INTRODUCTION ETHICS, VALUES AND VIRTUES

(PART 1)
Ethics is an indispensable knowledge. Without ethical perception, man
is only an animal Without values, man as rational being is a failure. Because
ethics is too essential to be dismissed, each one of us was gifted with an
innate ability to understand what is right and wrong (PNP manual on Ethics
and Values Formation, 2008). Whether a person knows it or not, he applies
ethics in his daily life. This is demonstrated through his thoughts, words
and actions.

Ethics

There are a number of definitions, pertaining to ethics and values.

For one, ethics is defined as the science of the morality of human acts and
rational human behavior. Morality is the quality which makes an act good
or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral. In the study of the ethics, what is
being judged are human acts. By definition, human acts are actions that are
done knowingly, deliberately and freely. Acts can be said to be done
knowingly when the person performing the act is in possession of a sound
mind. He or she has the intelligence to know the difference between what is
right and wrong, good or evil. Acts that are done deliberately are done with
intent, with planning and with purpose. Finally, acts are done freely if the
person voluntarily performed the act, on his/her own accord.

Ethics, Defined:

Etymologically, ethics is derived from the Greek Word "ethicos," or

that which pertains to ethos, this translates to 'custom' or 'character' in the
English language. -From this etymological meaning the following
vernacular or formal definitions can be drawn:

a. Ethics is the practical science of the normality of human conduct.

b. Ethics is a philosophical science dealing with the morality of human acts.

c. Ethics is the systematic study of human actions from the point of view of
their rightness or wrongness as means for the achievement of ultimate
happiness.
d. Ethics is the normative science of the conduct of human beings living in
societies science which judges this conduct to be right or wrong, to be good
or bad.

e. Ethics means a philosophical study of morality, of the foundation on

which morality is based, and of the practical implications of a systematic
moral outlook.

f. Ethics is a normative science based on reason, on which interprets

specific and paramount facts, the elements of which are conduct and
'oughtness'.

The above definitions encompass character. And character is the

important factor the policemen must have in order that we can be assured
of better service from them.

What is most important for a policeman is to know what act should he

do to satisfy the people. Simply speaking, the Socratic philosophy of ethics
is what should be adopted by the police. Very simple, Socrates said, "A
person can act correctly and well if he knows what is a good life." For
Socrates, "A wise man does what is right because he knows what is right."
Simply put, action is done as an extension of knowledge.

Bases of Morality

The morality or immorality of our actions are judged according to

several bases. These are Social norms, Laws of society, Religion and
Conscience

SOCIAL NORMS are unwritten standards of acceptable behavior in society.

Social norms are derived from customs, traditions and culture. Social
norms vary from generation to generation, and from place to place. One act
may be acceptable in one culture, but it may be unacceptable in another.
Thus, it is important to be aware of the culture of one person or one place
and to act accordingly as a sign of courtesy or respect.

LAWS OF SOCIETY refers to the written rules of behavior. They take the
form of laws passed by Congress and city and municipal ordinances, rules
and regulations of institutions such as work places, schools and other
public places where people congregate. Written rules are created by men to
maintain harmony and order in society.

RELIGION is a system of beliefs and practices based on faith and truths

revealed to man by God. All religions, regardless of their origins, aim to
teach people how to be good children of God. It teaches people to act
according to what is right, what is wrong, love God above all else, love your
parents and families, do no harm to your neighbor and help each other in
times of need. It also teaches rituals of worship aimed at pleasing God and
being a good child of God. Lastly it is very common to hear the saying. “Act
according to your conscience”.

CONSCIENCE

Conscience is the practical judgment of reason telling us what should

be done and what should be avoided. Without need for anyone to tell us, it
is believed that people instinctively know if he/she did something wrong
because of his/her conscience. Our conscience tells us if something we did
is right or wrong.

TWO DIVISIONS OF ETHICS

The study of ethics is divided into two: general ethics and special
ethics. General ethics is the study of the general principles of morality
while special ethics is the study of the application of the principles of
general ethics. Included in this division is the category of professional
ethics.

TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORIES

Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarianism as a Consequentialist Moral Theory
Utilitarianism is the leading theory in a general category of theories known as
consequentialism. The individual theories in the category of consequentialism will differ
according to how the consequences are to be examined. More specifically, any
consequentialist theory will consist of two main parts, the good and the right. There are
various possibilities for what might count as the good and for what might count as the right,
and the nature of any specific consequentialist theory will be a function of which possibility
is chosen for each.

First, the good specifies what goal(s) is morally worthy of pursuit. In other words, it
must be made clear what sorts of consequences are desirable and what sorts are
undesirable, and this can be done only when the goal is clear. Actions contributing to the
achievement of that goal are then said to be morally desirable, while actions inhibiting its
achievement are said to be undesirable. This goal is referred to by philosophers as the good.
Any consequentialist theory must therefore provide a theory of the good, which is an
account of the goal to be pursued. Some examples include a welfarist theory of the good,
according to which individual well-being is the relevant goal worthy of pursuit, and a liberty-
based theory of the good, according to which freedom is the morally relevant goal. One
influential philosopher.

G.E. Moore (1873-1958), even argued that the nature of the good is primitive and
indefinable, and for this reason cannot be specified in language but can only be grasped
intuitively. Classical utilitarianism asserts a broad notion of happiness as the good.

Second, the right is a more specific indication of what is to be done with the good. The
most common theory of the right is maximization. Simply, this stipulates that the good,
whatever it happens to be, should be maximized; the more of it the better. On this approach,
an action is morally right when it contributes to the achievement of the good, and the more it
contributes to the good the more morally right it is. Conversely, an action is morally wrong
when it hinders the achievement of the good, and the greater the hindrance created, the
more morally wrong the action. Other theories of the right suggest that the good need not be
maximized. For example, a "satisficing" theory of the right stipulates that the good must be
achieved only to a satisfactory degree. Taking happiness as the good, it might be the case
that a company's benefit package is fairly comprehensive, and thus generates a reasonable
(satisfactory) amount of happiness. With some additions, however, the benefit package
would make the employees much more happy, so much that any unhappiness incurred by
the company's manager's (who would have to pay out the extra benefits) would be more
than offset. Thus, the result would be an increase in overall happiness. The maximizing
approach would require the additions to the benefit package; indeed, providing the merely
satisfactory version would not require the additions, since the previous version produced a
satisfactory amount of happiness. A third possible sort of theory would incorporate
distributive concerns, requiring that the good be allocated to people in certain ways; some
philosophers have suggested an equal distribution, while others have argued that the right
requires that every individual enjoy at least a minimally acceptable level of the good.
Classical utilitarianism adopts the maximizing theory of the good, claiming that this is only
approach that makes sense. Whatever the good happens to be, it only seems logical that
more of that good will produce even better consequences.

Deontological Ethics
In assessing the ethical status of an action or rule, utilitarianism instructs as to focus
on the consequences of that action or rule. More specifically, it focuses on the effects on
overall happiness. The implication is that other sorts of considerations, such as a person's
motives or his overall character, are not relevant. Deontology is an alternative moral theory
that differs rather dramatically. First, strict deontologists argue that consequences are
completely irrelevant to the ethical status of an action or rule; whereas for utilitarian
consequences mean everything, for strict deontologists consequences mean nothing. There
are other, more moderate deontologists who do allow consequences to be somewhat
relevant, but even they do not agree that there is a good (such as happiness) that must be
maximized. It is the rejection of the maximization requirement that deontologists, both
strict and moderate, consider to be the main reason that this theory is better that utilitarian.
The approaches of two leading deontologists will be discussed. The first is a strict
deontology described by Immanuel Kant (1724 1804), who is credited with providing the
details of the theory. In fact, "deontological ethics" is sometimes thought to be synonymous
with "Kantian ethics," thought this equivalence is misguided; one can believe that
deontology is the best moral theory without agreeing with the specifics of Kant's claims. This
was true of Sir W.D Ross (1877 1971), a more moderate deontologist whose views will be
discussed after those of Kant.

Contractarian Ethics
This third ethical theory provides yet another starting point for assessing the ethical
status of actions or rules. It will become clear, however, that there are certain connections
between contractarianism and the deontological theory described in the previous section.
This is because both focus on motivation (though in somewhat different ways) and both are
concerned to separate out the natural inclinations and desire that can get in the way of doing
what is right.
The theory of contractarianism centers on the notion of a contract among the various
parties involved in any process. In some ways it resembles social contract theories of
political philosophy, which emphasize the notion of an actual agreement among members of
society to abide by certain rules and procedures. A principal difference, though is, that the
"contract" in contractarian moral theory is hypothetical and not one that is actually
negotiated or agreed to. Some think that this is already a reason for doubting the plausibility
of contractarianism, as it would seem unlikely that any imaginary contract could serve as the
basis for ethical truth.
 Far from having less moral force, however, the theory is claimed by its supporters to
provide exactly the sort of framework needed for arriving at fair, impartial moral principles.
What can be said is that because the contract is hypothetical, applying this theory correctly
requires careful reasoning and analysis.

Virtue Ethics
This moral theory differs from the first three in a somewhat significant way.
Utilitarianism, deontology, and contractarianism are theories that are designed to help up
determine whether rules or actions are morally right, wrong, or permissible. In other words,
what all three have in common is that they take rules or actions as the things to be critically
assessed. Each has a somewhat different focus - for utilitarianism the focus is on
consequences, for deontology it is motivation, and for contractarianism it is hypothetical
agreement - but they all yield prescriptions about the moral status of rules or actions. Virtue
ethics, on the other hand, focuses not on the moral status or rules of actions but on the moral
status of persons, and on individual moral character more specifically. It is a theory whose
direct results are about personal moral character. For the purposes of professional ethics, it
will therefore reveal what sort of character a professional should have, though we will still
want to be able to use it to determine the ethical status of a particular rule or action, and this
probably can be done in an indirect way. The additional benefit of this theory, as proclaimed
by its adherents, is that it can also tell us, more generally, what sorts of person be. and thus
what sort of professional - we should
Most discussions of virtue ethics utilize the work of Aristotle (384-322 B.C), the famous
ancient Greek philosopher whose many writings included the Nicomachean Ethics, the
Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia. Aristotle is credited for assembling the first
complete account of virtue ethics, though his teacher Plato (and Plato's teacher, Socrates)
certainly had a good deal to say about the topic of virtue. Over the latter half of the twentieth
century, a renewed interest in virtue ethics emerged, spurred on by dissatisfaction with the
theories of Kant and Mill. One source of dissatisfaction is that those theories emphasize the
good of individuals (for example, they generate individual rights and duties) while failing to
adequately address the good of the community as a whole. Another criticism has been the
treatment of motivation: the theory of utilitarianism suggests that one's motivation for
action is irrelevant as long as the right action is performance, and the theory of deontology
suggests that one's motivation must be moral duty and nothing else. Contemporary
defenders of virtue ethics claim that this theory is more acceptable on these counts.
Although the defenders of virtue ethics have adjusted and fine tuned Aristotle's basic
approach in an effort to make it better, they have not really developed a new version. We
will therefore focus on Aristotle's account.

Feminist Ethics
Feminist Issues and Moral Theory
 The notion of feminism usually brings to mind specific social issues rather than
general moral theory. The abortion issue is an obvious example. Feminists claims that laws
limiting the freedom of women to obtain abortions are unethical, and that steps must be
taken to ensure that this freedom is not only maintained but expanded to include partial-
birth abortion and government funding for women unable to afford the procedure on their
own. In the realm of professional ethics, a popular example of a feminist issue is sexual
harassment. Feminist claim that a woman subjected to the sexual advances of her boss is not
"free" to pursue her career, especially when the threat of losing her job is very real. The
inherent power relations between employer and employee, in other words, must be
recognized in the context of sexual harassment. Further, the existence of a "hostile" work
environment - one in which a woman is made to feel degraded or unreasonably
uncomfortable - can hinder her professional development and should not be accepted. A
workplace permitting posters of female models and overt discussion of sexual topics may be
"hostile" in this sense. Equal compensation and equal opportunity, including affirmative
action measures, have also been on the feminist agenda.
There may be disagreement about some of these items, but for most of us, our moral
vision indicates that many of the concerns noted are legitimate and must be addressed.
Sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace appear to us to be improper.
The task of moral theory is to test our moral vision, and it would seem that any of the moral
theories discussed so far could serve as the basis for the test. It would further seem that any
of these theories would confirm our intuitions regarding the wrongfulness of harassment,
discrimination, and other practices with which feminists are concerned. According to
utilitarianism, the rules practiced in the professions (as mandated by company policy,
professional codes, or even law) should maximize overall happiness in the long run. A
persuasive argument could easily be constructed for the conclusion that the happiness
gained by allowing sexual harassment, for example, would be greatly outweighed by the
unhappiness that would generated, thus providing a utilitarian justification for disallowing
sexual harassment. According to deontological ethics and to Kant's second formulation of
the categorical imperative specifically, we are to treat others as ends and never as means
only. A persuasive argument could easily be constructed for the conclusion that the
happiness gained by allowing sexual harassment, for example, would be greatly outweighed
by the unhappiness that would be generated, thus providing a utilitarian justification for
disallowing sexual harassment.
According to deontological ethics and to Kant's second formulation of the categorical
imperative specifically, we are to treat others as ends and never as means only. A persuasive
argument could also be constructed for the conclusion that allowing harassment treats
others as means only and is thus wrong. According to contractarianism, the ethically correct
rule as would be the one agree to in ignorance of one's contingent attributes, including one's
gender, occupation, and position in the company. Here again, an argument could easily be
constructed that the contractors behind the veil of ignorance would not agree to a rule
permitting sexual harassment, since no one would rationally take the risk of being
vulnerable to the disadvantages of being harassed. Finally, an analysis using virtue ethics
would certainly Find this behavior to be extreme, in violation of the virtue of justice and thus
unacceptable one in with good moral character would not treat others in this way.
FILIPINO VALUES

Strengths of Filipino Character

1. Pakikipagkapwa-Tao
Filipinos are open to others and feel one with others. We regard others with dignity and
respect and deal with them as fellow human beings. Pakikipagkapwa-tao is manifested in a
basic sense of justice and fairness and in concern for others. It is demonstrated in the
Filipino's ability to empathize with others, in helpfulness and generosity in times of need
(pakikiramay), in the practice of bayanihan or mutual assistance, and in the famous Filipino
hospitality.
Filipinos possess a sensitivity to people's feelings (pakikiramdam), pagtitiwala or trust
and a sense of gratitude or utang na loob. Because of pakikipagkapwa-tao. Filipinos are very
sensitive to the quality of interpersonal relationships and are very dependent on them. If
our relationships are satisfactory, we are happy and secure.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao results in camaraderie and a feeling of closeness to one another. It
is the foundation for unity as well as the sense of social justice.

2. Family Orientation
Filipinos possess a genuine and deep lover for family which includes not simply spouse
and children, parent and siblings, but also grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents
and other ceremonial relatives. To the Filipino, one's family is the source of personal
identity, the source of emotional and material support, and one's main commitment and
responsibility.
Concern for family is manifested in the honor and respect given to parents and elders, in
the care given to children, the generosity towards kin in need, and in the great sacrifices one
endures for the welfare of the family.
This sense of family results in a feeling of 'belongingness' and 'rootedness' and in a basic
sense of security.

3. Joy and Humor

Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its ups and downs. We have
a pleasant disposition, a sense of humor and a propensity for happiness that contribute not
only to the Filipino charm but also to the indomitability of the Filipino spirit. Laughing at
ourselves and the mess we are in is an important coping mechanism. Often playful,
sometimes cynical, sometimes disrespectful, we laugh at those we love and at those we hate
and we make jokes about our good fortune and bad.
This sense of joy and humor is manifested in the Filipino's love for socials and
celebrations, in our capacity to laugh even in the most trying of times, and in the appeal of
political satire.
The result is a certain emotional balance, optimism, a healthy disrespect for power and
office and the capacity to survive.

4. Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity

Filipinos have a great capacity to adjust and to adapt to circumstances and the
surrounding environment, both physical and social. Unplanned or unanticipated events are
never overly disturbing or disorienting as the flexible Filipino adjusts to whatever happens.
We possess a tolerance for ambiguity that enables us to remain unfazed by uncertainty or
lack of information. We are creative, resourceful, quick learners, and have the ability to
improvise and make use of whatever is on hand in order to create and produce.
This quality of the Filipino is manifested in the ability to adapt to life in any part of the
world, in the ability to make new things out old scraps, in the capacity to keep old machines
running and of course, in the creative talent manifested in the cultural sphere. It is likewise
seen in the ability to accept change.
The result is productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship, equanimity and survival.

5. Hard Work and Industry

Filipinos have the capacity for hard work given proper conditions. The desire to raise
one's standard of living and to possess the essentials of a decent life for one's family,
combined with the right opportunities and incentives, makes the Filipino work very hard.
This is manifested most noticeably in willingness to take risks with jobs abroad and,
while there, to work at two or three jobs. The result is productivity and entrepreneurships
for some and survival despite poverty for others.

6. Faith and Religiosity

Filipinos have a deep faith in God. Our innate religiosity enables us to comprehend and
genuinely accept reality in the context of God's will and plan. Thus, tragedy and bad fortune
are accepted and some optimism characterizes even the poorest lives.
Filipinos live very intimately with religion. It is tangible, and touchable 1 a part of
everyday life. We ascribe human traits to a supernatural God whom we alternately threaten
and tank, call upon for mercy or forgiveness and appease by pledges. Thus, prayer is an
important part of our lives.
 The faith of the Filipino is related to bahala na which, instead of being viewed as defeatist
resignation, may be considered positively as a reservoir of psychic energy, an important
psychological prop on which we can lean during hard times. This pampalakas ng loob allows
us to act despite uncertainty.

Our faith and daring was manifested at EDSA and at other times in our history even when
it was difficult to be brave. It is also seen in the capacity to accept failure and defeat without
our self-concept being devastated since we recognize forces external to ourselves as
contributing to how events in our lives turn out.
The results of the Filipino's faith are courage, daring, optimism, inner peace, as well as
the capacity to genuinely accept tragedy and death.

7. Ability to Survive
Filipinos have an ability to survive, which is manifested in our capacity for endurance
despite difficult times and an ability to get by on so very little. Filipinos make do what is
available in the environment (e.g., eking out a living from a garbage dump). This survival
instinct is related to the Filipino's other strengths -- a basic optimism, flexibility and
adaptability, hard work and a deep faith in God. It is manifested in the millions of Filipinos
who bravely live through the harshest economic and social circumstances. Regretfully, one
wonders what we might be able to do under better circumstances.

WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

1. Extreme personalism
Filipinos view the world in terms of personal relationships and the extent to which one is
able to personally relate to things and people determines the recognition of their existence
and the value given to them. There is no separation between an objective task and emotional
involvement. This personalism is manifested in the tendency to give personal
interpretations to actions, i.e., "take things personally." Thus, a sincere question may be
viewed as a challenge to one's competence or positive feedback may be interpreted as a sign
of special affection. There is in fact some basis for such interpretations as Filipinos are quite
personal in criticism and praise. Personalism is also manifested in the necessity for the
establishment of personal relationships before any business or work relationships can be
successful.
Because of this personalistic world view, Filipinos have difficulty dealing with all forms
of impersonal stimuli. It is for this reason that one is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with
rules and regulations and with standard procedures, all of which tend to be impersonal. In
the face of these, we ignore them or we ask for exceptions.
 Personal contacts are involved in any transaction and these are difficult to turn down.
Preference is usually given to family and friends in hiring, delivery of services and even in
voting. Extreme personalism thus leads to the graft and corruption evident in Philippine
society.

2. Extreme Family Centeredness

While concern for the family is one of the Filipino's greatest strengths, in the extreme it
becomes a serious flaw. Excessive concern for the family creates an in-group to which the
Filipino is fiercely loyal to the detriment of concern for the larger community or for the
common good.
Excessive concern for family manifests itself in the use of one's office and power as a
means of promoting the interest of the family, in factionalism, patronage and political
dynasties, and in the protection of erring family members. It results in lack of concern for
the common good and acts as a block to national consciousness.

3. Lack of Discipline
The Filipino's lack of discipline encompasses several related characteristics. We have a
casual and relaxed attitude towards time and space which manifests itself in lack of
precision and compulsiveness, in poor time management and in procrastination. We have an
aversion for following strictly a set of procedures and this results in lack of standardization
and quality control. We are impatient and unable to delay gratification or reward, resulting
in the use of short-cuts, in skirting the rules (the palusot syndrome) and in foolhardiness.
We are guilty of ningas cogon, starting out projects with full vigor and interest which
abruptly die down leaving things unfinished.
Our lack of discipline often results in inefficient and wasteful work systems, violations of
rules leading to more serious transgressions and a casual work ethic leading to carelessness
and lack of follow through.

4. Passivity and Lack of Initiative

Filipinos are generally passive and lacking in initiative. One waits to be told what has to
be done. There is strong reliance on others (e.g., leaders, government) to do things for us.
This is related to one's attitude towards authority. Filipinos have a need for strong figure
and feel safer and more secure in the presence of such an authority. One is generally
submissive to those in authority and is not likely to raise issues or to question decisions.
Filipinos tend to be complacent and there rarely is a sense of urgency about any problem.
There is high tolerance for inefficiency, poor service and even violations of one's basic
rights. In many ways, it can be said that the Filipino is too patient and long suffering
(matiisin). Too easily resigned to one's fate, Filipinos are thus easily oppressed and
exploited.

5. Colonial Mentality
Filipinos have a colonial mentality which is made up of two dimensions: the first is a lack
of patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation and love of the Philippines; the second is
an actual preference for things foreign.

Filipino culture is characterized by an openness to the outside adapting and

incorporating the foreign elements into our image of ourselves. And yet this image is not
built around a deep core of Philippine history and language. The result is cultural vagueness
or weakness that makes Filipinos extraordinarily susceptible to the wholesale acceptance of
modern mass culture which is often Western. Thus, there is preference for foreign fashion,
entertainment, lifestyles, technology, consumer items, etc.
The Filipino colonial mentality is manifested in the alienation of the elite from their
roots and from the masses as well as in the basic feeling of national inferiority that makes it
difficult for Filipinos to relate as equals to Westerners.

6. Kanya-Kanya Syndrome
Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a feeling of envy and
competitiveness toward others, particularly one's peers who seem to have gained some
status or prestige. Towards them, the Filipino demonstrates the so-called crab mentality
(referring to the tendency of crabs in a basket to pull each other down) using to bring others
down. There seems to be a basic assumption that the leveling instrument of tsismis, intriga
and unconstructive criticism another's gain is one's loss.
The kanya-kanya syndrome is also evident in the personal ambition and the drive for
power and status that is completely insensitive to the common good. Personal and in-group
interests reign supreme. This characteristic is also evident in the lack of a sense of service
among people in the government bureaucracy. The public is made to feel that service from
these offices from these civil servants is an extra perk that has to be paid for.
The kanya-kanya syndrome results in the dampening of cooperative and community
spirit and in the trampling upon of the rights of others.

7. Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection

There is a tendency in the Filipino to be superficial and even somewhat flighty. In the
face of serious problems, both personal and social, there is lack of analysis or reflection. We
joke about the most serious matters and this prevents looking deeply into the problem.
There is no felt need to validate our hypotheses or explanations of things. Thus, we are
satisfied with superficial explanations and superficial solutions to problems.
Related to this is the Filipino emphasis on form (maporma) rather than on substance.
There is a tendency to be satisfied with rhetoric and to substitute this for reality. Empty
rhetoric and endless words are very much part of public life. As long as the right things are
said, as long as the proper documents and report exist, as long as the proper committees,
task forces or offices are formed. Filipinos are deluded into believing that what ought to be,
actually exists.
The Filipino lack of self-analysis and our emphasis on form is reinforced by an
educational system that is often more form than substance and a legal system that tends to
substitute law for reality.

ETHICS AND VALUES

Ethics is the capacity to determine right conduct and the knowledge of what is right
from wrong. Values, on the other hand, are the application of ethics. It must be stressed that
these two should always be together. It is one thing to know what is good or bad, and
another thing to apply what you know. Moral values are the only true measure of what man
ought to be. The most powerful king, the most the most successful professional is nothing
unless he, too, is morally upright (PNP Manual on Ethics and Values Formation, 2008).Our
moral values are reflected through the way we think, the way we speak and the way we act.
Our choices, our decision-making process, our courses of actions are all guided by the values
inculcated within us. We choose to think, say and do things based on the things that we
consider important in our lives. Values are reflected through the actions of the persons. If
his/her actions are moral and good, then it can be said that he/she has good values. If
his/her actions are immoral and evil, then he/she has poor or no values.

VIRTUE
The PNP Manual on Ethics and Values Formation defines virtue as the quality of
moral excellence, righteousness, probity, responsibility and goodness; conformity to
standard morality or mores, as abstention from vices; specific type of moral excellence or
other exemplary quality considered meritorious; a worthy practice or ideal.

FOUR CARDINAL VIRTUES

 One good explanation of virtue is attributed to Aristotle. Aristotle is considered one
of the greatest Greek philosophers who contributed to the development of many fields of
discipline. One such field that Aristotle is noted for is philosophy. According to him, a good
person is one who possesses virtues, and virtue refers to a personality trait that a person
demonstrates in his/her social conduct (www.contentgenerate.com). His moral philosophy
is the basis of the FOUR CARDINAL VIRTUES

Four Cardinal Virtues

The cardinal virtues are the four (4) principal moral virtues. The English word
cardinal comes from the Latin word cardo, which means hinge. All other virtues hinge on
these four moral virtues: prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice (Richert, 2019).
Literally, a hinge is something that connects. This means that all other virtues are connected
to these four.
PRUDENCE is the ability to make decisions by means of reason and sound judgment.
It is the virtue that attracts the intellect to choose the most effective means for
accomplishing what is good and avoiding what is evil (Agapay, 1991). FORTITUDE refers to
firmness of mind. It is the courage to endure without yielding. It is the virtue that gives a
person strength of the will. It is the virtue that incites courage (Agapay, 1991). Some
examples of traits that show fortitude are patience, perservance and endurance.
Another moral cardinal virtue is TEMPERANCE, the ability to moderate one's instincts
and emotions. It is the virtue that regulates a person's wants. This also means self-control.
Because of temperance, man is able to regulate the carnal appetite for sensual pleasures.
Finally, the virtue that inclines the will to give to each what is due to him/her is JUSTICE. It is
the virtue that inclines the will to respect the rights of others. Justice means the same as
fairness. Having a sense of justice in everyday dealings with others shows a person's sense of
fairness.

HUMAN RELATIONS
Human relations consists of the fundamental rules, both moral and legal, which
govern the relationship of men in all aspects of life (Quest Lecture Notes, CRIM3)
Article 19 to Article 36 of Chapter 2 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines covers the aspect of human relations. Article 19 reads:
"Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

 Rights are anything that a person can lawfully exercise, claim and demand because
he/she is entitled to it. Human rights are rights that all men are born with by virtue of being
human beings. They are supreme, inherent and inalienable. Supreme because human rights
are the hightest form of rights; inherent because all men naturally possess these rights; and
inalienable because these rights cannot be taken away without just cause. human rights are
the right to life, liberty and property. The basic
The right to life refers to the right to be born and the right to live. Right to liberty
means all men have the right to be free. Right to property refers to the rights of everybody to
have his/her properties or possessions.

Relationship Between Right and Duty

For every right that a person enjoys, there is a corresponding duty. Duty includes the
doing of that which is expected of him/her, as well as not doing that which is not acceptable
for him/her to do.