ETHICS — Ethics is a study of morality.
based on God's commands,human
Ethics is more flexible compared to morality
because it adjusts to the demands, it is not
dogmatic (follow the rules) ethics can help
deepen our reflection on the ultimate
questions in life.
Morality - it is a standard of a person
determining what is right or wrong.
● It's myths and beliefs
● Morality associated with religion and
culture usually it cannot be
questions
E.g. preservation of life, we all know that
killing is wrong but there's some
circumstances were killing is justifiable
since you're in a brick of your life like you
need it for self defense
E.g: in ten commandments you should
honor your father and mother, so what if
yung parents abuse you or abuse the child,
should the child still honor the parents to
make it moral? So this some of
circumstances that not honor your parents
is justifiable since you're in a brick of your
life that you need it for
"Unexamined life is not Worth living
-Find the purpose. Purpose of Existence
-human have a rationality we need to gain in
life at any particular time we need to differ in
a conscience to find the purpose of
existence.
3 MAIN AREAS OF ETHICS
1. META ETHICS - ask whether it is
moral facts (ME) is more concerned
with the language we use. How do
we define ‘good’ or ‘bad’, when we
say, for example, ‘abortion is good’,
or ‘abortion is bad’? Is morality
reason or human feelings?
Tell us how to form and judge
normative theories.
2. NORMATIVE ETHICS -(Evaluative)
Tell us whether the action is right or
wrong Normative ethical claims are
claims about what is right or wrong
(including permissible or required):
Eg. a doctor has a patient who is
suffering from a terminal illness and
has only a few months to live. The
patient requests that the doctor
provide them with a lethal dose of
medication to end their life, as they
are in significant pain and feel that
their quality of life is no longer worth
living. The doctor must make a
decision about whether or not to
honor the patient's request. The
decision the doctor makes in this
situation will depend on their own
ethical beliefs and the specific
context of the case
EXAMPLE: Normative ethics is the
branch of philosophy that deals with
moral principles and values, while
applied ethics is the application of
these principles and values to
real-world situations. Here's an easy
example:
Imagine you're walking down the
street and you're in a hurry to go to
your work because you've a meeting
that you need your presence. But
you see a old Lady pass out. What
should you do?
In terms of normative ethics, there
are several moral principles that
 could guide your decision. For
example, you could prioritize the
value of human life and try to save
the old lady , or you could prioritize
the value of individual rights.
In terms of applied ethics, you would
need to consider the specific
circumstances of the situation. For
example, if you're a trained medical
professional, you might feel a
greater obligation to save the old
lady. If you're in a crowded area, you
might worry about causing a panic or
getting in the way of other people
trying to help.
Ultimately, your decision would
depend on your own moral values
and judgment, as well as the specific
context of the situation. However, by
considering both normative and
applied ethics, you can make a more
informed and principled decision.
3. APPLIED ETHICS- practical ethics
and looks at real-world ethical
problems in the hopes of resolving
them using philosophical methods
● Euthanasia which is the practice of
ending someone's life to relieve their
suffering
Eg. It is a question of what makes an action
what is right or wrong. The scenario is there
is a thief who steals things from rich people
but he donates the things that he stole to
the orphanage. So basically we need to
evaluate it if it's good or bad. So it is
UTILITARIANISM which says that an action
is right if it maximizes happiness for the
greatest number of people.
DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS - (Naglalarawan
or nanguutos)
Descriptive ethical claims are claims about
what people believe to be right or wrong:
-Your mom believes it is wrong to torment
the cat.
-Americans believe that infanticide is wrong.
normative theory is right for me if and only
if I decide that the normative theory is right
for me. No one is in a position to say what’s
right or wrong for anyone else; we simply
decide our own moral codes and there are
no external constraints on what we can or
cannot do in deciding how to govern
ourselves. Total moral relativism cannot
draw a straight line between itself and any
normative theory because it effectively
posits that there are no correct normative
theories; I simply have my ethics and you
have yours.
B. Nature of moral statements
• A moral statement is more normative than
factual or descriptive. A normative
statement expresses a value judgment, that
claims something ought to be the case as
distinct from a factual statement that claims
something is the case.
• When one makes a normative statement,
he or she presents an evaluative account of
how things should be rather than what
things are.
Example of NORMATIVE STATEMENT:
● You ought to return the excess
change to the cashier— it
Descriptive Ethics it is nag uutos
 ● Cover your mouth when you laugh -
standard etiquette
FACTUAL STATEMENT:
● February 2 1987 we're 1987
constitution was ratified. So it is
historical research.
A moral statement is not a factual one
although providing facts may significantly
justify a moral claim, however it remains
insufficient.
• Consider this argument:
According to a study of ten countries that
enforce the death penalty, the rate of
criminality in these countries went down
after it was enforced. Therefore, it is morally
right to enforce the death penalty.
Above claim is insufficient, facts need a
moral principle or standards such as, "An
act is right if it promotes the greater good of
the people". Thus, the moral argument
should be:
Science ( facts/knowledge) Vs
HUMANITIES (values)
SCIENCE - science is study things they are
more objective knowledge
Descriptive ethics is in the field of social
science falls. Social Science has an
objective approach based on research and
scientific evidence
HUMANITIES - Humanities have a
subjective, critical-thinking or opinion-based
approach.
• Also, not all factual claims are easy to
resolve or uncontroversial, factual claims
like "Humans evolved from primitive
primates", "Imposing death penalty will
deter murder" and "Aliens from other
planets have visited the earth", their truth or
falsity is hard to establish.
● What is clear are the bases of the
acceptability of these statements,
factual statements from empirical
data through research and
observation and moral statements
that appeal to norms and standards.
To summarize:
1. Facts are different from values.
2. A normative or evaluative statement is
different from a descriptive or factual
statement.
3. All moral statements are normative but
not all normative assessments are moral.
MORAL STANDARDS - Moral statement is
Normative however not all normative
statement appeals as moral because there
is some standard when it comes to
aesthetic, legal and grammatical.
It refers to the rules or guidelines that affect
the choices of a person and his belief
system and decision making process in
situations or problems that beg questions
about what is morally right or wrong.
1. Moral standards can seriously harm
or benefits eg. Cheating on exams to
get a better grade or lying to your
friend to avoid hurting their feelings
regardless of religion or culture.
 2. Have universal values
ex. Killing a person is wrong, so
everyone believes that.
Another Ex. is stealing is wrong
because it will take away a sense of
security and trust of the community.
So you will expect that it will
exercise regardless of religion or
culture.
Generally thought to have a
particularly overriding importance
3. Are not established by decisions of
authoritarian Bodies,nor they are
solely determined
● Validity of moral standards
lies on the adequacy of
reasons that support or
justify them. So long these
reasons are adequate, the
standards remain valid.
MORALITY AND ETIQUETTE:
Morality can be a body of standards or
principles derived from a code of conduct
from a particular
Etiquette Refers to set of rules or customs
that determine the accepted behavior in
particular social group
Eg. Dining etiquette. Such as Chew with
your mouth closed or Don't speak when
your mouth are full
Communication ETIQUETTE: Saying "po"
and "opo" to elders
Not only is this a sign of respect, it also
teaches our kids humility, courtesy, and
kindness
MORALITY AND LAW
Breaking the law is not always immoral.
Following the law is not always moral.
Example: some actions may be illegal but
moral,such as breaking the law to save
someone's life. Some actions may be legal
and moral such as donating to charity or
helping those people who need it.
Another example is Abortion is legal in law
when the mother is in the stake but it is
immoral because it takes one life.
• Since laws are derived from morality,
people tend to equate what is lawful to what
is moral
MORALITY AND RELIGION
In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates asks the
pious Euthyphro, "Do the gods love
goodness because it is good or is it
good because gods love it?" It shows that
if the gods love goodness because it is
good,we can know good without reference
to gods. On the other hand, If goodness is
good because gods love it then goodness is
dependent on the god will , good can
change depending on the gods preferences
This question raises some serious
problems: First, moral directives from
religion are general and ambiguous.
Example: "Thou shall not kill" according to
Christians but it becomes a disagreement to
particular and complex issues such as
abortion or euthanasia.
● Second, which religion should we
inquire? There should be a basis of
morality that transcends religious
boundaries, lest we fail to carry out
an objective rational moral
discussion with people from the
standpoint of religion.
 ● Third, it is a disservice to ourselves if
we rely on the dictates of religion.
D. THE ISSUE OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM
ethical relativism - holds all moral
principles are valid to a particular society or
individual. For example there is a morally
right in one society but be morally wrong in
another.
Another example is that it morally indifferent
because it does not allow us to judge or
condemn any immoral or harmful practices
about torture, slavery,rape as long as they
are accepted by certain Society
Inshort Ethical Relativism are no universal
moral disputes between different
individuals.
1. Ethical/Moral Skepticism - claims
there are no valid moral principles at
all. May doubt or deny the existence
of objective moral Truths or
possibility moral reasoning
● Skepticism - is an admission of the
limitations of your knowledge of the
world including moral values you
associate with it
Example: moral relativism murder is wrong
,it is true for some people or groups but not
for others, it depends on the moral values or
norms. Without a bias this practices in the
different societies of the world are neither
right or wrong, it's just a different opinion
from culture to culture
Another example is that , imagine you are
shopping then you're skeptical after reading
the label organic in a pack.
2. Ethical/Moral Nihilism - is the
meta-ethical view that asserts ethical
claims are generally false
That nothing is morally good,bad,
wrong, right because there are no
moral truths. In short,there are no
moral facts or values
Eg. Moral nihilists would say there is
no purpose in life and if they attempt
to find one it is delusional.
3. Moral Objectivism - asserts there
are universally valid moral principles
binding all people regardless of their
culture, region or situation.
Eg. Do not lie or deceive. Another
example is killing is wrong so it is
True for everyone or everywhere
and always.
4. Moral Absolutism - there is only a
true moral system with specific
moral rules or facts. They must be
followed in all circumstances without
any exceptions or excuses
Eg. If it's wrong to lie then you will
not lie kahit nakakasakit na siya
Two forms of Ethical Relativism
1. Cultural Ethical Relativism or Ethical
conventionalism - rightness or
wrongness depends on society
norms
Eg. Having a two wife is wrong,it is
true for others because it should be
loyal to a partner but not for others, it
depends on the social norms.
2. Individual Ethical Relativism or
Ethical subjectivism - rightness or
wrongness of an action lies on the
individual's own commitments.
e.g a vegetarian believes that eating
animals is wrong because it is
murderer but some people who are
meat-eater believes that eating
animals is morally acceptable
because he believes that everyone
should enjoy the food.
Another example, I believe that
abortion is morally right and we
should support women's rights but
 some people are conservatives who
believe that Abortion is morally
wrong and should protect unborn
life. We have a different views but it
is valid for us
Ethical subjectivism:
"The man is measure of All things"
- man is the ultimate creature capable of
rational thinking. man has the power to
determine the value or meaning of things,
creating his own reality .
In our eyes God will be “the measure of all
things” in the highest degree—a degree
much higher than is any “man” they talk of
For example, when man wants to steal
money or other material objects from
another being, greed modifies the
assumption of right and wrong. The person
who steals thinks that it is right and the
person who is being looted thinks the
opposite.
Summary of ethical Relativism:
● Conventionalism is different from
subjectivism since it recognizes the
social nature of morality.
Conventionalism - is the view that morality
is relative to the culture.
Subjectivism - is morality relative to the
individual.
● Although it rejects the existence of
universal moral principles, it claims
that there are valid moral principles
justified by virtue of their cultural
acceptance.
Attractions of moral relativism
1. Diversity argument - premised on the
factual or empirical claim that moral beliefs
and moral rules vary from culture to culture.
Example: Inuit people are practicing
infanticide and leaving feeble, old members
in the snow to die is contemptible to many
cultures except them.
2. Dependency argument - premised from
the fact of moral diversity holding that moral
beliefs are true or valid only relative to
certain groups.We are simply
culturally-determined creatures.moral
judgment are dependent on culture or
society
Example: some societies are considered to
arrange marriage for children without the
consent but in some societies it is not
acceptable and illegal to force marriage,
especially minors.
Hard-relativists claim that even sciences are
cultural, magie cannot be inferior to science
as it is culturally contextual.
3. Toleration argument - according to this
reasoning, relativism may be the right way
of looking at morality since it offers the
promise of tolerance and understanding,
attitudes that most of us value highly.
Each society is to be judged in terms of its
own standards rather than in terms of other
people's ethnocentric expectations.
Example: same sex marriage is illegal to
other country but they tolerate it because
they want respect the different moral choice
and lifestyles of people
Challenges of ethical relativism

1. If the premise is true, the conclusion
cannot be inferred to be true.
Diversity and disagreement in moral beliefs
do not prove that morality is relative.
We cannot accept differences
disagreements in moral beliefs and
practices as justification for the relativism of
morality.
If relativism asserts that all moral standards
are relative, then we can choose not to
believe in it, thus exposing the logical
inconsistency of its argument.
2. It has negative implications.
We cannot turn a blind eye to such violent
action and regard it as a matter of cultural
difference that must be accepted.
For society to achieve moral progress, it has
to be self-critical and put its own social
norms into question.
This can only be done if social norms
themselves can be subjected to critical
scrutiny, rather than regarded as the
ultimate basis of morality.
Example: Revolutions for Independence,
Suffrage movements, Anti-slavery and
racism movements, Labor movements, etc.
3. Despite the fact that some moral
beliefs and practices vary among
cultures, there are still universal moral
standards that exist.
• Though people have different cultures,
customs, traditions, religions and ideologies,
they still have something in common
emanating from their shared humanity.
Respect for life, pursuit for truth and justice,
desire for peace, to cite some, are values
that all human persons, no matter how
primitive or sophisticated their culture or
or civilization is, would recognize and
acknowledge as worth pursuing.
CHAPTER 3
CONSEQUENTIALISM
Its general claim that consequences of an
action are the ones that ultimately matter in
judging whether the action is morally good
or bad.
Not all consequences are deemed morally
relevant by consequentialism - only those
that involve intrinsic good.
Consequentialism as an ethical theory
There are three aspects of an action that
are generally regarded as relevant when
evaluating its morality:
(1.) its consequences,
(2.) the rules that it follows or violates, and
(3.) character or intention of its agent.
Good or desirable consequences may mean
various things. It could be painful or
pleasurable.
● For instance, people contend
whether the death penalty should be
legalized for it will deter crime, or
whether we should take care of the
natural environment to prevent the
extinction of the human species.
● If something is good, our moral duty
(the obligation to act based on
ethical beliefs.) is to maximize it.
● It is not enough, therefore, that we
should strive to be happy through
our actions, rather, we should strive
to attain the greatest possible
happiness through our actions.
Intrinsic and instrumental good
The good consequence that
consequentialism regards as the basis for
the moral goodness of an act is not just any
kind of good or desirable consequence; but
one that is good in itself or desirable for its
own sake.
Philosophers usually refer to this kind of
good as intrinsic good.
INTRINSIC GOOD:(unconditional good)
something that it good for it owns sake.
Example: Friendship is INTRINSIC good
because you value the people not for what it
can get them.
INSTRUMENTAL GOOD:(conditional good)
as contrasted with intrinsic good, is desired
for the sake of something else.
Example: networking or socializing is
instrumental good because some people
value providing them with opportunities and
favors.
Another example is money because it can
buy anything that you want to make you
happy
For a consequentialist: it means root
words ma determine ang goodness and
rightness of consequence
1. Between an action that result in good
consequences (i.e. an intrinsic good) and
another that results in bad consequences
(i.e. not an intrinsic good), the morally good
action is the former. (Kung good and bad
siya then choose good)
2. Between two actions that both result in
good consequences in varying degrees, the
action whose good consequences are
greater is the morally good act. (If dalawa
ang good then choose a lot of good
consequences)
3. Between two actions that both result in
bad consequences but in varying degrees,
the one whose bad consequences are
lesser is the morally good act. (If the two
actions are bad then choose the less bad
consequences)
4. Between two actions both leading to a
combination of good and bad
consequences, the one with the greater net
total of good consequences, or with the
maximum aggregate good consequences, is
the morally good act. ( if parehas na nag
lead in good and bad consequences then
the one with the greater of good and
consequences you choose)
To get the aggregate good consequences of
each alternative action, we add all its good
consequences and all its bad
consequences, and then subtract the total
bad consequences from the total good
consequences.
Varities of consequentialism
● Variety of consequentialist views
emerged due to the idea whether
happiness is an intrinsic good or not.
● Also, a debate whether intrinsic
good is determined personally, or by
the agent is a matter of
consequentialists. concern among.
Hence, there are two central
questions concerning it:
a. Is pleasure (or happiness) the only
intrinsic good? Is pain the only intrinsic evil?
This would consequently fall into
considering everything instrumentally good.
● No, pleasure (or happiness) is not
the only intrinsic good, and pain is
not the only intrinsic evil. While
pleasure and happiness can be
intrinsically good, there are other
intrinsic goods as well, such as
knowledge, virtue, and beauty.
These goods are valued for their
own sake and not just because they
lead to pleasure or happiness.
Similarly, while pain can be
intrinsically evil, there are other
intrinsic evils as well, such as
injustice, cruelty, and ignorance.
These evils are not just a means to
pain but are wrong in themselves.
Considering everything instrumentally good
would mean that things are only valuable
insofar as they lead to something else. This
would mean that everything is ultimately
valued for its ability to bring about pleasure
or happiness. However, this view fails to
account for the inherent value of many
things. For example, a beautiful sunset is
valued for its beauty, not just because it
leads to pleasure or happiness.
In short, while pleasure and happiness are
important values, they are not the only
intrinsic goods or evils. Other values exist
independently of their ability to bring about
pleasure or happiness.
B. Is the agent's own intrinsic good the only
one that morally matters?
In saying that the agent's own intrinsic good
is the only one that morally matters, we
imply that the possible intrinsic goods of
other people are not a relevant factor in the
moral evaluation of person's action.
●
, because we are prioritizing the
agent's own well-being above all
else. This view is sometimes called
"egoism" or "selfishness," because it
suggests that individuals should
always act in a way that maximizes
their own intrinsic goods, regardless
of the impact on others. However,
this view is problematic for several
reasons. First, it fails to take into
account the fact that our actions
often have an impact on others, and
that we have a moral obligation to
consider their intrinsic goods and
evils as well. Second, it can lead to
selfish and immoral behavior, as
individuals may prioritize their own
well-being over the well-being of
 others. Third, it fails to recognize the
importance of social relationships
and community values, which often
prioritize the intrinsic goods of others
over those of the individual.
In short, while the agent's own intrinsic good
is important, it is not the only factor that
determines the moral value of an action.
Other people's intrinsic goods and evils also
matter, and a morally good action should
take into account the overall balance of
intrinsic goods and evils for all affected
parties.
I. Hedonism and non-hedonism
1. Hedonistic consequentialism - simply
hedonism, believes that pleasure is the only
intrinsic good, and its opposite, pain, the
only intrinsic bad or evil.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Nature has
placed mankind under the governance of
two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure.
From the Greek word hedone whose
ordinary meaning is pleasure.
John Stuart Mill (1808-1873): By happiness,
is intended pleasure, and the absence of
pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of
pleasure
Counter-arguments to Jeremy Bentham's
hedonism
a. Open question argument attributed to
G.E. Moore (1873-1958), the mere fact that
it is meaningful to ask whether pleasure is
good means that pleasure cannot be
equated with the good.
If the assumption is true, it would be the
same as asking "whether pleasure is
pleasure" or "whether good is good" which
would be meaningless or trivial
b. What is actually desired is not
desirable, a response to Mill's claim that
the inherent desirability of pleasure is due to
people desiring it. It is indeed true that
people desire pleasure, but this does not
necessarily make pleasure desirable.
The statement "what is actually desired is
not desirable" is a response to John Stuart
Mill's claim that the inherent desirability of
pleasure is due to people desiring it. Mill
argued that pleasure is inherently desirable
because people naturally desire it. However,
this argument has been criticized on the
grounds that just because people desire
something does not necessarily mean that it
is desirable. because it suggests that not all
pleasures are inherently good or desirable.
For example, some pleasures may be
short-term and immediate, but they may
also have negative long-term
consequences. For instance, the pleasure
of drinking liqour may lead to negative
health outcomes in the long run. Similarly,
some pleasures may be derived from
harming others, which is not a desirable
outcome.
In short, while desires are important, they
should not be the sole determinant of what
is desirable or good. Other factors, such as
the long-term consequences of an action or
its impact on others, should also be
considered in determining whether
something is truly desirable
2.NON-HEDONISTIC
CONSEQUENTIALISM
Rejects hedonism but maintains a general
view of consequentialism.There are other
consequences besides pleasure that matter
to morality. Inshort, Non-hedonist believe
that an action is morally right if it maximizes
some other goods such as justice, furnace
rights or well-being. For example, a
non-hedonist would say that donating to
charity is morally right because it helps the
needy and promotes social welfare.
Two versions of non-hedonism:
a. Exclusive non-hedonism excludes
pleasure from the list of intrinsic goods.so it
is not inherently good
Example: in painting it is good not because
it is pleasure but because of the Harmony
off form and content
b. Inclusive non-hedonism includes pleasure
as one in the list of intrinsic goods. Others
would include knowledge, power, beauty,
freedom, desire-satisfaction, among others.
Example: reading a book is a pleasure but it
can also increase the knowledge of intrinsic
good.
Another Example is playing a puzzle. It
brings pleasure to a player at the same time
it can improve skills and creativity.
II. AGENT-RELATIVITY AND NEUTRALITY
a. Agent-relative consequentialism
The morality of action depends not just on
consequence but also the agent who
performed it. Agent relative can weight the
consequences differently based on agent
and it considered Both the outcome and the
agent.
Example: your parents punish you because
of your behavior but parents have an
intention why punish you.
Another example is a politician who is
against a controversial bill that significantly
impacts the environment and economy. It
can have consequences for the
environment or the economy.
b. Agent-neutral consequentialism
impartial or altruistic consequentialism
claims that both agent-related and non-
agent related consequences morally matter.
Considers the happiness of all people
involved. Impartial to whoever is affected by
the action. There is no morally privileged or
a priority. Focus on the outcome and not the
agent's intentions.
Example: a doctor's decision operates a
Judge based on the expected outcomes for
the patient whether the doctor is rookie or
renowned.
Complex forms and
representatives
Accordingly, the consequentialist definition
of the morally good act has the following
variations:
a. Agent-relative hedonism an action is
morally good if it gives maximum pleasure
to its agent; while it is morally bad if
otherwise.
● This version focuses on the
individual's own pleasure and
 pain. What one person finds
pleasurable, another might not.
● Example: A child enjoys eating
sweets, while an adult prefers a
savory meal. Both experiences
are pleasurable for the respective
individuals.
b. Agent-neutral hedonism - an action is
good if it results in the maximum overall
pleasure of all persons involved in the
action; while it is morally bad if otherwise.
● the action; while it is morally bad if
This view takes a more objective
approach, suggesting that there
are certain experiences
universally considered
pleasurable or painful, regardless
of individual preferences.
● Example: Most people find
physical pain unpleasant and
physical relief enjoyable,
regardless of their personal
preferences for other things.
c. Agent-relative non-hedonism an action
is morally good if it gives maximum benefits
to its agent; while it is morally bad if
otherwise.
● This view moves away from
pleasure as the primary
motivator, suggesting that other
factors like moral duty,
self-actualization, or altruism can
guide actions.
● Example: A doctor might choose
to perform a difficult surgery even
though it's physically demanding
and emotionally draining,
motivated by the desire to help
others.
Similarly, a parent may find great
intrinsic value in caring for their
children, even if it does not result
in immediate pleasure. In both
cases, the intrinsic value of the
action is relative to the agent
performing it.
d. Agent-neutral non-hedonism an action
is morally good if it results in the maximum
overall benefits for all persons involved in
otherwise.
● This version completely
separates pleasure and pain from
the evaluation of actions,
focusing solely on their
consequences or other objective
criteria. the intrinsic value of the
action is independent of the agent
performing it.
● Example: A scientist might
dedicate years to researching a
disease without expecting
personal pleasure, driven by the
pursuit of knowledge and
potential benefit to humanity.
Note: In variations e & d, "benefits" refer to
positive consequences which, may or may
not include the experience of pleasure.
I.AGENT-RELATIVITY
HEDONIST CONSEQUENTIALISM
● The philosophies of Aristippus
(435-356 BCE) and Epicurus
(341-270 BCE). The first's ethical
philosophy is known as Cyrenaicism
or Cyrenaic hedonism, while that of
latter is simply referred to as
Epicureanism.(pleasure is the
highest good)
● They both subscribe to the view that
an action is morally good if it brings
maximum pleasure to the agent, and
it is morally bad if otherwise
● Morality for these two Greek
philosophers involves choosing the
right kinds of pleasure to desire.
● During their time, pleasures were
divided into two general kinds based
on the contrasting relations of the
duration and intensity of pleasures.
Aristippus prefers the momentary but
intense pleasures while Epicurus is for the
long lasting, but less intense pleasures.
Aristippus promotes sensory pleasures
while Epicurus promotes freedom from pain
in the mind (through cultivating mental
tranquility) and the body (by developing a
healthy body).
CLASSIFICATION OF PLEASURE
Active pleasures refer to pleasures one
experiences when specific wants or desires
are gratified, this is why Aristippus's
hedonism is also called active hedonism.
Refers to pleasures that result from
engaging in action or pursuing goal
Example: active pleasure include learning a
new skill or engaging in meaningful
relationships , it is required effort and can
lead to personal growth and development
Passive pleasures pleasures one
experiences when pain, either bodily or
mental, are absent. Epicurus's hedonism is
passive hedonism.
Refers to pleasures that result from
experiencing something without actively
pursuing it
Example: enjoying a beautiful sunrise are
considered a passive pleasure. These
pleasure can be enjoyable often seen as
less valuable.
● Aristippus's preference for the
active pleasures has something to
do with the fact that life is short and
uncertain.
● Aristippus promotes maximization of
pleasures but we must be in control
of them because excess of pleasure
leads to pain and that the limitation
of desires is a condition of their
satisfaction.
● Epicurus explains that experience
shows us that the desire for life filled
with intense pleasures will be
frustrated, because there are not
enough of them in the ordinary
course of events.
Gratification of desires is more
difficult to sustain than the absence
of pain.
 Epicurus: God presents no fears,
death presents no worries. Good is
readily attainable and bad is readily
endurable.
● The problem of death and what
happens after
it is causing anxiety for us not to
enjoy what is present according to
Epicurus.
Death is like before our birth. We
feel nothing. When we die it is over.
Gods are perfect beings so there is
no point of them interfering to the
lives of mortals.
II. AGENT-RELATIVITY NON-HEDONIST
CONSEQUENTIALISM
● Friedrich Nietzsche's (1844-1900)
Power ethics— is not entirely
consequentialist but contains
elements of virtue ethics as it
inspires us to develop our character
to its noblest level.
● A person at this level is referred to
as Übermensch, which translates
overman or superman.
● Agent relative non Hedonism
offers a flexible and nuanced
approach to Ethical decision making,
it act with compassion and justice
rather than focusing on maximizing
the own pleasure.
Power is more fundamental than pleasure,
generally understood as having control over
things. It is the intrinsic good.
By Will-to-power (Wille zur Macht), it means
that we overcome the challenges of life
which weaken our determination to leave.
We call good, including pleasure or
happiness only in so far as they enhance
our will to power.
Since power is the only force that manifests
in the world, it is a reflection of our values
and our notions of truth and beauty which,
pragmatically speaking, temporal and
gradually labeled as rational and absolute
way of discerning and describing the world
of flux and instability.
Nietzsche attacked the false belief of
universal and absolute notions of goodness
or beauty as they stifle the creativity of
humanity to achieve further possibilities.
• Judeo-Christian religion is the "New
Buddhism", echoing his refutation to his
teacher Arthur Schopenhauer who was
inspired by the teachings of the Buddha,
Nietzsche finds these teachings as
self-defeating and a perversion of Pagan,
Pre- Christian Greek and Roman master
societies.
• Ideas like egalitarianism and democracy
are slave moralities, these are mechanisms
used by the Untermensch (underman or the
inferior) against the Übermensch as they
hold resentment to the overflowing nature of
the nobility. This is discussed in his Story of
the lambs and birds of prey.
● Nietzsche looks into Envy positively.
All of our envies are our desires,
everybody naturally wants to
become successful, recognized or
validated. These are all expressions
 of our Will-to-power. Nietzsche
argues that envy can be a positive
force when it motivates individuals to
strive for greater success and
recognition. Envy can serve as a
driving force, pushing individuals to
work harder. In this sense, envy can
be seen as a healthy and necessary
part of the human experience, as it
drives us to push beyond our current
limitations and strive for greater
things.
● Master morality over Slave
Morality
Unfortunately, his ideas were used
by the Nazis to justify their
persecution of the Jews. His
pronouncement, by its nearest
translation, "God is dead, and we
have killed him!" is not a celebration
of recourse to atheism but a
renewal, just like the world in Eternal
recurrence, no beginning no end.
With this, he used Dionysius, the
Greek god of frenzy and chaos to
complement Apollo, the Greek god
of reason and order.
However, Nietzsche also cautions that envy
can become destructive when it becomes
overwhelming or consumes an individual's
thoughts and actions. In such cases, envy
can lead to resentment, bitterness, and a
desire to harm or destroy those who are
perceived as more successful or powerful.
In this sense, Nietzsche suggests that it is
important to channel envy in a positive and
productive way, rather than allowing it to
AGENT-NEUTRAL
CONSEQUENTIALISM:
UTILITARIANISM
It follows the standard: The greatest
happiness of the greatest number of people
or greatest happiness principle.
According to Richard Hare, what
utilitarianism claims about morality is best
understood by examining its three main
elements:
a. Consequentialism for it determines the
morality of an action based on the kind of
consequences that the action has or results
in.
b. Welfarism - because the consequences
that it considers to be morally relevant are
those that affect the well-being of persons.
c. Aggregationism since the welfare that it
considers to be morally relevant is the
maximum aggregate or sum total welfare of
all affected persons.
Utilitarianism is an agent-neutral form of
consequentialism.Utilitarianism is not based
on a majority rule. Aggregationism naturally
leads to impartiality.
Summary:
HEDONISTIC - pleasure is good pain is evil
MODERN HEDONIST- betham and mill
 I. HEDONISTIC AND NON
HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM
a.HEDONISTIC FORM OF
UTILITARIANISM - produce the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people
● they are focusing on quality not the
quantitative
● Mental pleasure - high
● Physical pleasure -;Food, sex
Qualitative utilitarianism focuses on the
quality and nature of experiences, while
quantitative utilitarianism focuses solely on
the quantity or intensity of pleasure or
happiness. Qualitative utilitarianism takes
into account factors like the type of
pleasure, its duration, and sustainability,
while quantitative utilitarianism prioritizes
maximizing the total amount of pleasure or
happiness. For example, qualitative
utilitarianism might prioritize providing
long-lasting, fulfilling experiences over
short-term pleasures, while quantitative
utilitarianism might prioritize providing as
many pleasurable experiences as possible,
regardless of their quality or sustainability.
Jeremy Bentham's calculus of felicity or
hedonistic CALCULUS: approach to
moral philosophy that seeks to maximize
overall happiness or pleasure (felicity)
and minimize pain or suffering. to the
fact that Bentham's calculus is based on
the principle that pleasure and pain are
the only intrinsic goods and evils,
respectively.
1. Intensity - the more intense the pleasure,
the greater the value.
2. Duration - the longer the experience of
pleasure, the greater the value.
3. Certainty- the greater the probability, the
greater the value.
4. Propinquity (or remoteness) - the
shorter the temporal distance between an
act and pleasure, the greater the value.
5. Fecundity - the higher the probability of
an experience of pleasure will be followed
by further experiences of pleasure, the
greater the value.(offer the pleasure,
pleasure again) is like a breadth and variety
of positive consequences
6. Purity - the higher the probability that the
experience of pleasure will not be followed
by an experience of pain, the greater the
value. Focuses on uniformity of the positive
consequences, it emphasizes the absence
of negative consequences and prioritizing
the maximizing the overall good without
compromising it with any harm.
7. Extent the higher the number of persons
to experience the pleasure, the greater the
value. (Kapag maraming scope ng tao is
more pleasures)
John Stuart Mill's DEFENSE of
utilitarianism against its critics
1. It allegedly endorses a "swinish
doctrine", puts the value of human
pleasures and pains on the same level of
animals.
( If pleasure ang basehan ng tama at mali
walang pinagkaiba tayo sa animals)
● MILL addresses rationality because
superior is mental pleasure
 ● a specific moral theory that
prioritizes maximizing happiness and
minimizing suffering, rather than an
inherently reprehensible or simplistic
doctrine.
● Mill distinguished between higher
and lower pleasures by arguing that
some pleasures are more complex,
intellectual, and durable than others.
Higher pleasures, such as the b.NON-HEDONIST
enjoyment of music, literature, and FORMS OF UTILITARIANISM
intellectual pursuits, provide more
enduring and fulfilling experiences
than lower pleasures, such as the
pleasure of eating or drinking. Mill
argued that while lower pleasures
are necessary for human well-being,
higher pleasures are essential for a
truly fulfilling life.
● It is a misinterpretation that gives
priority to the agent, therefore an
agent-relative type of
consequentialism.
● Sacrifice is not always morally good,
it is only so when it promotes the
greatest happiness principle.
● Anything but not pleasure
● This theory suggests that pleasure
and pain are not the only factors
that matter in moral
–decision-making, but rather,
people's preferences and desires
should be taken into account.

By following the non-hedonist

● He explained that people
consequentialism, this rejection comes in
sometimes choose lower
two ways:
pleasures over higher pleasures
because of immediate gratification or
✓ The first claims that pleasure is not the
circumstantial factors but argued
intrinsic good, but something else exclusive
that individuals should strive to
non- hedonistic utilitarianism.
cultivate their higher faculties and
pursue higher pleasures whenever
✓ Second, it states that while pleasure is
possible.
an intrinsic good, there are others that are
intrinsically good as well hedonistic
2. Utilitarianism is bound to fail because
utilitarianism. inclusive non-HEDONISTIC
there is no objective way by which we can
decide on which type of pleasure is superior
1. Preference or satisfaction
or more valuable than other types.
utilitarianism
Competent judges -who have extreme
spectrum of pleasures
● Instead of pleasure ang maximize
and pain avoid. dito maximize some
3.Utilitarianism cannot account for the
pain and avoid ang pleasure
moral goodness of acts of martyrdom or
● Preference balancing- put yourself
self-sacrifice. If pleasure is the basis of
to choose other nag-a-adjust tayo sa
moral goodness, how can acts that
ibang tao
renounce one's pleasure be morally good?
for example family or sa parents.
Ang trabaho ng parents ay pag
aralan at damitan ka and as a child
 need mong mag aral mabuti Dahil
nakikita mo sa sacrifice ng parents
mo. This explains why some people
would prefer to suffer just to have
their preferences satisfied
2. Pluralistic or ideal utilitarianism- di
nag iisa ang pleasure
● It believes that there is a plurality of
intrinsic goods.
● Other intrinsic goods would include
beauty, knowledge, power and
healthy relationships like friendship.
These goods are desirable whether
pleasure is derived from them or not.
Imagine a city planning a new park. A
standard utilitarian might just focus on
maximizing pleasure by building lots of
amusement rides, pools, and
restaurants. But a pluralistic utilitarian
would consider the needs and values of
different groups:
● Children: They might want
playgrounds, swings, and
climbing structures.
● Adults: They might prefer walking
paths, benches, and gardens.
● Elderly: They might appreciate
shaded seating areas and
accessible paths.
● Nature lovers: They might value
open spaces, trees, and wildlife
habitats.
Instead of just one type of "good" (fun),
the pluralistic utilitarian aims for a park
that promotes multiple kinds of
well-being for all users. , another for
quiet relaxation, and another for natural
beauty.This way, the park wouldn't just
be fun for some, it would contribute to
the overall happiness and well-being of
the entire community. That's the
essence of pluralistic utilitarianism –
balancing the needs of different groups
and pursuing a variety of goods.
Two cases that illustrate the
independence of desirability from
pleasure (Moore):
1. The right attitude towards a person in
misery.
● In this case, to feel sorrow, not
gladness is the desirable or ideal
sentiment expressed for a person in
misery.
● To show pleasure or enjoyment from
the other person's misery is
inappropriate.
Example: one your relative is died you're not
feeling happy at the moment in the funeral
2. Beauty, as an intrinsic good i.e.
desirable and independent of pleasure
one derives from contemplating it.
● Beauty is intrinsic good, desirable
and independent so beauty can
stand alone without agent, beauty is
not dependent on pleasure.
example: sa pagputok ng volcano makikita
natin yung kagandahan niya even though
there's a lot of people who will affect this
volcano however we appreciate the beauty
Another example the painting about
Spoliarium" represents the struggle for
independence but we appreciate the beauty
because of the canvas
Ii. ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
● This division arises from the
question as to which the utilitarian
principle of maximizing aggregate
good or welfare should be applied to
determine the morality of an act itself
or the rule that governs the act. the
act
● According to act utilitarianism, the
utilitarian principle should be applied
to the act itself; while to rule
utilitarianism, it should be the rule
governing the act.
1. Rule utilitarianism
Optimific rule a rule, when generally
followed, produces the maximum aggregate
good. (GOD, BIBLE, BATAS NG
KATUWIRAN)
Example: sinabi ng bible killing is wrong but
you need to kill for self defense. For rule
utilitarianism, even if the act maximizes
aggregate good but follows a non-optimific
rule, then it is morally bad.
2. Act utilitarianism
● Act utilitarianism, on the other hand,
does not care about the rules that an
act may follow or violate; as such, if
the act maximizes aggregate good,
then it is morally good, regardless of
whether the rule that it follows or
violates is optimific or not.
● No rules that focus kung ano
makakadulot ng immediate benefit.
Criticism to each other
a. Rule to act utilitarianism
In a situation like an act utilitarian getting a
service from a plumber. He may consider an
alternative use of money supposed to be
given to the plumber as payment for his
services that will promote a greater
aggregate good, say giving it to charitable
institutions or to the victims of the calamity.
So, the morally correct option for the person
who hires the plumber, from the point of
view of rule utilitarianism, should be to
honor the contract by paying the plumber.
B. act to rule
● Rule utilitarianism has the danger of
resulting into "rule worship" (an
argument usually made against
deontology as well) wherein a rule is
being followed for the sake of
following it even if it will not lead to
the best consequences
Say, you made a promise to a dying
man on a desert island to give his
hoard of gold to the Australian
jockey club, instead you gave it to a
hospital needing it for x- ray
machines.
In this situation, for the person to still
keep his promise to the dying man,
given the surrounding
circumstances, from the viewpoint of
act utilitarianism, a form of rule
worship.
• Is rule utilitarianism a deontological
ethics?(must do our DUTY whether or not
we profit, or even if we die trying. )
-No, because what matters in this type is
the consequences of the action.
• Some maintain that rule utilitarianism is a
compromise between deontology and
utilitarianism, or a way of accommodating
deontology into utilitarian perspective in
order to prevent the possibility that
applications of the utilitarian standard will
lead to absurd situations.
Variations of utilitarianism
1. Act hedonistic utilitarianism - an action is
good if it maximizes aggregate happiness,
bad if otherwise. It is sometimes referred as
classical utilitarianism.
2. Rule hedonistic utilitarianism action is
good if it follows a rule which when
generally conformed to will maximize
aggregate otherwise. happiness, while bad
if
3. Act non-hedonistic utilitarianism - an
action is good if it maximizes aggregate
welfare, while bad if otherwise.
4. Rule non-hedonistic utilitarianism action
is good if it follows a rule which generally
conformed to will maximize aggregate
welfare while bad if otherwise.
Note: The "welfare" in 3 & 4 refers to
anything be it not pleasure or aside from
pleasure.
1. Act hedonistic utilitarianism: This is the
original form of utilitarianism proposed by
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
According to this theory, an action is good if
it maximizes overall happiness and bad if it
reduces happiness. For example, donating
money to a charity that helps people in need
would be a good act because it would
increase the overall happiness in society.
2. Rule hedonistic utilitarianism: This
version of utilitarianism focuses on following
rules that maximize happiness in the long
run. For example, following traffic laws is a
rule that generally leads to increased
happiness because it reduces accidents
and saves lives.
3. Act non-hedonistic utilitarianism: This
theory suggests that an action is good if it
maximizes overall welfare, not just
happiness. Welfare can include things like
health, education, and economic
opportunities. For example, investing in
public education would be a good act
because it would increase overall welfare by
providing better opportunities for future
generations.
4. Rule non-hedonistic utilitarianism: This
version of utilitarianism suggests that
following rules that maximize overall welfare
is more important than maximizing
happiness in individual cases. For example,
enforcing laws against pollution may reduce
individual happiness in the short term, but it
would lead to increased overall welfare by
protecting public health and the
environment in the long term.
LESSON LEARNED

Utilitarianism remains influential despite its

variations. Aside from being impartial, it
generally provides a practical way of
resolving disagreements that serves as a
framework for decision making in the areas
of economics, business, politics and others.
Specifically, it serves as the foundation of
most strategic decision-making methods.

. It has limitations that sometimes it leads to

injustices and violation of rights by
maximizing its aggregate good.
Generally, they maintain that moral
concepts only have instrumental or derived
good so far as they lead to maximization of
the aggregate welfare