ETHICS030

8. Ethics
→ Is the normative science of the conduct of human
PRELIMS being living in societies.
Introduction to Ethics → A science which judges the conduct to be right or
wrong, to be good or bad.
WHY STUDY ETHICS?
“An unexamined life is not worth living for man.” – Socrates *What is good? What makes actions or people
good?
Greek words: *What is right? What makes actions right?
Philo means Love *Is morality objective or subjective?
Sophia means Knowledge/Wisdom *How should I treat others?
Philosophy – Love of Knowledge/ Wisdom

PHILOSOPHY ETHICS
Systematic study of ideas and issues, a reasoned pursuit of
fundamental truths, a quest for comprehensive understanding Origin of Ethics
of the world, a study of principles and conduct, and much
more. “ETHOS” or “ETHOUS” – use, custom, way of
behaving, character.
DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
▪ A PRACTICAL Science of the MORALITY of
1. Epistemology HUMAN CONDUCT/ACT.
→ Definition of knowledge and related concepts. It is ▪ root word “ethos”- a characteristic way of acting.
concerned with the criteria of knowledge, the kind of ▪ The study of what is right and wrong in human
knowledge possible, and the degree to which each behavior in the pursuit of good life.
is certain. ▪ The morality of human acts.
▪ a practical science of the morality of human
*What is knowledge conduct.
*Do we know anything at all ▪ The good thing that we should pursue and the
*How do we know what we know bad thing that we should avoid.
*Can we be justified in claiming to know certain
things DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS
2. Metaphysics 1. Practical science of the morality of human actions
→ Concerned with the nature of ultimate reality. 2. The scientific inquiry into the principles of morality
3. The science of human acts with reference to right and
*Is there a God wrong
*What is truth 4. The study of human conduct from the standpoint of
*What is a person morality
*What makes a person the same through time 5. The science which lays down the principles of right
*Is the world strictly compose of matter living
*Do people have free wills 6. According to Socrates, Ethics is the investigation of
life.
3. Social and Political Philosophy
→ Concerned with the nature of legitimate authority,
the nature of society, and the relation between the OTHER DISCIPLINES AND ETHICS (STATE THE
individual, the community, and the state. RELATIONSHIP)
4. Philosophy of Man ❑ ETHICS AND SCIENCE
→ The study of all aspects of human life and culture. ❑ ETHICS AS VALUE EDUCATION
It examines such topics as how people live, what ❑ ETHICS AND RELIGION
they think, what they produce, and how they interact ❑ ETHICS AND LAW
with their environment.

5. Aesthetics
→ Concerned with the essence and perception of
beauty and ugliness.
LECTURE 1
6. Cosmology
→ Study of the universe as a whole including its past
HUMAN ACTS.
and its future.
Actions performed by man, knowingly and freely.
7. Logic
MORALITY
→ The art and science of correct thinking. It deals with
The quality of human act.
the principles of valid reasoning and argument.
MORAL----------------------Good
*What constitutes "good" or "bad" reasoning?
IMMORAL----------------Bad
*How do we determine whether a given piece of
AMORAL-----------------Indifferent
reasoning is good or bad?
CASIPLE, J.
 THREE TYPES OF SOUL 2. RATIONAL VALUES
⎯ Necessary to the functions and fulfillment of the
a) Plant (nutritive soul) will and intellect.
b) Animal (nutritive & sensible soul) example: Understanding and control of nature,
c) Man (nutritive, sensible, & rational soul) religion
▪ Is a rational animal.
▪ Is composed of body and soul. 3. AFFECTIVE VALUES
▪ Faculties of man – freewill and intellect ⎯ Experienced in pleasant incidents.
example: play, excitement, comfort, delight in
HUMAN ACT (VOLUNTARY) foods, drinks, sex, etc.
An act proceeding from man’s deliberate free will.
4. SOCIAL VALUES
ACT OF MAN (INVOLUNTARY) ⎯ Experienced in social interactions
Action merely happening in the body without the mind’s example: leisure & sex, marriage, family &
awareness or control of the will. home, parental authority, education

TYPES OF ELICITED ACTS 5. MORAL VALUES

⎯ Experienced in social or individual conduct.
1. WISH example: values of character and good will,
⎯ A disposition of the will aspiring for something. concern, sympathy, etc.
“I wish for a trip to Manila.”; “I wish that no Filipino
would die of hunger.” 6. AESTHETICS VALUES
⎯ Appreciation of the natural and artistic beauty of
2. INTENTION/ VOLUNTARINESS things.
⎯ Purposive tendency of the will towards a example: beauty, talent, elegance, grace,
realizable thing. symmetry, color, etc.
“I intend a trip to Manila.”; “I am going to vote for our
officials this May.” 7. MORAL VALUES
⎯ Experienced in social or individual conduct.
3. CONSENT example: values of character and good will,
⎯ Acceptance of the will of the means necessary concern, sympathy, charity, justice
to do the intention.
“I’ll go to Manila by boat.”; “I’ll renew my voters’ 8. RELIGIOUS VALUES
registration in order to vote this May.” ⎯ Based on what is interpreted to be man’s
relationship to God.
4. ELECTION example: piety, truthfulness, justness, etc.
⎯ Selection by the will of the precise means to be
employed in carrying out the intention.
“I’ll buy the boat ticket and board the ship earlier.”;
“I’ll go to the precinct and cast my vote before lunch.” TERMS RELATED TO THE STUDY OF VALUES

5. USE Value system. Independent values which are systematically

⎯ Will’s employment of powers to carry out its
intention by the means elected.
“I’ll go to the precinct by walking.”
6. FRUITION
⎯ The enjoyment of the thing willed and done.
“I’ll enjoy result of the election.”
VALUES
 Is the good of man’s positive attitude.
 Goal or vision which motivates man to act.
 The principle which guides man’s action and
thinking.
 Is that which is important to us and are the
bases of our choices, decisions, reactions and
behaviour.
 The intrinsic worth of a thing.
KINDS OF VALUES
arranged in a pattern in which are subject to reciprocal or
mutual variations. It is an enduring organization of beliefs
concerning preferable modes of conduct; the dominant
motivation underlying the pattern of people’s behaviour.
Valuation. The experience of attributing or assigning value to
a thing, idea or event or a mere feeling of a value.
Value Judgment. Matter of appraisal, evaluating or
assessing of the desirability of things.
Good. Possesses desirable qualities of which satisfy some
preferable needs. Something which is positive or
advantageous to everybody at all times.
Ideal. A standard or model of perfection, excellence, beauty,
or goodness.
Norm. A rational concept of what ought to be a; a guide to
what should be.

1. BIOLOGICAL VALUES
⎯ Aspects of life as a biological fact
example: life & health, food & shelter, work

CASIPLE, J.
 GUIDES IN VALUE SELECTION b) INDIRECT VOLUNTARINESS
Accompanies an act or situation which is the mere result
1. Permanent or lasting values must be preferred over of a directly willed act.
temporary or perishable values. (education over ❑ Getting a failing mark is indirectly voluntary on
courtship) the part of the student who has willingly
2. Values favoured by a greater number of people must be neglected to study.
preferred over those that appeal only to few. (discipline
over personal freedom) VOLUNTARINESS
3. Essential values must be preferred over accidental ones. Voluntas  Will
(health over beauty) ✓ Perfect
4. Of two or more values, the greater ought to be selected. ✓ Imperfect
✓ Conditional
✓ Simple
REASONS FOR BEING MORAL
1. Self-interest
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE VOLUNTARINESS OF
2. Divine command
AN ACT
3. Common interest
4. Because it’s right
1. PRINCIPLE OF IMPUTABILITY (evil indirectly willed)
— The agent has foreseen the evil effect. He has the
freedom to do or not and he wasn’t morally bound in
doing it.
PRINCIPLES FOR ETHICAL LIFE
2. PRINCIPLE OF IMPUTABILITY OF A TWO-FOLD
1. Personality is the thing of greatest value.
EFFECT
2. The values of life must be shared.
— The act in itself should be good, or at least morally
3. Some worthwhile task should be sincerely
indifferent;
pursued by everyone.
— The evil effect should not be directly intended, but
4. A wide range of appreciation must be cultivated.
morally allowed to happen as a regrettable side
5. For growth, one needs to live in the presence of
issue;
the best.
— There should be a reason sufficiently grave in doing
the act; and
— The evil effect should not outweigh the good effect.
IMPUTABILITY OF HUMAN ACTS
 Human acts are done with the will and intellect of the
person doing the act. Hence…
ACCOUNTABILITY IS THERE.
Perfect Voluntariness is not always possible. There are
factors affecting man’s inner disposition towards certain
actions and those are called THE MODIFIERS OF HUMAN
VOLUNTARINESS
ACTS.
Perfect Voluntariness
✓ the person fully knows and intends the act.
THE MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS
Imperfect Voluntariness
✓ The person acts without fully realizing what he does.
1. IGNORANCE
Absence of human knowledge.
Conditional Voluntariness
✓ A person does the act out of certain circumstances
2. CONCUPISCENCE (PASSION)
beyond his control.
Strong tendencies toward the possession of
something good or avoidance of something evil.
Simple Voluntariness
✓ The person does the act willfully either he likes it or
3. HABIT
not.
Constant or easy way of doing things acquired by
repeating the same act.
TYPES OF VOLUNTARINESS
4. FEAR
Shrinking back of the mind from danger.
a) DIRECT VOLUNTARINESS
Accompanies an act which is primarily intended by the
5. VIOLENCE-CO-ACTION
doer, either as an end or as a means to achieve
An external force applied by a free cause for the
something else.
purpose of compelling a person to perform an act
❑ Eating lunch to relieve hunger
which is against his will.
❑ Going to school
❑ Inviting a friend to a movie
❑ Reading a book

CASIPLE, J.
 PRINCIPLES REGARDING MODIFIERS OF HUMAN
ACTS
‘A. REGARDING IGNORANCE
1. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE destroys the
voluntariness of the act.
Invincible Ignorance – A person possesses without
being aware of it, or having awareness of it lacks the
means to rectify it.
2. VINCIBLE IGNORANCE lessens the voluntariness
and corresponding accountability over the act.
Vincible Ignorance – can easily be reminded through
ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts.
3. AFFECTED IGNORANCE in a way lessens the
voluntariness but increases the accountability over
the resultant act.
Affected Ignorance – when a person keeps by
positive effort in order to escape responsibility or
blame.
B. REGARDING CONCUPISCENCE
1. Antecedent passion renders voluntariness but
lessens accountability over the resultant act.
Antecedent Passions – are those that precede an
act.
2. Consequent passion increases accountability.
Consequent Passion – are those that are
intentionally aroused and kept.
C. REGARDING FEAR
1. Acts done because of intense fear or panic are
involuntary thus, has no accountability.
D. REGARDING VIOLENCE
1. Actions performed by a person who is subjected to
violence, to which reasonable resistance has been
offered, are involuntary and are not accountable.
2. Elicited acts, or those which are performed by the
will alone, are not subjected to violence and thus,
are voluntary.
E. REGARDING HABIT
1. Habit doesn’t destroy voluntariness
NORMS OF HUMAN ACTS
1. LAW
Ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good
by one who has charge of a society (St.Thomas
Aquinas).
2. CONSCIENCE
Practical judgment of reason upon an individual act as
good and to be performed, or as evil and to be avoided.
TYPES OF CONSCIENCE
1. Correct/True Conscience.
Judges what is good as good and evil as evil.
2. False/Erroneous conscience.
Judges incorrectly what is good as evil and what is
evil as good.
a. Inculpable conscience- not willfully
intended; involuntary
b. Culpable conscience- error is due to
neglect or malice; voluntary
3. Certain conscience.
Implies that the person is sure of his certain
decisions.
4. Doubtful conscience.
It is a vacillating conscience, unable to form a
definite judgment on a certain action.
5. Scrupulous conscience.
Is extremely afraid of committing evil. It is therefore
meticulous and wants proof before it acts.
6. Lax conscience.
It refuses to be bothered by the distinction between
what is good and evil. It therefore rushes on and is
quick to justify itself.
MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS
MORALITY is defined as the principle of what is considered
to be right or wrong, of knowing of what is good from what is
bad.
✓ MORAL
✓ AMORAL
✓ NON-MORAL
STANDARDS viewed as the set of norms or practices that
measure a series of possible merit or action.
Moral standards therefore are viewed as a set of
principles that serve as the actual parameters or
guides of how an action can be judged.
WHEREAS
Non-moral standards are expressed and/or
exhibited if there are inadequacies concerning the
measures of how an action is judged. The former is
when a person uses his reason in evaluating an
action while the latter is the complete obverse,
hence is arbitrary.
CRITERIA IN EVALUATING MORALITY
In evaluating whether an act is moral, amoral, or non-
moral, the following criteria are to be observed:
ACT (ITSELF) - whether the action itself is good or bad.
✓ Stealing is bad thus, non- moral
✓ Being charitable is good thus, moral.
✓ Eating cornik is neither good nor bad thus,
amoral.
END - The goal or purpose of the act. Take note, an act
is only good if and only if its intention is also good
otherwise, it becomes evil.
✓ If one helps the needy for publicity or popularity,
his act of giving (which is supposed to be moral)
becomes non-moral due to the evil intention for
the act.
✓
CIRCUMSTANCE - The surrounding factor affecting
one’s choice. Take note, an act only becomes good if the act
itself, the end, as well as the circumstance, are also good.
CASIPLE, J.
 ✓ Having a boyfriend/girlfriend with no bad intention
but despite being prohibited by your parents in doing
so (evil circumstance), becomes non-moral.
✓ o Increasing the price of facemask due to very high
demand amid the pandemic becomes non-moral.
TAKE NOTE!!
Reasonableness becomes the actual backbone that makes
an act ethical. Whatever is moral is always reasonable and
whatever is non-moral is non-reasonable. It is reasonable to
ask for assistance when needed thus, the act is moral. It is
non-reasonable to steal when in need of money thus, the act
is non-moral.
ETHICAL DILEMMAS
Upon reaching a certain age, a person realizes that his world is
not perfect. One covers that the world is peopled by completing
beliefs, ideologies, and systems. What you then previously
thought as true become questionable, let alone untrue.
Dilemma is real. Kant calls these antinomies when one cannot
actually go wrong or right. This problem leads us to investigate
other things; the circumstance within and around the dilemma is
situated, the balancing of positions that tend to argue towards
the extreme, and probable response- if it is possible- to the
conflict.
Dilemma is expected I any kind of ethical stance. It is expected
because what fuels one’s idea of what is right or wrong is in no
way the same. But the fact that there is conflict proves that there
can be a way to at least solve it, let along a compromise.
In an extreme sense, however, dilemma also prepares us to
decide against the backdrop of a scarcity of choices. In every
way, there is always a stance much better than the rest.
What makes a dilemma in ethics quite difficult is because the
problematic is situated in a gray area. at the onset, one can say
that the problem is less mathematical; nonetheless, the demand
is definitely so; one is tasked to locate the actual situatedness of
this elusive ethical position, even as one is torn of the pull
between seemingly non-extremes yet of greater consequences.
Hence, there is no real black/white dichotomy here or any binary
thinking. The context is in fact bewildering, as it is after the pull
either between two goods or between which is a lesser evil.
NATURE OF DILEMMA
1. One finds oneself at a certain crossroads where the
elementary distinction of right and wrong is put on hold,
one’s choice is as good or as bad as any other.
Different from choosing what is the best play from other
plays, if we were to adopt this position, each play from
all other plays is as good in possible equal measures.
An ethical dilemma then conceals out the often wrongly
perceived notion that the rules should be applied,
automatically, to all situations. A dilemma is an
exception.
If a dilemma is basically an exception rather than
normalcy, it is equally incorrect to judge each action
and any situation in ethics to involve a dilemma. Often,
an action can be determined by the normal litmus test
placed on it. It proves one thing here: some actions are
not as oblique and that they are as transparent as clean
water.
Further, this point suggests the basic idea regarding
the act as itself. The points can be summarized thus:
2. An evil act can never be a good act. This point can
turn to a number of important consequences. Most
especially, it leads to an understanding that an act that
begins as evil can never be turned into a good act, no
matter how good the circumstance or the end.
All these explanations now lead to the actual
characteristics of how an ethical dilemma is evaluated.
It happens because there is an impasse, break, or
rupture when an order of some sound ethical norms
and systems cannot be applied in the situation.
Through this, a person is left wandering and wondering
or the best possible way to make sense of the situation,
resorting to some kind of suspension of the agreed and
often written rules of the science of what is right and
wrong.
The task of evaluation, aside from being difficult, is
intricate. It involves being as best as possible, not just
impartial and an equal treatment of two opposing
positions but of putting into sense the conflicts that are
present, and hence, deciding based on an extensive
and comprehensive consideration of all eventualities.
RESPONSE TO ETHICAL DILEMMA
• Based on the following choices, who shall be a worthy
candidate? Should it be the business tycoon, the
famous actress, or the incumbent mayor/doctor?
• As we all know by then that this is an actual dilemma.
However, the dilemma here comes not on the idea of
choice but its total absence.
• As a voter, one is left to decide on choosing the least
possible evil. And since every choice seems to go
wrong, the best possible choice is to limit the
wrongness of the wrong.
3 LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS
❑ Individual
❑ Organizational
❑ Structural
1. INDIVIDUAL (The Person)
Family influences, religious values, personal
standards, and personal needs.
2. ORGANIZATIONAL
Business, medical, and public sector, Supervisory
behavior, peer group norms and behavior, and policy
statements and written rules.
3. STRUCTURAL
Institutions, operative, theoretical paradigms,
Government laws and regulations, societal norms and
values, and competitive climate in an industry.
Example: universal health care, expensive medicines
the Philippines.
CASIPLE, J.
 FOUNDATION OF MORALITY that he makes greater contribution to the society (De
Guzman et al. 2017).
REASON. The ability of the mind to think, understand, and form
judgments by the process of logic. It is an innate ability and
exclusive human ability that utilizes new or existing information TO SUMMARIZE !!!
as bases to consciously make sense out of thing while applying As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as
logic. Minimum Requirement for Morality,” Reason and
impartiality become the basic prerequisite for morality as
According to “Kant and Hume on Morality,” reason and one is expected to be able to deliver clear, concise, rightful,
experience play an important role in moral judgment. and appropriate judgments made out of logic and
understanding in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner
According to De Guzman et al. (2017), reason spells the while considering the general welfare to accurately concoct
difference of moral judgments from the mere expressions of moral decisions.
personal preference. If after eating, someone says, “I like a
sweet cake,” he is not required to support it with good reasons
for that is a statement about his/her personal taste and nothing
more. But in the case of moral judgments, they require backing
by reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale, they are merely
capricious and ignorable. Moral deliberation is a matter of
weighing reasons and being guided by them. In understanding
the nature of morality, considering reasons is indispensable.
Truth in Ethics entails being justified by good reasons. That is,
the rightful moral decision involves selecting the option that has
the power of reason on its side.

RATIONALITY. Rationality has always been considered as a

power of man that separates himself from the rest of the species.
It is the capacity to reason proving that a person’s
desire for truth but an in-born ability.

“Man is born so as to know the truth.”

The power of rationality involves s movement from something

mental and/or logical to ethical. Therefore… to reason
establishes the point that man’s action is not only logically
informed but also ethically founded. Thus, by nature, at the heart
of a person is goodness since man is naturally informed of what
is ethical brought about by his rationality.

Despite man’s rationality, it must be noted that any ethical

decision is also surrounded by a subjective stance, and hence,
his decision or choice becomes personal. This is where
impartiality enters.

IMPARTIALITY. It is considered as another side to the

foundation of morality that involves a man’s decision to always
aim to decide for what is just, equal, and balanced weighing of
things that are devoid of any biased judgments or pre-judgment.

According to De Guzman et al. (2017), impartiality involves the

idea that each individual’s interest and point of view are equally
important.
✓ Impartiality in morality requires the we give equal
and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all
concerned parties.
✓ No one is seen as intrinsically more significant than
anyone else.

Many ethicists supposed that from the impartial point of

view, properly conceived, some persons count as more
significant, at least in certain ways. A virtuous and
respectable religious leader maybe supposed to be more
significant than a mere maid; so, an emergency (say, a
building on fire) the decent religious leader ought to be
rescued first. The reason, nonetheless, is not that the
religious leader is intrinsically more significant; rather, it is

CASIPLE, J.