year.
The school was named SOUTH EAST ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
INC. or SEAIT. The name was anchored in the vision offering quality education to impact
not only in the region but also in the South East Asian countries. At first, the school offered
Computer Programming NC-IV and Computer Hardware Servicing NC II. With respective
certificates from the TESDA XII, SEAIT offered Computer Programming NC-IV and
Computer Hardware Servicing NC-I in 2006. After a year, Hotel and Restaurant
Management was added to its program offerings.
The couple manage to upgrade SEAIT in 2008. They added BSIT with very
affordable tuition and other fees per semester. As the year past, SEAIT continue to grow
and offered more courses until today. It also provided assistance and scholarship grants
from Tulong-Dunong and CHED to help the youth in the municipality value affordable and
quality education. And in 2016, the Universal Financial Assistance for Tertiary Education
(UNIFAST) became an “amazing come on among higher education institutions, including
SEAIT, in the region.
As an educational institution, SEAIT has existed for 15 years. It has graduated 12
batches in college. It is known for its Information Technology niche as this is the field of

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 4 of 35
specialization of the founder and co-founder. It is also known for its Civil Engineering
program as this is the field of specialization of the parents of the founder and the current
president.

ACADEMIC POLICIES
A. Academic Rights: Every student has the right to receive competent instruction
and relevant quality education.
B. General Enrolment Procedures: All prospective students with their necessary
credentials must enroll during the prescribed registration period. To facilitate
registration, students should read guidelines posted online via SEAIT official page
or on the bulletin board and be guided by the registration procedures.
C. Class Attendance: Every student is required prompt and regular attendance.
Tardiness and absences are recorded from the first day of classes. There is a
corresponding sanction with a multiple absences or tardiness.
D. Examination and Grading System: There are 3 major examination administered
every semester, namely Prelim, Midterm, and Final Examination. The registrar
determines the schedule of the major examination. Grading System: 40% Quizzes;
20% Class Standing; 40% Examination.
E. Graduating with Latin Honors: The office of the Registrar in close coordination
with the Office of the Vice President for Academics shall determine and
recommend to the administrator a student who completes his baccalaureate
degree with honors provided with standard qualifications.
F. Student Fees: Includes the registration and other fees.
G. Scholarship Programs: The school recognizes excellence in academic
achievement. This is manifested in its scholarship programs given to deserving
students. Other scholarships funded by the Government and private benefactors
are acknowledged provided that a Memorandum of Agreement has been duly
processed and approved by the School President.

NON-ACADEMIC POLICIES
A. Code of Discipline for Students: The rules and regulations of the institution are
intended to maintain the order necessary for an academic environment and to
ensure an atmosphere conducive to the formation of values for men and women
and for others.
B. School Identification Card (SID): SID cards will be issued and validated by the
SAO upon enrolment. Student is required to wear his SID card at all times while
he is within the school premises.
C. Uniforms/Dress Code: The school uniform must be worn with respect and dignity.
Only students wearing the prescribed uniform will be allowed to enter the school
premises and the classroom.
D. Prescribed haircut for Criminology students: Female- 2/3 (hairnet shall be
used to those who don’t want to cut their hair; Male- 2/0

CLASS POLICIES
1. Awareness of intended audience

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 5 of 35
 (e.g. classes are meant for students currently enrolled in the course and you must
not enter or share a class meeting with someone unauthorized)
2. General etiquette
(e.g. mute microphones when not speaking, raise hand virtually to ask question,
turn off camera if you're stepping away)
3. Discussion
(e.g. you can disagree with others but should do so respectfully and constructively)
4. Privacy
(e.g. students should consult with the instructor to receive permission to record the
class)
5. Communicate instances of disruptive behaviors to the proper instructor, faculty
member, or escalate the complaint when necessary.

INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

Ethics and morality are two words which are oftentimes used interchangeably, not
just in ordinary discourse and in popular media but also in academic discussions and fora.
But are these two terms exactly the same, or is there a shade of difference between them?
Etymologically, the word “ethics” is derived from the Greek word “ethos” which
can be roughly translated in English as a custom or a particular way and manner
of acting and behaving. Thus, “custom” would also mean here as a form of behavior or
character. The Latin equivalent for custom is “mos” or “mores”. It is from this root word
that the term “moral” or “morality” is derived. The two terms ethics and morality, in this
sense, therefore, have literally the same meaning. That is why ethics is usually taken as
synonymous with morality. Also because of this, ethics is also called morality, or more
precisely, the other name of ethics is morality.
ETHICS AND MORALITY DISTINGUISHED
Though ethics and morality, by virtue of their etymological construction, and how
they are used in people’s daily conversation, share practically the same meaning, there
is, still, a slight distinction between them.
Generally, both ethics and morality deal with the goodness or badness, rightness
or wrongness of the human act or human conduct. “But in ethics, we specifically study
morality. Morality gives ethics a particular perspective of what to study about – that is the
rectitude of whether an act is good or bad, right or wrong. Morality provides with a quality
that determines and distinguishes right conduct from wrong” (Sambajon 2007:7).
SCOPES AND IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING ETHICS
The study of ethics is very important to human life. Ethics is indeed an area of

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 6 of 35
knowledge which is truly indispensable in the living of life which is “truly human”. It can
be said that “without moral perception, man is only an animal. Without morality, man as a
rational [and free] being is a failure”.
The living of the good life has always been one of mankind’s most noble and
enduring pursuits since time immemorial. This is evident in the various works of Literature,
Arts, in the Humanities in general, most notably in Philosophy, and in Theology or
Religious Studies. The question of what kind of life a person ought to live as a free and
rational being, has preoccupied some of the greatest minds in history.
In fact, the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, though viewed and applied
differently at different times by different groups of people all throughout the ages, has
been a major and dominant theme of the various religions, cultures, and societies in the
entire history of human civilization. Every era, regardless of whether it is aware of it or
not, has its own “ethos” that defines its character and soul. For ethics and morality served
as the very foundation of every human society.
Thus, without ethics or at least a sense of morality, of what’s right and wrong, good
and bad in relation to their conduct and behavior, people and society in general would
naturally and expectedly deteriorate. When the moral foundation of a nation is shaken,
and at the brink of collapse, society itself, as its very core, is also threatened – as to its
very existence.
Since Ethics, as a practical science, is the study of the choices of the people
make regarding right and wrong, and since most of us make a number of moral choices
in our everyday lives, it is quite obvious why the study of Ethics is important. Big and
small, the choices and decisions that we make every day affect the kind of life we live to
a lesser or greater extent. We become good and bad persons based on our choices.
Another reason why we need ethics is the fact that making moral decisions are
often times difficult. This is very true when we are confronted and come face to face with
moral dilemmas. In here, there is a need for us to pause and reflect as to what particular
course of action to take. The study of Ethics can provide us with certain moral paradigms
or perspectives that will, in a way, guide us in determining what’s right and what’s wrong
under such condition.
The study of Ethics will also enable us to reason out our moral beliefs and of why
we hold them. It is not enough to have certain beliefs on what’s good and bad. We also
have to know the reason why we have them. Ethics, as a critical discipline, will enable us
to examine more closely the ground and foundation of our moral beliefs and claims.
Ethical rules are necessary even if we have the laws that are implemented by civil
authorities since legality is not identical with morality. We can be good in terms of what

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 7 of 35
the law requires but we may still fall short of becoming a “moral” or “ethical” person. At
times, what is legal is not always moral. At other times, what is moral is not always legal.
Ethics is not identical with the law.
Another reason why morality is still important even if we have laws to guide us in
our daily conduct is that laws are only concerned with actions that are usually public;
actions that in a way often harmed those around us. These types of actions are external
one that society forbids because they are detrimental to the common good or the general
public.
Morality goes beyond legality in this respect. Even actions that we do in private are
covered under the umbrella of Ethics. Morality includes things that we do that do not
directly harm others even ourselves. Here, our innermost motives and intentions, even if
they are not carried out in concrete,
fall under the scope of morality.
ACTIVITY #1
(To be submitted on schedule)

DIRECTION: Read and understand the module and answer the task given.

ESSAY: (50 points)

 Number of words:
Minimum:150
Maximum: 300
 Short bond paper or yellow paper
 Handwritten/computerized: Arial 12, 1.5 spacing

Explain the meaning of Socrates’ famous quote: “An unexamined life is not worth living”
and how does this relate to ethics.

Criteria Percentage (%)

Content (substance) 75%
Organization, Clarity, and Brevity 25%
Total 100%

End of first week

---------------------------------------Nothing Follows-------------------------------------

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 8 of 35
 SOUTH EAST ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC.
National Highway, Crossing Rubber, Tupi, South Cotabato

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

___________________________________________________

LEARNING MODULE
FOR
GE 118: ETHICS

_____________________________________________________

WEEK 2

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 9 of 35
 WEEK 2

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

VALUE
Ethics, generally speaking, is about matters such as the good thing that we should
pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or should
act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in
human behavior. It may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfil, prohibitions that
we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet. Ethics as a subject
for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special
significance to human life.

CLARIFICATION AND TERMINOLOGY

KINDS OF VALUATION
Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make
value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics. For instance, I could say that
this new movie I had just seen was a “good” one because I enjoyed it, or a song I just had
heard on the radio was a “bad” one because it had an unpleasant tone, but these are not
part of discussion of ethics. I may have an opinion as to what is the “right” dip for my
chicken barbeque, or I may maintain that it is “wrong” to wear a leather vest over a Barong
Tagalog, and these are not concerns of ethics. These are valuations that fall under the
domain of aesthetics. The word “aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word aesthesis
(sense of feeling) and refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that
we make about what we see, hear, smell, and taste. In fact, we often use the word “taste”
to refer to the personal aesthetic preferences that we have on these matters, such as his
taste in music or her taste in clothes.
Similarly, we have a sense of approval or disapproval concerning certain actions
which can be considered relatively more trivial in nature. Thus, for instance, I may think
that it is “right” to knock politely on someone’s door, while it’s wrong to barge into one’s
office. Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly by
saying, “please” and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in
public. These and other similar examples belong to the category of etiquette, which is
concerned with right and wrong actions, but those which might be considered not quite
grave enough to belong to discussion on ethics. To clarify this point, we can differentiate
how I may be displeased seeing a healthy young man refuse to offer his seat on the bus
to an elderly lady, but my indignation and shock would be much greater if I were to see a

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 10 of 35
man deliberately push another one out of a moving bus.
We can also consider how a notion of right and wrong actions can easily appear
in a context that is not a matter of ethics. This could also be when learning how to bake,
for instance. I am told that the right thing to do would be to mix the dry ingredients first,
such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream; this is the right
thing to do in baking, but not one that belongs to a discussion of ethics. This could also
be when learning how to play basketball. I am instructed that it is against the rules to walk
more than two steps without dribbling the ball; again, obeying this rule to not travel is
something that makes sense only in the context of the game and is not an ethical
prohibition. We derive from the Greek word ”techne” the English word for “techniques”
and “technical” which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things,
but a technical valuation (or right and wrong technique of doing things) may not
necessarily be an ethical one as these examples show.
Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to
have a rough guide as to what belongs to a discussion of ethics. They involve valuations
that we make in a sphere of human actions, characterized by certain gravity and concern
the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern life and death
such as war, capital punishment, or abortion and matters that concern human well-being
such as poverty, inequality, or sexual identity are often included in discussions of ethics.
ETHICS AND MORALS
Our second point of clarification is on the use of words “ethics” and “morals”. This
discussion of ethics and morals would conclude cognates such as ethical, unethical,
immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on
the use of the word “not” when apply to the words “moral” or “ethical” as this can be
ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not
belong to discussion of ethics; on the other hand, one might say that lying is not ethical,
but the meaning here is that the act of lying would be an unethical act.
Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals” may be used to refer
to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform.
Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal conduct is referred as his morals,
and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as immoral. However, we
also have terms such as “moral judgment” or “moral reasoning”, which suggest a more
rational aspect. The term “ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is
acknowledged as an intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable
and unacceptable behaviors are also generally described as an ethical and unethical,

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 11 of 35
respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of
behaving in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics” (e.g., legal ethics for the
proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession; medical ethics
for doctor and nurses; media ethics for writers and reporters).
Philosophy is commonly thought of today as particular discipline in a college
curriculum, perhaps a subject that one could take, or a course in which one could get a
degree. It rooted from the Greek words that translate to “love and wisdom” (philia is the
noun often translated into English as some form of “friendship” or “love”, while Sophia is
the noun often translated into English as “wisdom”). More specifically, the word
“philosophy” had been first used by thinkers to refer to their striving to better understand
reality in a maintained and systematic manner.
DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE
Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative
study of ethics. Descriptive study of Ethics reports how people, particularly groups,
make their moral valuations without making any judgment either for or against these
valuations. This kind of study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian
(studying different moral standard over time) 0r a sociologist or anthropologist (studying
different moral standards across cultures).
A Normative study of Ethics, as is often done in philosophy or moral theology,
engages the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In
other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our
standards or bases for moral valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is
advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g., nothing
how filial piety and obedience are pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a
normative perspective (e.g., studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents
and to show filial piety).
ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGEMENT, AND DILEMMA
As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that
calls for moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation
wherein a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for
her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question
of respect for one’s property. We should add that “issue” is also often used to refer to
those particular situations that are often the source of considerable and inconclusive
debate (thus, we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as
moral “issues”).

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 12 of 35
 When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to
perform, she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take
something I did not pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on
the actions or behavior of someone, she is making a moral judgement. For instance, a
friend of mine chooses to steal from a store, and I make an assessment that is wrong.
Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad,
and considering instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between
choosing of one of two goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred
to as a moral dilemma. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only
one and a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the
various choices. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child,
but then recognizing that it would be wrong for her to steal is an example of moral
dilemma.
REASONING
Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and opposite wrong? The
study of the ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this
way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting as acceptable while that way of
acting, it’s opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give
to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for
acting in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “I did not cheat on the exam
because I was afraid that I might get caught,” or “I have my job to cater because I wanted
to have a higher allowance”. In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward
can be spoken of as giving someone a “reason” for acting in a certain way. But the
question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking
seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason it does not show any true
understanding of why cheating on exam is wrong or why having a job while studying is a
good thing. The promise of reward and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate as
to act but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain
way of acting of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. It is possible to find better
reasons for finding a certain way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable.
I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I
make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in the position to get a better
grade for himself by cheating. She refuses to do so: Then I make the judgment of praising
her for this. In making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the question can be
asked: Why?

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 13 of 35
 Asking the question “why” might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion
of rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of
thinking. Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond
whatever motivation or incentive is present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so).
In other words, our thinking may think on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself
from the particular situation and arriving at a statement like, “Cheating is wrong,” by
recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments,
it is possible for our moral valuation – our decisions and judgments – to be based on a
principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or
a respect for the importance and validity of testing. From this, we can define principles
as rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions
and judgments.
BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY:
1. Metaphysics wonders as to what constitutes the whole of reality.
2. Epistemology asks what our basis is for determining what we know.
3. Axiology refers broadly to the study of value and often divided into aesthetics,
which concerns itself with the value of beauty, and ethics, which concerns itself
with the value of human actions.

ACTIVITY #2
(To be submitted on schedule)

DIRECTION:
 Read and understand this module. Provide what is being asked. Write your answer
in a short bond paper or yellow paper (Handwritten/computerized).
 Use your own words or at least paraphrase the idea you got online.
 Plagiarized/copy-pasted outputs shall automatically get a zero.

TASK (30 points): Explain the distinction between:

1. Morality and Ethics
2. Normative and Descriptive study of ethics
3. Epistemology and Metaphysics

Criteria Percentage (%)

Substance 75%
Organization 25%
Total 100%

End of second week

---------------------------------------------Nothing Follows-------------------------------------

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 14 of 35
 SOUTH EAST ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC.
National Highway, Crossing Rubber, Tupi, South Cotabato

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

___________________________________________________

LEARNING MODULE
FOR
GE 118: ETHICS

_____________________________________________________

WEEK 3

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 15 of 35
 WEEK 3
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the
standards of valuation are imposed by a higher authority that commands our obedience.
In the following section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority of the law, the
authority of one’s religion, and the authority of one’s culture.

LAW

It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical

behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained
to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country’s
criminal and civil codes.
The term positive law refers to the different
rules and regulations that are posited or put forward
by an authority figure that require compliance.
At first glance, this seems to make a lot of
sense. We recognize that there are many acts that are
immediately consider unethical (e.g. murder or theft),
which we also know are forbidden by law.
Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a
system sanctions administered through persons and institutions, which all help in
compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing
us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. So, we would not be
surprised if we were to hear someone say, “Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever the
law says.”
One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what
we should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. To
put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid.

RELIGION

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees,
and commandments” (New American Bible).

This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of

the book of Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim
that many people of a religious sensibility find
appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one
is oblige to obey her God in all things. As a
foundation of ethical values, this is referred to as
divine command theory. The divinity called God,
Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is
obliged to obey her Creator. There are persons
and texts that one believes are linked to the
Divine. By listening to these figures and reading
this writing, an individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone
maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine
revelation and claim that God “spoke” to her directly to instruct her what to do.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 16 of 35
CULTURE

Our exposure to different societies and their

cultures makes us aware that there are ways of thinking
and valuing that are different from our own, that there is
in fact a wide diversity of how different people believe it
is proper to act. There are aesthetics differences
(Japanese art vs. Indian art), religious differences
(Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette differences
(conflicting behaviors regarding dining practices). In
these bases, it may become easy to conclude that this
is the case in ethics as well. There are also various
examples that seem to bear these out: nudity can be more taboo in one culture than in
another. Another example would be how relations between men and women can show a
wide variety across different cultures, ranging from greater liberality and equality on one
hand, to greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other.
From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump up the further claim that
the sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single
universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of
ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent
on one’s culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism.

There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism

seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how
cultures make their ethical valuations. Second, by taking one’s culture as the standard,
we are provided basis for our valuations. Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others
from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical
thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own
culture’s moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide
us the standards that are appropriate and applicable to us. So, we would not be surprised
if we were to hear someone say, “Ethics? It is simple. Just follow whatever your culture
says.”

SENSES OF THE SELF

1. Subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person (the subject) is
at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the
situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment. From this
point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole
determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong. A number of cliché’s
familiar to us would echo this idea:

“No one can tell me what is right and wrong.”

“No one knows my situation better than myself.”
“I am entitled to my own opinion.”
“It is good if I say that it is good.”

There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to

express a cherished sense of personal independence. But a close look at these
statements may reveal problems and in seeing these, we see the problems of
subjectivism.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 17 of 35
 2. Psychological Egoism

Let us consider another cliché. It would go like this: “Human beings are naturally
self-centered, so all our actions are always already motivated by self-interest.”

This is the stance taken by psychological egoism, which is a theory that

describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it
does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already
an underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and
all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.

Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to

answer it without being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might say, there
is the self-serving motive at the roof of everything. The psychological egoist can and will
insist on his stand no matter how one might try to object. This opens up two questions:
first, “Because we cannot refute it, shall we accept it as true?” and “Do we accept the
consequences of this theory?”

3. Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our
actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we
should make our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way
that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. This
theory acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone
ought to put herself at the center. One should consider herself as the priority and not allow
any other concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this pursuit.

It is clear that we have our interests and desires and would want them satisfied.
Thus, this question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests of
others? In a sense, this question challenges in a fundamental way the idea of not just a
study of ethics, but also the effort of being ethical: Why not just look after one’s own self?
To examine ethical egoism, we will take a look into Plato’s response to the assertion that
one should only care about one’s own interests.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 18 of 35
 ACTIVITY #3
(To be submitted on schedule)

Discussion Points and Exercise Questions

DIRECTION: Read and understand the module and answer the task given.

TASKS: Photo Essay (40points)

 Create a photo essay that portrays how law, culture, and religion affect human
behavior and choices in life.
 You may choose only one among the three authorities (law, religion, culture) as
focus of your photo essay.

Photo Essay
 A photo essay is a series of photographs that tell a story. Unlike a written essay, a photo
essay focuses on visuals instead of words. With a photo essay, you can stretch your creative
limits and explore new ways to connect with your audience. Whatever your photography
skill level, you can recreate your own fun and creative photo essay.
 Photo essays range from purely photographic works to photographs with captions or small
comments to full text essays illustrated with photographs

 Any type of
picture/image is
Examples: leniently allowed. You
may physically draw,
cut from magazines
or newspapers, or
digitally download
and edit it.
 There is no maximum
number of images to
be used, only that it
should not be lesser
than 3 photos.
 Use short bond paper
if you decide to draw
or paste them from
magazines and
newspapers.
 Soft copies may also
be submitted.

CRITERIA:
Content……………50%
Creativity………….30%
Organization……….20%
Total……………….100%

End of Third week

----------------------------------------Nothing Follows---------------------------

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 19 of 35
 SOUTH EAST ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC.
National Highway, Crossing Rubber, Tupi, South Cotabato

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

___________________________________________________

LEARNING MODULE
FOR
GE118 ETHICS

_____________________________________________________

WEEK 4

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 20 of 35
 WEEK 4

UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences.
This means that the pleasure is good, and that the goodness of an action is determined
by its usefulness Putting these ideas together, utilitarianism claims that one’s actions and
behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed toward the experience of the greatest
pleasure over pain for the greatest number of persons.

Its root word is “utility”, which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s
action and behavior. When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so
results in better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian
because we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater
happiness of the many. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
are the two foremost utilitarian thinkers.

Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. This means that the
goodness or the badness of an action is based on whether it is useful in contributing to a
specific purpose for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is consequentialist.
This means that the moral value of actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the
usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad. While
this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian. For Bentham and Mill,
utility refers to a way of understanding the results of people’s actions. Specifically, they
are interested on whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount of resulting
happiness in the world; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion
of happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience of pleasure for
the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some individual’s rights

In the book an Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789),

Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign
masters”- which he calls pleasure and pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature to
help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not; they fasten
our choices to their throne.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Jeremy Bentham was born on February 15, 1748 in

London, England. He was the teacher of James Mill, father
of John Stuart Mill. Bentham first wrote about the greatest
happiness principle of ethics and was known for a system
of penal management called Panopticon. He was an
advocate of economic freedom, women’s rights and the
separation of church and state, among others. He was also
an advocate of animal rights and the abolition of slavery,
death penalty, and corporal punishment for children.
Bentham neither denied individual legal rights nor agreed
with the natural law. On his death on June 6, 1832, Bentham donates his corpse to the
University College London, where his auto-icon is in public display. up to this day to serve
as his memorial.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 21 of 35
Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville,

London, United Kingdom. He was the son of James Mill, a friend
and discipline of Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill was home-
schooled. He studied Greek at the age of three and Latin at the
age of eight. He wrote a history of Roman Law at age eleven,
and suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of twenty. He was
married to Harriet Taylor after twenty-one years of Friendship.
His ethical theory and his defense of utilitarian views are found
in his long essay entitled Utilitarianism. Mill died on May 8, 1873,
in Avignon, France form erysipelas.

TWO FORMULATIONS OF UTILITARIAN THEORY

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

The principle of Utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure
and pain.
On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our
avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday actions,
we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On the other hand, the
principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness than
unhappiness. This means that is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire
whether the things we do make us happier. Having identified the tendency for pleasure
and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility, Bentham equates happiness with
pleasure.

Mill supports Bentham’s principle of Utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness

and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is
intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure. The things
that produce happiness and please are good; whereas those that produce unhappiness
and pain are bad.

Clearly, Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable
and we avoid doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable,
Mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they
eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and Mill
characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced happiness
or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the nature of
pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures and to calculate the
resultant pleasure or pain; it is in relation to these aforementioned themes that a
distinction occurs between Bentham and Mill.

What Bentham identified as the natural Moral Preferability of pleasure, Mill refers
to as a theory of life. If we consider, for example, what moral agents do and how they
assess their actions, then it is hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance
of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not
only important principles-they are in fact the only principle in assessing an action’s
morality.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 22 of 35
 While Utilitarian supporters do not condone excessive pleasures while others are
suffering, it cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds why some persons indulge in
extravagant pleasures at the expense of others.

In determining the Moral Preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework

for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is
a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can
produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or
strength of pleasure; duration or length of the experience of pleasure; certainty,
uncertainty or the likelihood that pleasure will occur and propinquity, remoteness, or how
soon there will be pleasure. However, when we are to evaluate our tendency to choose
these actions, we need to consider two more dimensions; fecundity or the chance it has
of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and purity or the chance it has of not
being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.

Lastly, when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or
pain, another dimension is to be considered extent. Felicific Calculus allows the
evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure. This means that actions are
evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and values. In this sense,
pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from other
experiences of please and pain accordingly.

Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle
of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not merely quantitatively. For Mill,
utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasure appropriate to pigs or to any other
animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasures. For Mill,
crude bestial pleasures, which are appropriate for animals, are degrading us because we
are by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs. Human pleasures are
qualitatively different from animal pleasures.

While it is difficult to understand how Mill was able to compare swinish pleasures
with human ones, we can presume that it would be better to be Socrates dissatisfied than
a pig satisfied. Simply put, as human beings, we prefer the pleasures as in the case of
pigs and humans, but it is difficult to compare pleasure deeply integrated in our way of
life. The pleasure of an Ilonggo eating chicken inasal and an Igorot eating pinikpikan is
an example. This cannot be done by simply tasting inasal or pinikpikan. In the same,
some people prefer puto to bibingka or liking for the music of Eraserheads than that of
the APO Hiking Society.

PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATES NUMBER

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral
agent alone and independently from other. This is not only about our individual pleasures,
regardless of how high, intellectual or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the
pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions.

Utilitarianism cannot be lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor
happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions,
it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our
actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of
sacrifices that procure more happiness for others

Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including our

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 23 of 35
own. At the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism
is not at all separate form liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for
all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness. In fact, the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.

Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people.
It is not interested with the intention of the agent, Moral value cannot be discernible in the
intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on
the difference it makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain. This leads us to
question utilitarianism’s take of moral rights. If actions are based only on the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, is it justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of
the benefit of the majority

JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS

What is a right? Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward
society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a
valid claim on society and are justified by utility.

Mill expounds that the abovementioned rights referred are related to the interests
that serve general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion,
and other are justified because they contribute to the general good. This, means that
society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests
are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. A right is justifiable on utilitarian
principles inasmuch as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the
unhappiness resulting from their implementation.

Utilitarian argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because
the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. All of
these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life. In this context, our participation in
government and social interactions can be explained by the principle of utility and be
clarified by Mill’s consequentialism. Mill further associated utilitarianism with the
possession of legal and moral rights.
We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill
enumerates different kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and is protected by
law. Mill understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are
subject to some exceptions. Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their
justification. He points out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to
the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be
respected. This is like saying that there are instances when the law is not morally justified
and, in this case, even objectionable.

Mills is suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate, an unjust
law. The implication is that those who protest over political policies of a morally
objectionable government in a morally obligatory way. While this is not always preferred,
Mill thinks that it is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil
disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict
between moral and legal rights, Mill points out those moral rights take precedence over
legal rights.

While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice to
violate an individual’s moral rights. However, Mill seems to provide some extenuating
circumstances in which some moral rights can be overridden for the sake of the greater
general happiness. Mill qualifies moral rights in this way:

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 24 of 35
 All persons are deemed to have a right to equality of treatment, except when some
recognized social expediency requires the reverse. And hence all social inequalities
which have ceased to be considered expedient, assume the character not of simple
inexpediency, but of injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder
how they ever could have been tolerated; forgetful that they themselves perhaps tolerate
other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of expediency, the correction of which
would make that which they approve seem quite as monstrous as what they have at least
learnt to condemn.

In this sense, the principle of utility can theoretically obligate us to steal, kill, and
the like. We say “theoretically” because this merely constitutes a thought experiment and
need not be actualized. Since what matters in the assessment of what we do is the
resultant happiness, then anything may be justified for the sake of producing the greatest
happiness of the greatest number of people.

While there is no such thing as a laudable and praiseworthy injustice, Mill appeals
to the utilitarian understanding of justice as an act justified by the greatest happiness
principle. There is no right to violate where utility is not served by the social protection of
individual interests. While he recognizes how utilitarian principles can sometimes obligate
us to perform acts that would regularly be understood as disregarding individual rights,
he argues that his is only possible if it is judged to produce more happiness than
unhappiness.

In short, Mill’s moral rights and considerations of justice are not absolute but are
only justified by their consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.

With these understanding of rights in place, Mill explains his understanding of

justice and It is with this that we end this section. For Mill, justice can be interpreted in
terms of moral rights because justice promotes the greater social good.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 25 of 35
 ACTIVITY #4
(To be submitted on schedule)

DIRECTION: Read and understand the module and answer the task given.

TASKS: Reaction Paper (30points)

INSTRUCTION:
 Write a Reaction Paper about Betham and Mill’s quote: “Pleasure is what is
moral and ethical.”
 You may use any type and size of paper. Handwritten/Computerized (Arial, 12,
1.5).

What is a Reaction Paper?

It is a form of paper writing in which the writer expresses his ideas and opinions
about what has been read or seen. Reaction paper is evaluated due to the writer's
communication skills and only then due the unique ideas and the content. This paper writing
may be informal, two pages long. As all essays, a reaction paper comprises introduction, body,
and conclusion. In introduction the writers state the main premise, in a body he expresses his
ideas and in conclusion summarizes the results. The reaction paper is not a summary of the
article although information should be included.

Criteria Percentage (%)

Content/substance 70%
Organization 20%
Grammar 10%
Total 100%

End of fourth week

---------------------------------------------Nothing Follows-------------------------------------

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 26 of 35
 SOUTH EAST ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC.
National Highway, Crossing Rubber, Tupi, South Cotabato

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

___________________________________________________

LEARNING MODULE
FOR
GE 118: ETHICS

_____________________________________________________

WEEK 5

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 27 of 35
 WEEK 5

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

Human Acts (Actus Humani) refer to “actions that proceed from insight into the
nature and purpose of one’s doing and from consent of free will” (Peschke 1895: 247).
Specifically, human acts are those actions done by a person in certain situations which
are essentially the result of his/her conscious knowledge, freedom and voluntariness or
consent. Hence, these actions are performed by man knowingly, freely, and voluntarily.

Monsignor Paul Glenn simply defines human acts as “an act which proceeds from
the deliberate free will of man”. It is that which a person does or performs in a given
situation when he/she decides and thinks of himself/herself. A human act is also that
which is classified as good or bad, right or wrong, and thus, subject to morality and its
norms (Baldameca et al. 1984: 92).

In the above cited definitions and elucidations, three important elements or

constituents are obviously present for an act to be strictly considered a human act:
knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness or consent-on the part of acting agent. Here,
it is worth nothing that human acts are the free and conscious acts of a human person
which are proper to humans alone. These actions are what make a human being “truly
human”, an earthly creature different and distinct from all others.

Most textbooks in Christian Ethics and morality dealing with the subject, usually
distinguish between human acts from acts of man. While human acts, as mentioned,
proceed from one’s conscious knowledge as well as freedom and voluntariness, the same
cannot be said for acts of man. The latter are simply actions which happen in the person
“naturally”, even without his/her awareness of himself /herself while doing them. These
actions are done without deliberation, reflection and consent. They are performed just
instinctively.

Thus, it can be rightfully said that all human acts are acts of man, but not all acts
of man are human acts. Example of human acts are the various physiological processes,
such as the beating of the heart, breathing, respiration, digestion, and the like. Other
examples include those actions, that are spontaneously happening in the person during
his/her impulsive, unconscious and instinctive moments, such as instant and
spontaneous feelings of fear, rage and anger, sleeping, dreaming, seeing, eating, and
walking, among others.

Acts of man therefore, are those that humans share with animals whose actions
and movements emanate from purely sensual nature. These things are performed without
deliberation and free will. The person here is neither morally responsible nor accountable
for these kinds of actions.

BASIC ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS

Ramon Agapay, in a book entitled Ethics and the Filipino: A Manual on Morals for
Students and Educators (1991: 11-12), list down and briefly expounds on the following
characteristics for an act to be considered a human act (see also Gualdo, 2000: 27).

1. The act must be deliberate. It must be performed by a conscious agent who is

very much aware of what he/she is doing and of its consequences – good or evil.
Thus, children who are below the age of reason, the insane, the senile, lunatics,

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 28 of 35
 people who are under the heavy influence of drugs and alcohol (of course, the act
of taking these may be with consciousness and knowledge, hence a different
matter altogether) – are said to be incapable of acting knowingly and with sufficient
knowledge.

2. The act must be performed in freedom. It must be done by an agent who is

acting freely, with his/her own volition and powers. An action performed under
duress and against one’s own free will cannot be strictly considered a free and
voluntary action. The person who is performing the action should be free from any
force beyond his/her control, or from any powerful influence from outside.
Otherwise, we can say that the act is not truly and entirely his/her own.

3. The act must be done voluntarily. It must be performed by an agent who decides
willfully to perform the act. The act to be truly a voluntary one, must come from the
core of a person’s being. This willfulness is the resolve to do an act here and now,
or in some other time in the future.

Summing up then, human acts are actions done with knowledge, freedom and with
consent or voluntariness. Thus, as the human act is done knowingly, freely, and
voluntarily, the person concerned becomes morally accountable of such an act. The
absence or lack of any of these essential elements renders an entire act defective and
less voluntary, which in turn also affects its moral quality.

MAJOR DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

By determinants of morality, we mean the various factors or elements that would allow
us to identify concretely – whether a certain and particular act done in a given situation –
is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral – in reference to the objective norm of
morality. More specifically, determinants of morality refer to the sources that define the
goodness/rightness or badness/wrongness of actions – done with knowledge, freedom
and consent. These are:

1. THE ACT ITSELF OR THE OBJECT OF THE ACT

The act itself or the object of the act refers to the action that is done or performed by
an agent, or simply, what the person does. This is “the substance of the moral act”, and
here regarded as the basic factor of morality. “It is that act which the will chooses to
perform or which it deliberately wills (object of the will-act). It is the act that really
terminates the activity of the will derives its morality first and foremost from the act that
the will consents to”.

More concretely, the object of the act is “that act effect which an action primarily
and directly causes (finis operis). It is always and necessarily the result of the act,
independent of any circumstances or of the intention of the agent.”

From the standpoint of its object, morality can be objective and intrinsic. This
means that objectively, there are actions by themselves (taken as they are, as “mere
acts”), as good and bad, right and wrong, moral or immoral. By their very nature – murder,
rape, torture, cheating, blasphemy, adultery and the like – are really morally wrong or bad.
Thus, no amount of “good” intention or favorable circumstance can alter their evilness.
Their badness is something embedded in their very nature.

On the other hand, loving one’s neighbor, showing respect, honesty, protecting the

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 29 of 35
innocents, helping the destitute, act of forgiveness, and the like, are, by themselves, good
and noble acts, regardless of the motive, and circumstance that surround them (Though,
as we’ll see later, they may affect their degree of goodness in some sense.)

Every act, therefore, in the practical sense, done in the concrete, has its intrinsic
character or quality that defines its morality.

2. THE MOTIVE OR THE INTENTION

The motive is the purpose or intention that for the sake of which something is done. It
is the reason behind our acting. It answers the question “Why the person does what he
does?” one normally performs an act as a means to achieve an end or goal, different from
the act itself. And since the motive or intention is practically present in all human acts, it
then becomes an important and integral part of morality.

Depending on one’s motive or intention, a particular act or conduct can be modified in

its moral worth. Thus, under the motive or intention there are four principles to be
considered. They are as follows (See Panizo 1964: 43-44; Glenn 1968):

2.1 An indifferent act can become morally good or morally evil depending upon the
intention of the person doing the act.

Example: Talking/speaking is neither good or bad. It becomes only good and bad
depending on the reason or purpose why one is talking or speaking. If the reason is to
destroys someone’s reputation (an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend for instance) for the sake of
destroying it, then it becomes bad. But if the purpose of the act is to let the truth be known
in order to change lives for the better, then it becomes good.

2.2 An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a wrong or bad motive.

Example: The act of helping those in need (the poor and destitute) in our society is an
admirable act (objectively good); but if it is performed to simply get public attention for
one to be known as a charitable person, then the act turns into something immoral.

2.3 An intrinsically (objectively) morally good act can receive added goodness, if done
with an equally noble intention or motive.

Example: The act of praying is a good act in itself. It receives “more goodness” if the
purpose why one is praying is to give thanks and glory to God earnestly and
wholeheartedly. Praying as in simply asking for material things for personal gain and
comfort can be considered to be “less good” compared to praying out of pure gratitude to
God.

2.4 An intrinsically evil act can never become morally good even if it is done with a good
motive or intention.

Example: To cheat in an exam in order to pass the subject and be able to graduate on
time. Cheating is wrong in itself (intrinsically evil). To aim to pass the subject in order to
graduate on time is a good intention (maybe, in this case, the student needs to finish so
he/she can look and find a decent job to help the poor family). But “the end does not justify
the means”. No matter how good the intention is, as long as it is done with an inherently
evil act as a means, it is still morally wrong.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 30 of 35
3. THE CIRCUMSTANCES

The moral goodness or badness of an act is determined not only by the object or act
Itself, plus the motive or intention of the moral agent, but also on the circumstances or
situation surrounding the performance of the action.

Circumstances refer to the various conditions outside of the act. They are not, strictly
speaking, part and parcel of the act itself. Circumstances are conditions that influence, to
a lesser or greater degree, the moral quality of the human act. They either “affect the act
by increasing or lessening its voluntariness or freedom, and thus, affecting the morality
of the act” (Salibay 2008: 33).

The kinds of circumstances that the study of Ethics deals with are those which change
and modify the specific moral character of the human act

MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS

Factors and conditions that affect to a considerable extent man’s inner disposition
towards certain actions are known as “modifiers of human acts.” As the term modifiers
implies, they influence specifically the mental and/or emotional state of a person
concerned to the point that the voluntariness involved in act is either increased or
diminished. This is significant precisely because the moral accountability of the doer of
the action is also increased or decreased, as the case may be.

These modifiers, accordingly, “affect human acts in the essential qualities of

knowledge, freedom, voluntariness, and so make them less perfectly human” (Glenn
1965: 25).

Authors of Christian Ethics textbooks point to the following as modifiers of human

acts:
1. IGNORANCE

Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge which a person in a given

situation, who is performing a certain act, ought to have. Ignorance therefore is a negative
thing for it is a negation of knowledge.

Ignorance is either vincible or invincible. Vincible Ignorance can easily be

remedied through ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts on the part of the person who
is in the particular mental state. This specific type of ignorance is therefore conquerable
since it is correctible.

The ignorance of a student, for instance, regarding a particular assignment or activity

that he missed because of having been absent in class is vincible, since he can easily
ask from his classmates about it through a simple act of texting. Hence, the student here,
can be considered “at fault” of his ignorance.

Invincible Ignorance is the kind of ignorance which an individual may have without
being aware of it, or, having knowledge of it, simply lacks the necessary means to correct
and solve it. This type of ignorance is unconquerable, and thus not correctible.

The ignorance of someone who lost something and has tried all humanly possible
ways to find it is having an invincible kind of ignorance. Sometimes, it may happen that a

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 31 of 35
person performs a certain act without realizing certain facts. Thus, for example, a waiter
in a restaurant might be totally unaware that the food he is serving to the customers
contains harmful bacteria.

Under the classification of vincible ignorance is the affected type of ignorance. This
kind of ignorance which an individual keep by positive efforts in order to escape blame
and accountability.

It is affected ignorance when, for example, a student refuses or simply ignores to read
a school memo well posted in bulletin boards precisely so that he may be exempted from
what it requires, which the student finds burdensome.

2. PASSION OR CONCUPISCENCE

Passion or concupiscence is here understood as a strong or powerful feeling or

emotion.

It refers more specifically to those bodily appetites or tendencies as experienced and

expressed in such feelings as fear, love, hatred, despair, horror, sadness, anger, grief and
the like.

Passion are either classified as antecedent or consequent. Antecedent are those that
precede an act. It may happen that a person is emotionally aroused to perform an act.
Antecedent passions predisposed a person to act.

3. FEAR

Fear is defined as “the disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an

impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones. “Fear may be considered a passion
which arises as an impulsive movement of avoidance of a threatening evil, ordinarily
accompanied by bodily disturbances. Here, it is treated as a “special kind” of passion,
and hence also treated as another distinct modifier of human act since it is kind of a test
of one’s mental character.

In addition, a distinction must be made between an act done with “fear” and an act
done “out” or “because” of fear. It is only those acts done out of fear are considered as a
modifier of a human act since it “modifies the freedom of the doer, inducing him to act in
a certain predetermined manner, often without his full consent”.

4. VIOLENCE

Generally, violence refers to “any physical force exerted on a person by another free
agent for the purpose of compelling the person to act against his will”. Any act where
great and brutal force is inflicted to a person constitutes violence. This includes acts such
as torture, mutilation and the like.

5. HABIT

Habit, is a “constant and easy way of doing things acquired by the repetitions of the
same act”. For Glenn, habit is, “a lasting readiness and facility, born of frequently repeated
acts, for acting in a certain manner”. Also, “habits are acquired inclinations towards
something to be done. They assume the role of second nature, moving one who has them
to perform certain acts with relative ease.

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 32 of 35
 ACTIVITY #5
(To be submitted on schedule)

Discussion Points and Exercise Questions

DIRECTION: Read and understand this module. Provide what is being asked.

TASK: Reflection Paper (50pts)

1. Make your own reflection on the Morality of Human Acts.

2. Write your answer in a yellow pad paper or short bond paper.
3. Minimum of 1 ½ pages and maximum of three pages.

Criteria Percentage (%)

Substance 75%
Organization and Grammar 25 %
Total 100%

End of Fifth week

--------------------------------------Nothing Follows--------------------------

GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 33 of 35
GE118:Ethics
South East Asian Institute of Technology, Inc. Page 34 of 35