Ethics

Module 1: Basic Concepts

Introduction

This module covers six lessons to be studied independently during the preliminary period (Weeks 1 and 2).
These lessons provide you with the basic knowledge and understanding of some essential fundamental
ethical concepts such as ethics, moral standards, ethical dilemmas, moral responsibility, the minimum
requirements of morality, and the relationship between religion and morality. At the end of the lessons, you
are given assessment tasks to answer.

Learning Objectives

At the end of the module, the students will be able to:

1. define the concept of ethics

2. give reasons why the study of ethics is important to one’s life
3. differentiate moral standards and non-moral standards
4. give examples of moral and non-moral standards
5. define ethical dilemmas
6. share an experience of an ethical dilemma
7. explain the link between free will and moral responsibility
8. discuss the minimum requirements of morality
9. assess the view that morality should be based on religion

Topic Outline

This module is structured as follows:

Lesson 1: What is ethics?

Lesson 2: Moral and non-moral standards
Lesson 3: Ethical dilemmas
Lesson 4: Freedom and responsibility
Lesson 5: Requirements of morality
Lesson 6: Religion and morality
Assessment Tasks

Instructional Materials

Watch these videos to supplement your knowledge and understanding of the lessons.

Closer to Truth (2017, Jun 28). Alfred Mele – free will and moral responsibility [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-enqLRQU6s&ab_channel=CloserToTruth

PHILO-notes (2018, Jun 26). Moral standards vs. non-moral standards [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYcETMuJg8&ab_channel=PHILO-notes
PHILO-notes (2018, Oct 12). What are moral dilemmas? [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOQ7ZqDWN4&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=PHILO-notes

PHILO-notes (2018, Dec 31). What is morality? [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9A4UHYeBcE&ab_channel=PHILO-notes

Wireless Philosophy (2013, June 4). Philosophy – Religion: God and Morality Part 1 and 2 [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmhiibdwznQ&ab_channel=WirelessPhilosophy

Lesson 1: What is ethics?

In this lesson, you are presented with the different definitions of ethics, the main branches of ethics, the
purposes of studying ethics, and the nature of moral evaluation.

What is ethics?

Rachels (2015): Moral philosophy is studying what morality is and what it requires of us. Morality is, at the
very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for
doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action.

Vaughn (2016): Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the philosophical study of morality. Morality refers to beliefs
concerning right and wrong, good and bad—beliefs that can include judgments, values, rules, principles,
and theories. They help guide our actions, define our values, and give us reasons for being the persons we
are. Ethics is concerned with values—precisely, moral values. Through the sifting and weighing of moral
values, we determine the most important things in our lives, what is worth living for and what is worth
dying for. We decide what the greatest good is, what goals we should pursue in life, what virtues we should
cultivate, what duties we should or should not fulfill, what value we should put on human life, and what
pain and perils we should be willing to endure for notions such as the common good, justice, and rights

McKinnon & Fiala (2018): Ethics asks fundamental questions about the good life, about what is better and
worse, about whether there are any objective right and wrong, and how we know it if there is.

Shafer-Landau (2012): Ethics is a branch of knowledge concerned with answering questions like how we
ought to live, what our guiding ideals should be, how we should treat one another, and what sort of life is
worth living.

What are the main branches of ethics?

(1) Metaethics is the study of the meaning and logical structure of moral beliefs. It asks questions like
What do “good” and “ought” mean? What does it mean for an action to be right? Are there moral
truths? How can we justify or rationally defend beliefs about right and wrong? What is the status
of moral claims and advice? Can we gain moral wisdom?

(2) Normative ethics is the study of the principles, rules, or theories that guide our actions and
judgments. The ultimate purpose of normative ethics is to establish the soundness of moral norms,
especially the norms embodied in a comprehensive moral system or theory (Vaughn, 2016). It asks
questions like What are the basic principles of right and wrong? What are things in life ultimately
worthwhile? What would a just society be like? What makes someone a good (virtuous) person?
What are the basic virtues and rights? Is abortion right or wrong? What are our fundamental moral
duties? Do the ends always justify the means? Are there certain types of action that should never
be done under any circumstances? Who should our role models be?
 (3) Practical ethics is the study of applying moral norms to specific moral issues or cases such as
abortion, capital punishment, sexuality, euthanasia, reproductive technology, etc. We study the
results derived from applying a moral principle or theory to specific circumstances in applied ethics.

Why study ethics?

1. The philosophical study of ethics aims to produce good arguments that provide reasonable support
for our opinions about practical topics (McKinnon & Fiala, 2018).
2. The study of ethics can help us decide what is good or bad, better or worse (McKinnon & Fiala,
2018).
3. Ethics helps us to think better about morality (Gensler, 2011).
4. Ethics helps us question the moral beliefs handed to us by our culture (Vaughn, 2016).
5. Ethics gives direction to people and societies who have some sense that they cannot flourish without
being moral (Rae, 2018).

What type of evaluation is a moral judgment?

Unlike empirical or descriptive claims, which state factual beliefs, evaluative or normative judgments state
whether such facts are good or bad, just or unjust, right or wrong. Moral judgments are evaluative because
they “place a value,” negative or positive, on some action or practice, such as capital punishment.

• Descriptive (empirical) judgment: Capital punishment acts (or does not act) as a deterrent.
• Normative (moral) judgment: Capital punishment is justifiable (or unjustifiable).

Ethical statements or judgments are evaluative. They tell us what the speaker believes is good or bad. They
express positive or negative regard for it. In making ethical judgments, we use good, bad, right, wrong,
obligatory, and permissible terms. We talk about what we ought or ought not to do. These are evaluative
terms.
Note, though, that not all evaluations are moral in nature. For example, the judgment “This is a
good knife.” The term good simply means that the knife cuts well.

References

Gensler, H. J. (2011). Ethics: a contemporary introduction (2nd Ed.). Routledge.

MacKinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2018). Ethics: theory and contemporary issues (9th Ed.). Cengage Learning.
Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy (8th Ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Rae, S. B. (2018). Moral choices: an introduction to ethics (4th Ed.). Zondervan.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Lesson 2: Moral vs. Non-moral Standards

In this lesson, you are presented with a definition of moral standards, the characteristics of moral standards,
and the nature of non-moral standards.

What are moral standards?

Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right and
wrong and the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and morally bad.
Examples of moral standards include

Lying is wrong.
Fulfilling one’s promise is the right thing to do.
 Stealing is wrong.

Moral standards normally promote “the good,” that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as
animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of
rights and obligations.

What are non-moral standards?

Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Basic examples of
non-moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules.
We refer to standards of etiquette by which we judge the manners of others as good or bad. We use legal
standards by which we judge something as legal or illegal. We resort to the standards of aesthetics by which
we judge art as good or rubbish. We appeal to fashion standards by which we judge the manner of dressing
as cool or out of style. Non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Observance of these types of
standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to
human well-being.

What are the characteristics of moral standards?

1. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits. Moral standards deal with matters which
can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit human beings. It is not the case with many non-moral
standards.

2. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values. Moral standards have an overriding character of
hegemonic authority. If a moral standard states that a person has the moral obligation to do something,
then he/she is supposed to do that even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards and even with self-
interest. In the example below, the moral rule overrides the traffic rule and self-interest.

Moral rule: Help the victims of vehicular accidents.

Traffic rule: Do not stop in the expressway.
Self-interest: I’m late for my appointment.

3. Moral standards are not established by authority figures. Moral standards are not invented, formed, or
generated by authoritative bodies or persons such as nations’ legislative bodies. The validity of moral
standards lies in the soundness or adequacy of the reasons considered to support and justify them. The
Philippines may pass a law stating that it is not wrong to feed unhealthy babies to wild animals, but the law
doesn’t make the killing of the innocent right.

4. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability. Everyone should live up to moral standards. Moral
principles must apply to all who are in a relevantly similar situation. The moral norm “Treat people with
respect” applies not only to your friends, neighbors, classmates, and teachers but also to ALL people
regardless of race, age, gender, religion, socio-economic status, etc.

5. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. A moral standard does not evaluate standards
based on a certain person or group’s interests, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal
standpoint in which each person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.

Reference

PHILO-Notes (June 8, 2018). Moral versus non-moral standards. Retrieved from

https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/
 Lesson 3: Moral Dilemmas

In this lesson, you are presented with two cases of moral dilemmas, the nature of moral dilemmas and the
types of moral dilemmas.

Baby Theresa Case

Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant, known to the public as “Baby Theresa,” was born
in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders.
Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,” but that is not
quite accurate. Important parts of the brain—the cerebrum and cerebellum—are missing,
as is the skull’s top. However, the brain stem is still there, and so the baby can breathe and
possess a heartbeat. In the United States, most anencephaly cases are detected during
pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually aborted. Of those not aborted, half are stillborn.
Only a few hundred are born alive each year, and they usually die within days.
Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her parents made an unusual
request. Knowing that their baby would die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s
parents volunteered her organs for immediate transplant. They thought that her kidneys,
liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go to other children who could benefit from them. Her
physicians agreed. Thousands of infants need transplants each year, and there are never
enough organs available. But Theresa’s organs were not taken because Florida law forbids
the removal of organs until the donor has died. By the time Baby Theresa died, nine days
later, it was too late—her organs had deteriorated too much to be harvested and
transplanted.

Jodie and Mary Case

In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south of Italy, discovered she was
carrying conjoined twins. Knowing that the health-care facilities on Gozo couldn’t handle
such a birth, she and her husband went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester, England. The
infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at the lower abdomen. Their spines were
fused, and they had one heart and one pair of lungs between them. Jodie, the stronger one,
was providing blood for her sister. The doctors said that without intervention, the girls
would die within six months. The only hope was an operation to separate them. This would
save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately.
The parents, who were devout Catholics, opposed the operation because it would
hasten Mary’s death. “We believe that nature should take its course,” they said. “If it’s God’s
will that both our children should not survive, then so be it.” The hospital, hoping to save
Jodie, petitioned the courts for permission to operate anyway. The courts agreed, and the
operation was performed. As expected, Jodie lived, and Mary died.

What are moral dilemmas?

The cases of Baby Theresa and Jodie, and Mary are called moral or ethical dilemmas. Jurriaan de Haan
(2001) defines moral dilemmas as situations in which the agent morally ought to do A and morally ought
to do B, while she cannot do both A as well as B. In the case of Baby Theresa, the parents had two moral
obligations. First, they ought to help other children in need of organ transplantation. Second, they ought to
preserve the life of their baby. So the parents were in a situation where they were forced to choose between
two conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. If they choose to preserve their baby’s life, the organs
could no longer be transplanted to children who badly needed them as the organs would deteriorate as she
died. If they choose to donate the organs, it would require surgery while Baby Theresa is still alive. The
operation would result in the death of Baby Theresa. Either way, the parents would experience moral
failure.

The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: (a) the moral agent is required to do each of two
(or more) actions, (b) the moral agent can do each of the actions, but the moral agent cannot do both (or
all) of the actions. Thus, the agent seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do
something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do). In a moral dilemma, the agent cannot avoid
doing something wrong. Moral dilemmas involve inescapable wrongdoing.

What are the types of moral dilemmas?

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are categorized into the following:
1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas, 3) obligation
dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and 4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

Epistemic vs. ontological dilemmas

Epistemic, moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each
other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral requirements takes precedence
over the other. In other words, the moral agent here does not know which option is morally right or wrong.
For instance, I ought to honor my promise to my son to be home early, but I saw a sick old man who needs
to be brought to the hospital on my way home. Where does my actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there
are conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want a fuller knowledge of
the situation: Is a crucial purpose being served by my getting home early? How serious is the condition of
the sick older adult?

Ontological moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict, yet
neither of these conflicting moral requirements override each other. Neither of the moral requirements is
stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral
requirements. For instance, a military doctor is attending to the wounded soldiers’ needs in the middle of
the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a blood transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is
available at the moment. To whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion?

Self-imposed vs. world-imposed dilemmas

Self-imposed moral dilemmas are choice situations that arise because of the agent’s wrongdoing. For
example, David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the campaign period, he promised
the indigenous peoples in his community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the
same time, he seeks financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the elections, yet
he is faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promise to the indigenous peoples and allowing the mining
corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through his actions, David created a situation in which he can’t
be discharged from both obligations.

A world-imposed moral dilemma is choice situations that do not arise because of the agent’s wrongdoing.
The moral conflict experienced by Baby Theresa’s parents was an example of a world-imposed moral
dilemma. They were placed in a moral dilemma by a set of circumstances they did not create.

Obligation vs. prohibition dilemmas

Obligation dilemmas are choice situations in which more than one action is obligatory. The mother of Jodie
and Mary faced these moral obligations:

(a) The moral obligation not to sacrifice Mary so that Jodie can live normally.
(b) The moral obligation to save Jodie, who has a better chance of living a normal life.
(c) The moral obligation to save both Jodie and Mary, which was physically impossible.
Prohibition dilemmas are choice situations in which no feasible actions are permissible. For example, a
killer psychopath held hostage your family. He ordered you to rape your daughter, or he will kill the entire
family. Two moral standards prohibit you from following the psychopath’s order. One is “Committing rape
is wrong.” The other is “Allowing the psychopath to kill your entire family is wrong.” In other words, none
of the options are morally permissible.

Single-agent vs. multi-agent dilemmas

Single-agent dilemmas are choice situations in which a single agent ought to do A and ought to do B but
cannot do both A and B. This is the case of Jodie and Mary’s mother because she alone has to make the
moral choice.

A multi-agent dilemma is a choice in which agent one ought to do A and agent two ought to do B, but not
possible for agent 1 to do A and agent 2 to do B. For example, in the case of Baby Theresa, the father felt the
obligation to donate the organs of her child to other children in need of organ transplants, while the mother
felt the obligation to preserve the life of Baby Theresa until her natural death sets in. The two moral agents
cannot fulfill both moral obligations.

References

Lemmon, E. J. (1962). Moral dilemmas. The philosophical review, 71(2), 139-158.

McConelle, T. (2018). Moral dilemmas. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-
dilemmas/
Philo-Notes (June 10, 2018). Moral dilemmas. Retrieved from
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/

Lesson 4: Foundation of morality: Freedom and Responsibility

In this lesson, you are presented with a definition of free will and moral responsibility and the link between
the two concepts.

What is free will?

Morality presupposes freedom or free will. The concept of free will implies a “significant kind of control
over one’s actions.” Free will has traditionally been conceived of as a kind of power to control one’s choices
and actions. When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up
to her (O’Connor & Franklin, 2020). But up to her in what sense?

(a) up to her in the sense that she can choose otherwise, or at the minimum that she is able not to
choose or act as she does

(b) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action.

What is moral responsibility?

When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a
particular kind of response is warranted. Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise,
blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission performed or neglected following one’s moral
obligations (Talbert, 2019). To be morally responsible for something, say an action, is worthy of a particular
kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it. Blame is a response
that may follow on the judgment that a person is morally responsible for wrong or bad behavior. Praise is a
response that may follow on the judgment that a person is morally responsible for right or good behavior.
Moral responsibility applies only to moral agents (normal adults). Moral agents can reflect upon their
situation, form intentions about how they will act, and carry out that action. Non-human animals, very
young children, and those suffering from severe developmental disabilities or dementia generally lack these
powers and capacities.

How is free will related to moral responsibility?

Unless one’s actions are free, it appears that they are not subject to moral appraisal. Free will is required
for moral responsibility. When a dog bites a child, we don’t assign moral blame since the animal did not act
out of a free will. Dogs do not possess free will. They cannot be held morally responsible for their behavior
even if such behaviors cause harm to people. This is also the case for mentally deranged persons and very
young children. The core connection between free will and moral responsibility is that moral agents deserve
praise or blame only if their actions are up to them—only if they have free will.

References

O’Connor, T. & Franklin, C. (2020). Free will. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/freewill/

Talbert, M. (2019). Moral responsibility. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/moral-responsibility/

Lesson 5: Requirements for morality

In this lesson, you are presented with the four requirements for morality.

1. The preeminence of reason. Doing ethics typically involves grappling with our feelings, taking into
account the facts of the situation (including our observations and relevant knowledge), and understanding
the ideas that bear on the case. But above all, it involves, even requires, critical reasoning—the consideration
of reasons for whatever statements (moral or otherwise) are in question. Our commonsense moral
experience suggests that if a moral judgment is to be worthy of acceptance, it must be supported by good
reasons, and our deliberations on the issue must include a consideration of those reasons. The morally right
thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments (Rachels, 2015).

2. The principle of impartiality. From a moral point of view, all persons are considered equal and should be
treated accordingly. This sense of impartiality is implied in all moral statements. It means that each
individual’s welfare and interests should be given the same weight as the welfare and interests of all others
(Rachels, 2015). By contrast, to be partial is to show favoritism. Impartiality also requires that we not treat
the members of particular groups as inferior. Thus it condemns forms of discrimination like sexism and
racism.

3. The universal perspective. Logic requires that moral norms and judgments follow the principle of
universalizability—the idea that a moral statement (a principle, rule, or judgment) that applies in one
situation must apply in all other situations that are relevantly similar. It cannot be the case that A’s action
is wrong while the same action performed by B in relevantly similar circumstances is right. It cannot be the
case that the moral judgments formed in these two situations must differ just because two different people
are involved.

4 The dominance of moral norms. Whenever moral principles or values conflict in some way with non-
moral principles or values (legal norms, aesthetic norms, and prudential norms), the moral considerations
usually override the others.
References

MacKinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2018). Ethics: theory and contemporary issues (9th Ed.). Cengage Learning.
Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy (8th Ed.). McGraw Hill Education.

Lesson 6: Religion and morality

Many people believe that morality and religion are inseparable—that religion is the source or basis of
morality and that moral precepts are simply what God says should be done. For religious believers, the
moral law is the will of God, and the will of God is the moral law. For many, God determines what is right
and wrong, so there is no need to apply critical reasoning to morality—you just need to know what God says.
Some religions recognize and revere saints or holy people who provide models for us and exemplify virtues
we should emulate.
A key element of many religious moralities is the view that certain things are good for us because
this is what God wants. This conception is often referred to as the divine command theory. Divine Command
Theory believes that morality is somehow dependent upon God and that moral obligation consists in
obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately
based on God’s commands or character and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or
requires.
There are two reasons why some people defend the divine command ethics. The first concern is that
without God as a source for morality, there would be no eternal, absolute, or objective basis for morality.
The second concern is that without a divine judge who gives out punishments and rewards in the afterlife,
there would be no ethical motivation.
This view implies that atheists have no reason to be moral or concerned with doing the morally
right thing. However, this is not necessarily so. For example, a religious person may be inclined to disregard
the moral stakes of what occurs in this life if he or she thinks of it as fleeting and less important than the
afterlife. And an atheist who believes that this life is all there is may take this life more seriously and care
more about living morally. Furthermore, religious and nonreligious people live together in contemporary
society and have pressing practical reasons to think clearly and reason well about morality.
There are three reasons why we should develop our moral reasoning skills rather than just rely on
religion as the foundation of morality.

(a) we should evaluate critically our own or other views of what is thought to be good and bad or
just and unjust, including religious views.

(b) believers of various denominations and nonbelievers ought to be able to discuss moral matters
together.

(c) the fact that many of us live in organized secular communities, cities, states, and countries
requires that we develop and rely on widely shared reason-based views on issues of justice, fairness,
and moral ideals.

References

MacKinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2018). Ethics: theory and contemporary issues (9th Ed.). Cengage Learning.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Vaughn, L. (2016). Doing ethics: moral reasoning and contemporary issues (4th Ed.). W. W. Norton &
Company.