CHAPTER TWO: MORAL PERSONHOOD AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Learning Objectives:

1.Define the moral personhood and rights.

2. Identify the criteria of moral personhood.
3. Define Moral Accountability.
4. What the conditions of Moral Accountability.
5. Differentiate Moral and Legal Accountability.
6. Four Degree Conditions of Moral Accountability.

A. MORAL PERSONHOOD
• We judge a particular moral action whether it conforms to or violates our moral standards or
principles. We already assume that entities or beings involved in the action (its source or
receiver) are moral persons.
MORAL PERSONS AND RIGHTS
One standard of defining personhood is in terms of possession of rights: to be a person is to be
a bearer of rights. It is important to note that the possession of moral rights is merely the
minimum definition of moral personhood, in addition to having moral rights, is also to have
moral duties or obligations.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF RIGHTS?

 Rights, to begin are entitlements.
 They refer to interests one (i.e., the bearer of rights) is allowed to pursue or actions one
is allowed to do.
Example: We all have the right to live. We are not entitled to hurt or kill somebody.

MORAL AGENTS AND PATIENTS

 All moral persons are moral patients but only some can be moral agents. Another way of
saying is that all moral persons have moral rights but not all have moral duties.
 Standard examples of agentive moral persons are normal human adults, while those of
non-agentive moral persons are infants and the mentally challenged.

CRITERIA FOR MORAL PERSONHOOD

 Views about criteria of personhood is referred to as theories of personhood.
 These theories are concerned either with identifying such criteria or with qualifying the
nature of such criteria (in terms of their mode of existence and attribution).
 Two views were criterial theories of personhood and meta- criterial theories of
personhood.
I. CRITERIAL APPROACH: UNI-CRITERIAL
1. Uni-criterial theories of personhood identify a single essential quality for moral personhood.
Two views were criterial theories of personhood and meta- criterial theories of personhood.
A. Genetic theory - claims that the defining quality of a person is the possession of the human
DNA or his or her membership in the species Homo Sapiens, therefore, non-human entities are
excluded from the moral community.
B. Life theory - Contends that the defining feature of personhood is the possession of life or
simply being alive. In its extreme version, this theory will include even insects and micro-
organisms in the moral community (example is the religion of Jainism with its concept of
ahimsa or non-violence).
C. Rational theory - Contends that the defining feature of personhood is capacity for rationality,
which consists of the capacities for reason and free choice/will.This theory unnecessarily
excludes beings like infants, mentally challenged people, people in comatose or persistent
vegetative state and animals, among others.
D. Sentient theory - Claims that the defining feature of personhood is sentience, i.e., the
capacity to experience pleasure and pain (Hedonism), or as some would prefer to put it, the
capacity to suffer (Pathocentrism). It excludes beings that are unhealthy or those that lost their
capacity for sentience and those that are having lives but no sentience at all.
E. Relational theory - Claims that the defining feature of personhood is the relationship one has
with other entities. These relationships are caring relationships which bring about moral duties
or obligations to the caring parties. This theory is often limited to human relationships. One
typical example is the caring relationship of a mother to her child.

2. MULTI-CRITERIAL THEORIES
 It identifies a combination of two or more qualities that sufficiently defines moral
personhood.
 They usually combine some of the particular criteria advanced by uni-criterial theories.

B. MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY
 Accountability is the deservingness of blame or praise for the actions we perform.
 It is a natural product of our rationality which consists of our reason (or intelligence) and
free will (or freedom).
 In the practical context of performing actions, our reason enables us to choose which
action we would like to perform.
 Immanuel Kant's view on the relationship between morality and happiness sheds light
on this point
 Kant: the goal of morality is not happiness but the deservingness of happiness; and so,
the morally good person is one who deserves happiness regardless of whether or not
he/she is in fact happy.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

 Accountability is customarily interchanged with responsibility. The latter has other
meanings with which accountability may be confused.
 Causation - as another meaning of responsibility. It simply means being the cause of
that something.
  b. Still, another meaning of the word "responsibility" is duty or obligation, or having
duties or obligations towards other people.
 Prospective responsibility - kind of responsibility directed towards what will or may
happen. Retrospective responsibility towards what had happened already.
 In light of the uses of the word "responsibility" , when we ask: "Who is responsible for
this action?" , we may ask either of the following:
1. Who causes this action?
2. Whose duty is this action?
3. Who should be blamed or praised for this action?

MORAL AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY

 Legal accountability uses legal standards (laws or statutes) whereas moral accountability
uses moral standards (moral rules or principles).
 Statutes do not always embody moral rules. A person who deserves moral blame may
not deserve moral punishment and the person who does not deserve moral blame mat
deserve legal punishment.

CONDITIONS FOR MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY

 Two general sets of conditions for moral accountability:
1. Attribution conditions - or assignment conditions, they determine whether moral
accountability can be attributed or assigned to a person for an action that he or she has done;
2. Degree conditions
a. Incriminating conditions - would make one morally accountable for the action under
consideration.
 Agency condition - a person is only accountable for actions which he or she is the cause.
This is, however, not sufficient for there are two other necessary conditions.
 Knowledge condition - referring to the condition in which a person knows or who has
the capacity to know moral quality (the goodness or badness).
 Intentionality condition in which a person intends or freely chooses to perform an
action he or she is doing (motivations involved).
b. Excusing conditions - which would spare one from moral accountability for the action under
consideration.
 At least one of the three attribution conditions does not occur constitute the excusing
conditions for moral accountability.

FOUR DEGREE CONDITIONS OF MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY

A. Degree of knowledge - the moral wrongfulness of the action along with the relevant facts
related to the action.
 Here, the more knowledgeable the person is, the greater is his or her moral
accountability.
B. Degree of pressure or difficulty in life that forces one to perform a wrongdoing.
 Here, the greater the pressure, the lesser the moral responsibility. The lesser the
pressure, the greater the moral responsibility.
C. Degree of intensity or seriousness of the injury caused by the wrongdoing.
 The greater the intensity of the injury, the greater the moral accountability. The lesser
the intensity of the injury, the lesser the moral accountability.
D. Degree of involvement - or participation, in a group or collective act of moral wrongdoing.
 The greater the involvement, the greater the moral accountability. The lesser the
involvement, the lesser the moral accountability.

-THANK YOU-

CHAPTER 3: CONSEQUENTIALISM

Learning Objectives:
 Define the Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
 Defferentiate Agent Relativity and Nuetrality.
 Define Hedonism and Hedonistic Utilitarianism
 What are the Basic Elements of Utilitarianism.
 Act and Rule Utilitarianism

CONSEQUENTIALISM
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that suggets that the moral rightness or wrongness of an
action solely on its consequences. In other words, an action is morally justifiable if it is leads to
the best possible outcome itself. Consequentialsts argue that this approach provides a clear and
objective standard for evaluating moral decisons.

UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism is the most influential form of consequentialism, such that some authors equate
(though inaccurately) consequentialism with utilitarianism. To have a better understanding of
this ethical theory, we shall elaborate on its baisc elements and examine its variuos forms.

AGENT RELATIVITY AND NUETRALITY

Agent Relativity is the idea that an agent's beliefs, desires, and intentions are relative to their
own perspective or frame of reference. In other words, what seems true or right to one person
may not be the same for another. Nuetrality is the idea that an agent should remain impartial
and unbiased when making decisions or judgments. A neutral agent doesn't take sides or
promote any particular viewpoint over others.

HEDONISM CONSEQUENTIALISM AND HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANSIM

Hedonism Consequentialism is an ethical theory that suggests that actions are right if they
produce the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for all individuals involved. It prioritizes
consequences over intentions or moral principles. Hedonistic Utilitarianism is an ethical theory
that combines hedonism with utilitarianism. It suggests that actions are right if
they promote overall pleasure or happiness, regardless of whether they align with individual
preferences.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF UTILITARIANISM
• Consequentialism- Consequentialism’s rivals offer alternative accounts of what one morally
ought to do that depend on features other than the value of the resulting
outcome.
• For example, according to deontology, morality is about following a system of rules, like “Do
Not Lie” or “Do Not Steal”.
• Welfarism- welfarism holds that positive well-being is the only intrinsic good, and negative
well-being is the only intrinsic bad. Philosophers use the term “well-being” to describe
everything that is in itself good for someone, as opposed to things that are merely
instrumentally good.
• For example, money can buy many useful things and is thus instrumentally good for you, but
having money does not in itself constitute well-being.
• Impartiality - According to utilitarianism, in principle you should not even privilege the well-
being of yourself or your family over the well-being of distant strangers
(though there may be good practical reasons to do so). Not all philosophers agree that
impartiality is a core feature of morality. They might hold that we are allowed,
or even required, to be partial towards a particular group, such as our friends and family. Or
they might advance an alternative conception of “impartiality” that does not
require the equal consideration of interests.
• For example, prioritarianism gives extra weight to the interests of the worst-off, whoever they
might be.
• Aggregationism- When combined with welfarism and impartiality, this implies that we can
meaningfully “add up” the well-being of different individuals, and use this total
to determine which trade-offs are worth making.
• For example, utilitarianism claims that improving five lives by some amount is five times
better than improving one life by the same amount.

ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM

Act and Rule Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests that actions are right if they
promote the greatest amount of happiness or well-being for all individuals involved at the time
of action. It focuses on the specific circumstances of each situation and
prioritizes immediate consequences over long-term effects.

-THANK YOU-
 CHAPTER 4: DEONTHOLOGY

Objectives:
 At the end of the lesson student should be able :
 To prioritize moral duties and obligations over consequences.
 To uphold principles of fairness, justice, and universal moral rules.
 To provide a framework for ethical decision-making based on the inherent rightness or
wrongness of actions rather than their outcomes.

The ethical theory of consequentialism, which focuses on the results of an action, is often
compared to non consequentialist theories like virtue ethics and deontology. These theories
consider more than the consequences of an action, such as conformity to God's will or natural
law, to determine its moral rightness or wrongness.

Deontological ethics
Derived from the Greek word "deon" meaning "duty," emphasizes the relationship between
duty and the morality of an action. They believe that certain acts are intrinsically
right or wrong, irrespective of their consequences.

A. The divine command theory

Based on Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, argues that an act is right if it accords with God's will. This
theory suggests that a believer who recognizes God as the origin of their
existence should align their thoughts and actions according to God's design, leading to a
morally upright existence. Fundamentalist Muslims, Christian religious Jews, and
Orthodox Christians all believe that God's commands are the ultimate guide to human
behavior, rather than human reason or local mores.

The divine command theory, which posits that morality originates with God, has two
distinguishing versions: the strong version, which asserts that there is no conflict between
God's commands and genuine morality, and the weak version, which omits or qualifies one or
two of these. The strong version, asserts that morality originates with God, moral rightness is
"willed by God," and moral wrongness is "being against the will of God." The weak version, as
described by Soren Kierkegaard, argues that God's commands can override morality in cases of
conflict between reason and God's commands. The strong version maintains that morality is
simply a matter of God's commands. The divine command theory suggests that if God does not
exist, morality would not exist, as it has its own basis in reason.

Critics of the divine command theory

This include the difficulty in answering the question of how to know God's will, the lack of
clarity on what God commands regarding specific moral issues, and the use of sacred texts in
dealing with moral questions. Some religious thinkers also claim to know God's will through
their conscience, such as the Holy Wind in the Navajo religion. In the Philippines, various
religious sects, such as Feliz Manalo, Eddie Villanueva, and Apollo Quiboloy, claim to have
received God's message and been appointed by God to preach the faith. However, these
sources provide a wealth of varied and often contradictory information. For example, one
religion might instruct its followers to carry out suicide bombing attacks as God's command,
making it difficult to reconcile different religious persuasions.

The divine command theory is also criticized for leading to arbitrariness, as seen in the Book of
Generis. If God's command is sufficient to justify any action as good, it could lead to deceit,
cheating, or torture. Some philosophers argue that God cannot require cruelty for its own sake,
as it contradicts the notion that God is love.

Those who support the divine command theory face dilemmas in the Euthyphro, either
maintaining that a good action is simply what God commands or arguing for limits on what can
be accepted as God's commands. The third challenge is the issue of human autonomy, as if
what is right is simply based on God's will, our ability to reason becomes useless. Religion can
sometimes contradict human reason, as it may not always align with our rational thinking. For
example, a religion may teach blood transfusion prohibition, but doctors may recommend it for
life-saving situations. This raises questions about the moral rightness of an act, a s i t m a y n o t
g u a r a n t e e u l t i m a t e j u s t i c e.

Importance of the concept of God in Morality

Some thinkers maintain that belief in God remains essential in morality. If God exists, the good
will eventually prevail over the evil, and the just will be rewarded, while the unjust will be
punished. This idea is emphasized in various religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and
Hinduism. Religion can address the motivation to be moral, as the idea of a perfectly just God
and an immortal soul provides the motivation to be moral. The fear of eternal damnation and
the yearning for an eternal life of bliss and happiness presuppose a religion containing beliefs
about personal immortality and the existence of a perfect just God.

B. Natural Law
A. Deontological theory that plover the moral basis of an out, not on it but on its conformity to
dot.

 Older variants of the theory share some similarities with the devine command theory,
those who subscribe to this theory generally recognize the existence of God and point to
God as the source.
 Pantheism a view where those who believe that God is immanent, or even identical
with, nature,

Basis of Right action

 Natural Law theory holds that morality is part of the natural order of things, claims that
certain actions are right by nature, apart from opinions or practices of humans.
 Many people have a deep-seated feeling that if something is "unnatural" it is also
immoral.
 The word unnatural and immoral are closely connected in popular thoughts
 The connotation of the word natural in strongly associated with what is good or right.
The Notion of Nature
The stoics (in the first century BC) one of the first thinkers who conceived of the idea of natural
Law as the basis of morality. -cosmic nature", natural order as a whole. -Thomas Aquinas (1224-
1271)" was the greatest exponent of the natural Low theory. He synthesized the stoic's sense of
cosmic natural cow with Aristotle's view that human being has specific nature, purpose,
function. The order of the precepts of the natural law is according to the order of natural
indications.

Moral absolutions and the Qualifying Principles

Aquinas, position, and the natural law tradition in general, fall under moral absolutions -moral
absolution", view that claims certain kind of action are always wrong and obligatory regardless
of the consequences Natural law theory believe that none of the values preceding from natural
inclinations may be directly violated.

Based on Harris (2007) Natural theory also believe that basic values. cannot be measured or
compared;
q Four conditions that must be satisfied for such act to considered morally permissible;
1. The Nature -of- the- Act condition the act, considered in itself and apart from its
consequences, is good, or at least morally permissible.
2. The means-End condition - Bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the
good effect.
3. The Right-Intention Condition - Intention must be the achieving of only the good effects, with
the bad effects being only an unintended side" effect
4. The proportionality condition -The good effect must be at least equivalent to the importance
of the bad effect.

Moral absolutions and the Qualifying Principles Issues challenging the Natural Law
Theory
-Despite the inclusion of qualifying principles to address possible difficulties in applying natural
Law theory.
-There are issues raised by its critics that manifest some problems in the theory.
- Problem of distinguishing unforeseen from unintended consequences. -based on
David Hume The theory conflates that which is the case with that which ought to be the case.
- Cannot logically derive a moral imperative or value judgement simply by observing facts of
Nature.
-another issue raised has to do with the theory's assumption that moral principles are written in
the laws of nature.

C. categorical Imperative
• The most prominent theory is that which was propounded by the preeminent German
philosopher Immanuel Kant. (1724-1804) -rightness or wrongness) of an act does not lie on its
results or effects
• This theory also opposed to the Natural Law theory, since for Kant genuine moral acts must
stem from our special non-natural powers of reason and will.

The Good will

• The only thing that is good in itself is what he call a good will
• Kant uses the term "will" to refer to intention or motive.
• For Kant duty is only the correct motive
• This means that one should do what is right because it is his / her duty to do so simply
because it is right.
• acting from Duty -According to Kant one acts with a good will if he/she does the right thing for
the right reason.
• Acting from duty -one must perform moral duty for its own sake.

C. The categorical Imperative

Kant distinguished two kinds of imperative: hypothetical and categorical. Formula of
Hypothetical: If you want X, then do y" categorical: "Do Y." Hypothetical-not the kind of
imperatives that characterize our moral obligations. categorical-unqualified, imperatives are
the right kind of imperative for they show proper recognition to paramount importance of
morally obliged.

Rules must be universal

 First categorical imperative is "act only on that maxim where by thou canst at the same
time will that it should become a universal Law".
 Principle of universal law, is general role in accordance with which the agent intends to
act
 wall (2003, 39) says that there are 3 important things to not in Principle of Universal
Law:
+categorical imperative does not provide us with a list of concrete rules saying that rules must
be universalizable,
+ There are no exceptions to rules.

Treating Persons as Ends

 Second formulation is now a "Principle of respect for Person or Principle of Ends!"
 Means act as to treat humanity, wither your person or any other, in every case as end
and never as merely a means
 This formulation belief that every human being has an inherent worth that emanates
from the sheer possession of rationality.
 What Kant would like to emphasize is that we have our own a person. moral obligation
to treat ourselves as a person.

The will as universal Lawgiver

 Third formulation of categorical imperative, called Principle of autonomy
  "So act as if you were always through you maxims a law-making member of the kingdom
of ends". -The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy
 Heteronomous a person is one whose actions are motivated by the authority of others.

Evaluating Kant's Ethics

 Major objections to Kant's theory is moral action is it views moral rules as absolute and
exception less.
 Lacking in Kant's theory is openness to consider the particular factors and circumstances
surrounding the a Action.
 Another criticism it has to do with its view on the motivation to do what is right. - Third
criticism that can be raised pertains to the theory's notion. that only persons moral
standing as members of the "Kingdom of ends"

D. CONDITIONAL DEONTOLOGY

Conditional deontology, a version of deontological ethics, is a theory developed by W.D. Ross,

examining the tension between Kantian deontology and utilitarianism. It distinguishes between
prima facie and actual duties, their differentiation, relation, and evaluation based on moral
importance.

SITUATING ROSSIAN ETHICAL THEORY

Kant's deontological theory views moral duties as categorical imperatives, arising from respect,
contrasting hypothetical ones that aim to preserve actions' consequences. Kantian deontology
considers moral rules and duties binding regardless of circumstances. The tension between
Kantian deontology and utilitarianism needs to be resolved. W. D. Ross' ethical theory focuses
on deontological principles, which believe that morality is determined by the performance of
moral duties. However, Ross acknowledges exceptions for moral duties, such as considering
consequences or other morally relevant factors. Other morally relevant factors include
relationships, past actions, and actions others have done to a person. Ross finds that human
relationships are only morally relevant when they involve benefactor and beneficiary
relationships. Other relationships, such as those between friends and family, may also serve as
foundations for moral duties. The morally relevant factor depends on the situation, and various
morally relevant factors should be carefully considered and their dative moral significance
weighed.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN PRIMA FACIE AND ACTUAL DUTIES

Rossian conditional deontology distinguishes between prima facie and actual duties Prima facie duties
are outwardly recognized as obligations, such as keeping promises or making reparations for harm.
However, these duties may not necessarily be the actions we should take in a given situation. For
example, if we borrowed money from a friend, our prima facie duty is to pay the debt. Ross
(2004, 91) believes that there is nothing arbitrary about these Prima facie duties, for each is
based on a morally relevant factor or circumstance. They arise only within certain specific
contents, Ross, without claiming competences, Identifies 7 prima Facie Duties; namely,
1. Duty of Fidelity- refers to the duties to fulfill one's promises and contracts, and not to engage
in deception
2. Duty of Reparation refers to the duty to make up for one's wrongful acts or for injuries one
has done to others.
3. Duty of Gratitude- refers to the duty to repay other people for the past favors they have
done for one self or for the benefits one has received from them.
4. Duty of Justice refers to the duty to distribute benefits and burdens fairly in which people get
what they deserve to receive.
5. Duty of Beneficence refers to the duty to improve the conditions of others or to do well to
them.
6. Duty of Self-improvement - refers to the duty to improve one's condition in life especially in
the areas of health, security, wisdom, morality, and well-being or happiness.
7. Duty of Non-maleficence - (or harm prevention) refers to the duty not to injure other people
or the duty to prevent them from being harmed physically and/or mentally.

Determining Prima Facie and Actual Duties

Row's ethical theory addresses two critical questions: determining prima facie duties and
determining which are actual duties. He argues that prima facie duties are self-evident and are
immediately clear in a given situation, such as fulfilling a promise, making reparations, or being
grateful. However, for these duties to be self-evident, we must have adequate mental maturity.
Ross suggests that understanding the nature of our actions is crucial for determining which
prima facie duty is most incumbent upon us.
The duty to make reparations for one'swrongdoing is a duty that only applies to those who fully
understand the nature of the situation. Children who do not fully understand the nature of
situations may still recognize the principle of making reparations. To determine actual duties,
one must carefully examine the situation and weigh morally relevant factors. Ross argues that
each situation is unique, and the moral decision-making process for every person will be
different. There is no single principle to guide us in weighing conflicting moral duties. However,
other ethical theories do not provide a single principle to decide on conflicting moral duties. To
resolve conflicts, one must have sufficient moral maturity and study the situation in the best
possible way, considering the opinions of well-educated people who create the moral
reflection.

-THANK YOU-
 CHAPTER 5: VIRTUE ETHICS

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After the completion of our presentation, students should be able to:
I. Know the definition of virtue ethics
II. The development(origin) of virtue ethics
III. The importance of virtue ethics
IV. The four major moral values & Theological virtues
V. The principles for ethical behavior & individuals
VI. The role of virtue ethics in business context.

WHAT IS VIRTUE ETHICS?

• Virtue is from Greek word “arete” means excellence.
• It emphasizes on the roles of one’s character.
• The virtues that one’s character embodies for determining ethical behavior.
• Ethical virtue refers to the possession of positive moral qualities ortraits. is a philosophical
approach that emphasized the development of good character and moral virtues in individuals.
It suggests that ethical decisions should arise from a person’s virtuous character rather than
following strict rules or consequences key virtuous character rather than following strict rules
or consequences key virtues often include honesty integrity, compassion and courage.

VIRTUE ETHICS
Is a philosophical approach to ethics that emphasizes the development of good charactertraits
or virtues as the key to ethical behavior, rather than focusing on rulesor consequences. It
suggests that individuals should strive to cultivate virtues such as honesty, courage, compassion
and wisdom, and to act in accordance with those virtues in their daily lives. This approach
originated with ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and has been influential throughout
the history of Western ethics.

VIRTUE ETHICS DEVELOPMENT OF VIRTUE ETHICS

✔️Virtues are qualities of doing whatis right & avoiding whatis wrong.
✔️Itis agent oriented, centered on the agent,the human person.
✔️Ethical behaviors flows from characteristics that people acquired overtime.
✔️Virtues are developed from childhood to adolescence & to the final stages of an adult.

◾As individuals develop,their interaction with people in bigger communities expands.

◾The person’s characters and behavior changes. In choosing whatis right which in most cases is
difficult. The person continues to develop virtues habits.
◾Thus, people will do the rightthing because,they have developed virtuous habits.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT OF VIRTUE ETHICS?

Virtue ethics Is important because it emphasizes the cultivation of good character traits, which
can lead to more consistent and morally admirable behaviour. Unlike others ethical theories
that focus on rules or Consequences, virtue ethics provides a framework for person In
development & flourishing by encouraging individuals to strive for excellence in their character.
It also allows for a flexible approach to ethical decision making, as it prioritizes the intentions
and virtues of the individual rather than adherence to rigid rules or calculations of outcomes.
Additionally, virtue ethics promotes the idea of moral education and community involvement is
shaping virtuous individuals & societies.

THE FOUR MAJOR MORAL VALUES

1. PRUDENCE is the practical wisdom in living life, where it can be acquired through experience
and reflection.
2.TEMPERANCE is the appropriateness in the use of passions or desires. It's the quality of
character that is dependable because one's desires have been disciplined to respond to the
truly good.
3. FORTITUDE is the courage needed to overcome obstacles when one grows.
4. JUSTICE is the fairness and equality in dealing with others.

THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES
 FAITH is the given grace from God.
 HOPE is the advantages not human will towards final union with God.
 LOVE is the experience and expression ofthe strong desire forthose persons or things on
which one takes a particulars joy delight.

Ex. An example of virtue ethics can be seen in the practice of honesty. In this context, a
person who consistently demonstrates the virtue of honesty doesn’tjustfollow a set ofrules
abouttelling the truth; rather,they cultivate a disposition or charactertrait of honesty. This
means they are truthful notjust because it’s the rightthing to do or because they fear
punishment, but because they value honesty as a virtue and strive to embody itin their
actions and interactions with others So, in a situation where telling a lie might seem
convenient or beneficial, someone following virtue ethics would prioritize honesty because it
aligns with their virtuous character.

Virtue ethics revolves around the cultivation of virtuous character traits to guide ethical
decision making. Rather than focusing on rules or consequences, it emphasizes personal virtues
such as honesty, integrity, compassion, and courage. The idea is to shape individuals into
virtuous beings, believing than a good character leads to morally sound actions. This ethical
approach encourages ongoing self-improvement & the pursuit of excellence in one’s moral
character.

These virtues serve as guidelines principles for ethical behavior, and individuals are encouraged
develop and embody these qualities in their daily lives.
1. COURAGE - facing fear and adversity with strength.
2. HONESTY - being truthful and transparentin communication.
3. COMPASSION - showing empathy and kindness towards others.
4. INTEGRITY - acting consistently with one's moral principles.
5. GENEROSITY- being willing to share and help others.
6. HUMILITY - recognizing and accepting one's limitations.
7. JUSTICE - striving forfairness and equity in interactions.

Role of Virtue ethics in business context

➡️Virtue ethics plays a vital role in the world of business, because it determined the
moralBehavior of a person in the organization.
➡️A person with a high degree of Virtues behaves well in the organization and makes ethical
choices for his or her action.

-THANK YOU-