FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND OUR

MORAL DISPOSITION

VIRTUE ETHICS; ARISTOTLE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES; At the end of the term the students will be able
to
a.Understand the principle of virtue ethics from
Aristotle
b.To understand the nature of virtues

I. INTRODUCTION

Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, who made

important contributions to logic, criticism, rhetoric, physics, biology,
psychology, mathematics, metaphysics, ethics, and politics.
He was a student of Plato for twenty years but is famous for rejecting Plato's
theory of forms.

Aristotle, Greek Aristoteles, (born 384 be, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece—died

322, Chalcis, Euboea), ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, one of the
greatest intellectual figures of Western history.

Aristotle's ethics is a common sense ethics built on naturalism and self-

realization. Of all the classical theories considered here, his is the farthest
from an ethics of self-interest.

With respect to the good, right, happiness, the good is not a disposition.
The good involves a teleological system that involves actions.

A. Good is that which all things aim. Something is good if it performs its
proper function. E.g., a good coffee cup or a good red oak.

1. A right action is that which is conducive to the good, and different

goods correspond to the differing sciences and arts.
 2. "The god" or best good is that which is desired for its own sake and
for the sake which we desire all other ends or goods. For human
beings, eudemonia is activity of the soul in accordance with arete
(excellence, virtue, or what it's good for). Eudemonia is living well
and doing well in the affairs of the world.

B. The good of human beings cannot be answered with the exactitude of a

mathematical problem since mathematics starts with general principles and
argues to conclusions.

1. Ethics starts with actual moral judgments before the formulation of

general principles.

2. Aristotle presupposes natural tendencies in people.

C. Aristotle distinguishes between happiness (eudemonia) and moral virtue:

1. Moral virtue is not the end of life for it can go with inactivity,
misery, and unhappiness.

2. Happiness, the end of life, that to which all aims, is activity in

accordance with reason (reason is the arete or peculiar excellence of
persons).

a. Happiness is an activity involving both moral and intellectual

arete.

b. Some external goods are necessary in order to exercise that

activity.

II. The Good Character.

A. People have a natural capacity for good character, and it is developed

through practice. The capacity does not come first--it's developed through
practice.

1. The sequence of human behavior raises the question of which is

preeminent--acts or dispositions. Their interaction is broken by
Aristotle's distinction between acts, which create good dispositions,
and acts which flow from the good disposition once it has been
created.
 2. Arete is a disposition developed out of a capacity by the proper
exercise of that capacity.

3. Habits are developed through acting; a person's character is the

structure of habits and is formed by what we do.

B. Virtue, arete, or excellence is defined as a mean between two extremes of

excess and defect in regard to a feeling or action as the practically wise person
would determine it. The mean cannot be calculated a priority

1. The mean is relative to the individual and circumstances. For

example, consider the following trait

2. The level of courage necessary is different for a philosophy teacher,

a commando, and a systems programmer.

3. Phronesis or practical wisdom is the ability to see the right thing to do in

the circumstances. Notice, especially, Aristotle's theory does not imply ethical
relativism because there are appropriate standards.

4. In the ontological dimension, virtue is a mean; in the axiological

dimension, it is an extreme or excellence. Martin Luther King, Jr. relates his
struggle to understand this difference in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
when he wrote, "You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme… But
though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I
continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of
satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love… Was not
Amos an extremist for justice… Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian
gospel… Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of
creative extremists.''

5.Some presumptively virtuous behaviors can be an extreme as when, for

example, the medieval philosopher Peter Abélard explains, “No long time
thereafter I was smitten with a grievous illness,.In the ontological dimension,
virtue is a mean; in the axiological dimension, it is an extreme or excellence

6. Pleasure and pain are powerful determinants of our actions ought upon
me by my immoderate zeal
 ..

7. Pleasure and pain are powerful determinants of our actions

Pleasure is the natural accompaniment of unimpeded activity. Pleasure,

as such, is neither good nor bad.

A. Even so, pleasure is something positive and its effect is to perfect

the exercise of activity. Everything from playing chess to making love
is improved with skill.

B. Pleasure cannot be directly sought--it is the side-product of activity.

It is only an element of happiness.

C. The good person, the one who has attained eudemonia, is the
standard as to what is truly pleasant or unpleasant.

IV. Friendship: a person's relationship to a friend is the same as the

relation to oneself. The friend can be thought of as a second self.

A. In friendship a person loves himself (egoism) not as one seeks

money for himself, but as he gives his money away to receive
honor.
 B. The kinds of friendship:

1. Utility

2. Pleasure

3. The Good--endures as long as both retain their

character.

V. The Contemplative Faculty--the exercise of perfect happiness in

intellectual or philosophic activity.

A. Reason is the highest faculty of human beings. We can engage in it

longer than other activities.

B. Philosophy is loved as an end-in-itself, and so eudemonia implies leisure

and self-sufficiency as an environment for contemplation.

Aristotle on Pleasure

Abstract: Aristotle's ethics is reviewed and his distinction between

pleasure and happiness is explained.

A summary of Aristotle's ethics clarifies several important distinction

between happiness and pleasure.

Eudemonia : the state of personal well being, having self-worth; exhibiting

a zest for life; radiating energy; achieving happiness, "good spirit," or self
presence.

Hence, happiness is activity of the soul in accordance with arete (excellence

or virtue).

I.e. Living well and doing well in the affairs of the world.

Picture yourself at your best. Compare Maslow's self-actualizing

person or Jung's individuation of a person with Aristotle's description
of eudemonia..
 11. Good is that to which all thing aim; i.e., the good is that which
performs its function.

A .What constitutes a good wrench or a good coffee cup? The peculiar

arete of excellence is established by its purpose. The peculiar
excellence is teleological.

B What constitutes a good person?"

Activity of the soul in accordance with reason (that capacity which is unique
to us as persons).

This activity is both moral (doing the right thing at the right time) and
intellectual arete (phronesis).

Aristotle notes that some external goods are necessary for the exercise of
that activity.

1V.Moral Virtue is not the end of life, for it can go with inactivity, misery,
and unhappiness.

V. What is good for a person cannot be answered with the exactitude of

mathematics.

A. Ethics attempts to formulate general principles whose application is

dependent upon the circumstances at hand (i.e., initial conditions).
(Note that Aristotle's theory does not imply ethical relativism!)

B. The doctrine of the mean is not a doctrine of relativism but doctrine

applied to specific circumstances. E.g., what and how much one eats
differs for a weight-lifter and a ballerina--even so, proper diet has
guidelines and standards which apply differently according to different
initial conditions.

V1.Pleasure, itself, is a side-product of activity; pleasure results from

activity without hindrance.

As Aristotle expresses it, pleasure is the natural accompaniment of

unimpeded activity.
 Pleasure, as such, is neither good nor bad, but is something positive
because the effect of pleasure perfects the exercise of that activity.

Even so, Aristotle emphasizes that pleasure is not to be sought for its
own sake. (Cf., the hedonistic paradox.)

V11. It is Aristotle's reasoning, as we shall see, which breaks down

Hedonism, simpliciter, for otherwise the happiness or pleasure induced by a
drugged state or the happiness of insanity would be an intrinsic good.

Ethics Epicurus “Epicureanism”

1.Epicurus of Samos (341-270 B. C.) founded his school, the Garden, in

Athens--instructed his followers in the art of rational living.

Main belief: pleasure is the end (telos) of life: by pleasure, he meant

the lack of pain.

Pleasure is the freedom of the body from pain and the soul from
confusion--not a positive condition.

Taught a moderate asceticism, self-control, and independence. One

should not undertake heavy responsibilities and serious involvement.

Pleasures, which endure throughout a lifetime, are sought, not

momentary pleasures. Epicurus praised a life that escapes other
people’s notice

Pleasure is the absence of pain or the avoidance of pain, rather than

a positive satisfaction. More important, pleasure is the lack of a
troubled soul.

Examples: intellectual pleasure, serenity of soul, health of body.

Even though every pain is evil and pleasure good, Epicurean hedonism
is meant to result in a calm and tranquil life, not libertinism and
excess.

Avoid pleasures which are extreme: they have painful concomitants.

 Lasting pleasure is not a bodily sensation.

"Though he is being tortured on the rack, the wise [person] is still

happy."

11. Epicurus sought virtue--a condition of tranquility of soul. Although it is

based on the individual’s pleasure (rather than duty).

Epicuruss put great stress on friendship because one’s own pleasure

is dependent on others also.

Peace of mind and mental well-being is achieved through philosophy--

death is recognized to be merely the limit of experience and therefore
having nothing to do with the quality of experience. It is not to be
feared since it is nothingness

111. Reason: the art of calculating our conduct of life.

Reason is the ability to balance one thing with another in order to

calculate future happiness.

Great stress on practical reason (prognosis): something more to

be prized than philosophy itself.

Prudence: a person who knows how to conduct himself in the search

for pleasure.

Natural Science: All things is the world are atoms linked temporarily
in constant motion. Science can overcome superstition and irrational
fear.

Graded Essay ;
1. Discuss the concept of Aristotle regarding ethics?
2. What are the main points of Aristotle ethics ?
3. What is Aristotle’s approach to ethics?
Teaching Learning Activity ;

Think pair Shair Activity : Get a partner form your online classmates and
discuss the Aristotles ethical theories about The highest good and the end
toward which all human activity is directed is happiness, which can be
defined as continuous contemplation of eternal and universal truth and one
can attains happiness by a virtuous life and the development of reason and
the faculty of theoretical wisdom. Discuss this theory with your partner and
write down what transpired in your conversation as the output of your
discussion. Encode in in a bond paper, 300 at least words and not more
than 500 words

FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND OUR MORAL

DISPOSITION
Saint Thomas Aquinas

Virtue Ethics :
Learning Objectives: At the end of the module the students will be able
to :

a. identify the problem Aquinas solved and analyze his

solution
b. determine the ethical principle of saint Thomas
Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest of the Scholastic philosophers. He

produced a comprehensive synthesis of Christian theology and Aristotelian
philosophy that influenced Roman Catholic doctrine for centuries and was
adopted as the official philosophy of the church.

For Aquinas, the body is not the prison of the soul, but a means for its
expression. Aquinas's ethical theory involves both principles – rules about how
to act – and virtues – personality traits which are taken to be good or moral
to have. The relative importance of the two aspects is debated

One of Aquinas' contributions in Ethics is to mention, as much as

possible, all of the things that matter in ethical evaluation of actions. He holds
that the goodness or badness of an action lies in the interior act of will, in the
external bodily act, in the very nature of the act, and even in its consequences

St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest of the Scholastic philosophers. He

produced a comprehensive synthesis of Christian theology and Aristotelian
philosophy that influenced Roman Catholic doctrine for centuries and was
adopted as the official philosophy of the church in 1917.

IS CALLED THE ANGELIC DOCTOR and the Prince of

Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is an Italian
philosopher and theologian who ranks among the most important
thinkers of the medieval time period.

In Ethics, Aquinas depends so

heavily on Aristotle. Like the Greek
philosopher, Aquinas believes that all
actions are directed towards ends and
that happiness is the final end .Aquinas
also thinks that happiness is not equated
with pleasure, material possessions,
honor, or any sensual good, but consists in activities in accordance with virtue.
A person needs a moral character cultivated through the habits of choice to
realize real happiness. But like Augustine, Aquinas declares that this ultimate
happiness is not attainable in this life, for happiness in the present life
remains imperfect. True happiness ,then, is to be found only in the souls
of the blessed in heaven or in beatitude with God.

Types of Laws

Central also in Aquinas ethics is his typology of laws. By the term ‘law’,
he means an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by
someone who has care of the community. Aquinas’ laws should also be
understood in terms of “rules and measures” for people’s conduct and as
“rational patterns or forms”. Obedience to the law is thus viewed also as
participating in or being in conformity with the pattern or form. For Aquinas,
there are four primary types of law—the eternal, natural, human, and divine.
 The eternal law refers to the rational plan of God by which all creation
is ordered. As God is the supreme ruler of everything, the rational pattern or
form of the universe that exists in His mind is the law that directs everything
in the universe to its appointed end. To this eternal law, everything in the
universe is subject.

The natural law is that aspect of the eternal law which is accessible to
human reason. Because mankind is part of the eternal order, there is a portion
of the eternal law that relates specifically to human conduct. This is the moral
law, the law or order to which people are subject by their nature ordering
them to do good and avoid evil.

The human law refers to the positive laws. For natural law to be
adhered to, more exact and forceful provisions of human law are helpful.
Because the natural law is too broad to provide particular guidance, the human
law’s precise, positive rules of behavior are supposed to spell out what the
natural law prescribes. Moral virtues are also reinforced by and cultivated
through these human laws. This human law includes the civil and criminal
laws, though only those formulated in the light of practical reason and moral
laws. Human laws that are against natural law are not real laws, and people
are not obliged to obey those unjust laws

The divine law serves to complement the other types of law. Itis a law
of revelation, disclosed through sacred text or Scriptures and the Church
which is also directed toward man’s eternal end. Though concerned also with
external aspects of conduct, the divine law is more focused on how man can
be inwardly holy and eventually attain salvation.

The Natural Law and Ethics

Obviously, the type of law that is primarily significant in Ethics is the
natural law. Part of this natural law is our in herentnatural tendency to pursue
the behavior and goals appropriate to us.

According to Aquinas, this natural law is knowable by natural reason.

For instance, our practical reason naturally comprehends that good is to be
promoted and evil is to be avoided. By virtue of a faculty of moral insight or
conscience that Thomas called synderesis, we also have natural inclinations
to some specific goods. Aquinas enumerates three sets of these inclinations:
to survive, to reproduce
and educate offspring, and to know the truth about God and to live in
society. These prescriptions to have families, love God and our neighbors, and
pursue knowledge are but rationally obvious precepts and simply stand to
reason
Features of Human Actions
Aquinas evaluates human actions on the basis not only of their
conformity to the natural law but also of their specific features. He mentions
at least three aspects through which the morality of an act can be
determined—in terms of its species, accidents, and end.

The species of an action refers to its kind. It is also called the object of the
action. Human deeds may be divided into kinds, some of which are good (e.g.
improving one’s own property), some bad (e.g. theft), and some indifferent
or neutral (e.g. walking in the park). Aquinas holds that for an action to
be moral, it must be good or at least not bad in species

The accidents simply refer to the circumstances surrounding the action.

In ethically evaluating an action, the context in which the action takes place
is also considered because an act might be flawed through its circumstances.
For instance, while Christians are bound to profess one’s belief in God, there
are certain situations in which it is inopportune and inappropriate or even
offensive and distasteful to do so.

The end stands for the agent’s intention. An act might be unjust
through its intention. To intend to direct oneself against a good is clearly
immoral. Aquinas gives murder, lying, and blasphemy as instantiations of this
ill will. Correspondingly, a bad intention can spoil a good act, like giving of
alms out of vainglory. Nonetheless, an intention, no matter how good it may
be, cannot redeem a bad act. For Aquinas, theft is intrinsically bad. Hence,
stealing to give to the poor, as in the case of Robin Hood, is an unjust act. In
this view, converting to a particular religion, say Christianity, merely for
material gains is an unjust act

The Virtues
Aquinas agrees with Aristotle that the particulars of the situation have
to be considered in determining what course of action should be done. To act
well in each situation, one however will always need the so-called virtues.
These virtues serve as personal guidelines equipping us to achieve practical
ends.

Aquinas defines virtue as “a good habit bearing on activity,” or a

good faculty-habit. Habits are firm dispositions or “hard to eradicate”
qualities that dispose us to act in a particular manner. Notice that not all
habits are virtue, but only those that incline us towards our good or end

ANALYSIS
 One of Aquinas’ contributions in Ethics is to mention, as much as
possible, all of the things that matter in ethical evaluation of actions. He
holds that the goodness or badness of an action lies in the interior act of will,
in the external bodily act, in the very nature of the act, and even in its
consequences. Moreover, he avers that what matters in morality is not only
what one actually does but also his intention in doing the act.

Because of his notion of the natural law, we can say that Aquinas is
definitely against some contemporary moral philosophies. Sure enough, the
doctrine is incompatible with nihilism or the view that denies the existence of
values. It is also irreconcilable with relativism and conventionalism which
state that values are completely relative to one’s culture or determined
completely by mere convention. Because Aquinas believes that some basic
principles about morality are in fact knowable by all, he is thus against
absolute skepticism about value.

GRADED ESSAY

1. What is Aquinas ethical theory?

2. Who is St Thomas Aquinas and what is his contribution in ethics?
3. How did Thomas Aquinas prove the existence of God?
4. What is Thomistic ethics?
5. Give a summary of what you learned and understand in this specific
module?

References:

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/
2. https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/
3. https://prezi.com/1bylomwnecre/the-human-acts-and-acts-of-man/

KANT AND RIGHT THEORIES

human rights within politics in such a way that it “is only a legitimate
government that guarantees our natural right to freedom, and from this
freedom we derive other right

Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according

to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not
depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.
Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred
to it as The Categorical Imperative

Kant's theory of rights is informed by both sets of considerations.

Contrary to the received view, Kant develops a socially sensitive account of
the self in his later writings, and comes to believe that individual autonomy
depends in large measure on the realization of certain propitious sociocultural
and political arrangements. For Kant, natural rights, like individual freedom,
are not ahistorical, universal standards of political justice but the historical
outcome of the long process of enlightenment. As such, what is right will
depend on what is timely. Here Kant is much closer to Fichte and Hegel than
is generally acknowledged.

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory developed by

German philosopher Immanuel Kant that is based on the notion that: "It is
impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it,
that could be considered good without limitation except a good will." The
theory was developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, stating that
an action can only be good if its maxim—the principle behind it—is duty to the
moral law, and arises from a sense of duty in the actor.
 Those influenced by Kantian ethics include social philosopher Jürgen
Habermas, political philosopher John Rawls, and psychoanalyst Jacques
Lacan. German philosopher
G. W. F. Hegel criticised Kant for not providing specific enough detail
in his moral theory to affect decision-making and for denying human nature.
The Catholic Church has criticised Kant's ethics as contradictory, and regards
Christian ethics as more compatible with virtue ethics. German philosopher
Arthur Schopenhauer, arguing that ethics should attempt to describe how
people behave, criticized Kant for being prescriptive.
Marcia Baron has defended the theory by arguing that duty does not
diminish other motivations.

The claim that all humans are due dignity and respect as autonomous
agents necessitates that medical professionals should be happy for their
treatments to be performed on anyone, and that patients must never be
treated merely as useful for society.

Kant's approach to sexual ethics emerged from his view that humans
should never be used merely as a means to an end, leading him to regard
sexual activity as degrading, and to condemn certain specific sexual
practices—for example, extramarital sex.

Accordingly, feminist philosophers have used Kantian ethics to condemn

practices such as prostitution and pornography, which treat women as
means. Kant also believed that, because animals do not possess rationality ,
we cannot have duties to them except indirect duties not to develop immoral
dispositions through cruelty towards them.

Graded essay: Answer in less than 200 words

1. What is the role of emotion in Kantian Ethics?
2. What was Kant's moral theory?
3. What does Kant say about reason?
4. Why should humans be moral?
5. What is the highest good According to Kant?
6. What is the contribution of Immanuel Kant to Education ?
 Frameworks and Principles behind Moral Disposition

Utilitarianism

Learning Objectives; at the end of the module the students will be able to:
a. Understand the concept of utilitarianism
b. Identify the principle of greatest happiness

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing

on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism holds that the
most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the
greatest number

It is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other
forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally
right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of
actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce.

Utilitarianism is a theory of morality, which advocates actions that foster

happiness or pleasure and opposes actions that cause unhappiness or harm.
... Utilitarianism would say that an action is right if it results in the happiness
of the greatest number of people in a society or a group.

Utilitarianism with an example that shows how utilitarian’s answer the

following question, “Can the ends justify the means?
”For example Imagine Peter is an unemployed poor man Cebu , Although
he has no money, his family still depends on him; his unemployed wife
(Sandra) is sick and needs 5000 for treatment and their little children (Ann
and Sam) have been thrown out of school because they could not pay tuition
fees (500 for both of them). Peter has no source of income and he cannot get
a loan; even John (his friend and a millionaire) has refused to help him. From
his perspective, there are only two alternatives: either he pays by stealing or
he does not. So, he steals 1000 from John in order to pay for Sandra’s
treatment and to pay the tuition fees of Ann and Sam. One could say that
stealing is morally wrong. Therefore, we will say that what Peter has done—
stealing from John—is morally wrong.

Utilitarianism, however, will say what Peter has done is morally right. For
utilitarian’s, stealing in itself is neither bad nor good; what makes it bad or
good is the consequences it produces. In our example, Peter stole from one
person who has less need for the money, and spent the money on three people
who have more need for the money. Therefore, for utilitarian’s, Peter’s
stealing from John

(the “means”) can be justified by the fact that the money was used for the
treatment of Sandra and the tuition fees of Ann and Sam (the “end”). This
justification is based on the calculation that the benefits of the theft outweigh
the losses caused by the theft. Peter’s act of stealing is morally right because
it produced more good than bad. In other words, the action produced more
pleasure or happiness than pain or unhappiness, that is, it increased net
utility.

This module explains why utilitarianism reaches such a conclusion as

described above, and then examine the strengths and weaknesses of
utilitarianism. The discussion is divided into three parts: the first part
explains what utilitarianism is, the second discusses some varieties (or types)
of utilitarianism, and the third explores whether utilitarianism is persuasive
and reasonable.

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism For consequentialism, the moral

rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences it produces.
On consequentialist grounds, actions and inactions whose negative
consequences outweigh the positive consequences will be deemed morally
wrong while actions and inactions whose positive consequences outweigh the
negative consequences will be deemed morally right. On utilitarian grounds,
actions and inactions which benefit few people and harm more people will be
deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions which harm fewer people
and benefit more people will be deemed morally right .
Benefit and harm can be characterized in more than one way; for classical
utilitarian’s such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, they are defined in
terms of happiness/unhappiness and pleasure/pain.

On this view, actions and inactions that cause less pain or unhappiness and
more pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and inactions
will be deemed morally right, while actions and inactions that cause more pain
or unhappiness and less pleasure or happiness than available alternative
actions and inactions will be deemed morally wrong. Although pleasure and
happiness can have different meanings, in the context of this chapter they will
be treated as synonymous.

Utilitarian’s concern is how to increase net utility. Their moral theory is based
on the principle of utility which states that “the morally right action is the
action that produces the most good. The morally wrong action is the one that
leads to the reduction of the maximum good. For instance, a utilitarian may
argue that although some armed robbers robbed a bank in a heist, as long as
there are more people who benefit from the robbery (say, in a Robin Hood-
like manner the robbers generously shared the money with many

people) than there are people who suffer from the robbery (say, only the
billionaire who owns the bank will bear the cost of the loss), the heist will
be morally right rather than morally wrong. And on this utilitarian premise,
if more people suffer from the heist while fewer people benefit from it, the
heist will be morally wrong.

Hence rule utilitarian’s claim to be able to reinterpret talk of rights, justice,

and fair treatment in terms of the principle of utility by claiming that the
rationale behind any such rules is really that these rules generally lead to
greater welfare for all concerned. We may wonder whether utilitarianism in
general is capable of even addressing the notion that people have rights and
deserve to be treated justly and fairly, because in critical situations the rights
and well-being of persons can be sacrificed as long as this seems to lead to
an increase overall utility.

For example, in a version of the famous “trolley problem,” imagine that you
and an overweight stranger are standing next to each other on a footbridge
above a rail track. You discover that there is a runaway trolley rolling down
the track and the trolley is about to kill five people who cannot get off of the
track quickly enough to avoid the accident. Being willing to sacrifice yourself
to save the five persons, you consider

Jumping off the bridge, in front of the trolley…but you realize that you are far
too light to stop the trolley….The only way you can stop the trolley killing five
people is by pushing this large stranger off the footbridge, in front of the
trolley. If you push the stranger off, he will be killed, but you will save the
other five.

Utilitarianism, especially act utilitarianism, seems to suggest that the life of

the overweight stranger should be sacrificed regardless of any purported right
to life he may have.

A rule utilitarian, however, may respond that since in general killing

innocent people to save others is not what typically leads to the best
outcomes, we should be very wary of making a decision to do so in this case.

This is especially true in this scenario since everything rests on our calculation
of what might possibly stop the trolley, while in fact there is really far too
much uncertainty in the outcome to warrant such a serious decision. If nothing
else, the emphasis placed on general principles by rule utilitarian’s can serve
as a warning not to take too lightly the notion that the ends might justify the
means.

Whether or not this response is adequate is something that has been

extensively debated with reference to this famous example as well as
countless variations. This brings us to our final question here about
utilitarianism—whether it is ultimately a persuasive and reasonable approach
to morality.

Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian ethics is a normative ethical system that is primarily concerned with

the consequences of ethical decisions; therefore it can be described as a
teleological theory or consequentialist theory, which are essentially the same
thing, both having a notion that the consequence of the act is the most
important determinant of the act being moral or not. Teleological reasoning
takes into consideration that the ethical decision is dependent upon the
consequences (“ends”) of the actions. In teleological reasoning, a person will
do the right thing if the consequences of his or her actions are good.
Additionally, if an action by a person was an act that was “not good,” but the
consequences turned out to be “good,” under some theories of teleological
reasoning, the act may be deemed a good

ethical act. This is also referred to as “consequentialist moral reasoning,”

where we locate morality in the consequences of our actions. Because of the
consequentialist nature of utilitarianism, the means to get to the ethical
decision (“end”) are secondary; the end result is that which must be
considered before determining the morality of the decision.

John Stuart Mill reconsidered the principles of utilitarianism and suggested

that pleasure should not merely refer to sensual pleasure but also to mental
pleasure, such as music, literature, and friendship. Mill sought to make
intellectual pleasures preferable to sensual ones.

Hinman (2013) suggests there are four principle differences between

pleasure and happiness:

Happiness is related to the mind, whereas pleasure is related to the body

(for example sexual pleasure, eating, drinking)

Pleasure is of shorter duration than happiness. Happiness is long-term,

focusing on the satisfaction of living well, or achieving life goals.

Happiness may encompass pleasure and pain.

There is an evaluative element in happiness versus pleasure.

There are two formulations of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule

utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism concerns the consequences of the first instance, where
the utility of that act is all that is regarded.

The second formulation of utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, concerns the

consequences of the majority of people following a certain rule that is immoral,
which would be negative. With rule utilitarianism, to determine the ethics of
an act, the questions to ask are “What would happen if there was a universal
rule that condones this action?” and “Would such a rule promote the
consequences that would best serve a moral society?” Rule utilitarianism
operates as a check and balance for utilitarian principles, assuring that
decisions that may be utilitarian in principle

The Problems with Utilitarianism

1. Measuring happiness is difficult. Happiness is subjective and as a
result is open to interpretation. Is happiness in winning a million dollars
more significant than the happiness a person experiences when told by
a doctor that he has a clean bill of health? Likewise, does the value of
happiness increase with time, or with importance? If someone won a
million dollars, would this be measured as “the most possible happy,”
as the million dollars will hopefully last for a long time? Conversely, a
person received a clean bill of health after a routine checkup can be
regarded as news that is more important; however this person is likely
to forget this good news within days. So when we look at the happiness
that is caused by these two events, we need to ask ourselves, “what
makes us the most happy?”

2. Utilitarian ethics is concerned about the consequences of our actions,

regardless of the action itself. However, it can be difficult to know what
the consequences of our actions will be because of the variables that
we do not control. For example, a police officer may believe that writing
tickets at an intersection will create a safe intersection environment for
everyone. However, it is difficult to determine for sure that this will be
the outcome. Unintended consequences may instead occur. Suppose,
for example, that while the officer is writing a ticket at the intersection,
a fatal accident occurs due to the officer disrupting the traffic.

3. For Instance, the unintended consequences could not have been

predicted, especially if the officer acted in a safe manner while writing
the ticket. The unintended consequences may be viewed as immoral
by utilitarian standards because of the result. People who maintain this
logic are referred to as Actual Consequentialists because actual
consequences are what determine if the act was right or wrong.

4. Desired ethical consequences that actually result from our actions do

not always happen immediately. If the desired consequences of our
actions do not occur immediately, how long must we wait for those good
consequences to develop before we can say the action was ethical?
Likewise, how long are we to wait to deem the consequences as positive
or negative? For example, in a correctional institute, a warden who
 believes that weapons are being made in an inmate job program may
cancel the program. The warden may decide to cancel the program due
to the inability of staff to ensure that the making of weapons does not
occur.

5. Happiness should not be the only consequence or goal that matters in some
ethical dilemmas. Some goals of the ethical decision, such as human rights, may
matter more than the consequences of the action. For example, consider a
detective who is investigating a series of sexual assaults has located evidence
which is not admissible in court but clearly demonstrates that a suspect is guilty
of the crimes

Graded essay : 10 points each

1. What is the main point of utilitarianism?
2. what are the 3 principles of utilitarianism?
3. What are the advantages of utilitarianism?
4. What is your own ideas of the concept and theory of utilitarianism?
5. Do you agree with the principle in utilitariniamis and if dont agree explain.

True or False Quiz.

Identify whether its true or falce : write True if the statement is True and
if False write False
__________1.According to Mill, it is better to be a satisfied pig than a
dissatisfied human.

_________ 2. Mill claims that Kant's universalizability test fails to generate

contradictions.

__________3. According to Mill, questions of ultimate ends are not

amenable to proof.

__________4. Mill claims it is immoral to sacrifice one's own happiness for

the happiness of others.

__________5. Mill argues that the golden rule is incompatible with

utilitarianism.

__________6. Utilitarianism requires that we be strictly impartial between

our own happiness and the happiness of others
__________7. Utilitarianism requires that in deciding how to act, we think
only of maximizing happiness.

_________8. utilitarianism, whether an act is right or wrong depends on the

motives of the agent.

_________9. Mill claims that justice picks out certain classes of moral rules,
which concern the essentials of human well-being.

_________10. According to Mill, to say someone has a right to something is

to say that one has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession
of it.

Justice and Fairness

Promoting common Good

While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness
often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's
feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make
judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete

In general, systems of morality, principles of right and wrong, are complex. ... Fairness
determines the morality of many important parts of our society, such as justice, or the
moral application of the law. Justice is defined by fairness, which means that the law is
applied equally to everyone.

The first significant and unique contribution to the study of Ethics by an American has
been that of John Rawls, a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University. He developed
a Theory of the GOOD as Justice and Justice conceived as Fairness. His theory was
developed to assist a society in ordering its affairs. His ideas have influenced many
lawmakers and Supreme Court decisions in the United States. Among many examples
are the laws for providing equal access to opportunities for minorities and the disabled.

Rawls wants to use reasoning , which all humans have to arrive at the principle of the
GOOD. He is similar to Kant in this regard. He wants to avoid the problems with Kant's
theory and he wants to avoid providing any justification for morally outrageous actions
, which could be justified on utilitarian principles. He wants to avoid the disadvantages
of those approaches. His approach places humans in a position wherein they view the
moral dilemma or problem without knowing who they are in the situation. What would
rational beings decide was best in situations where not all the humans involved are
equal in physical conditions , social or economic circumstance? Rawls believes that
humans would resolve the conflict or problem in such a way that whoever was worst off
would be not as bad off as they otherwise might be because the person making the
decision does not know whether they are going to be in the position of the worst off.

The most widely discussed theory of distributive justice in the past three decades has
been that proposed by John Rawls in his seminal work, A Theory of Justice. (Rawls
1971) Rawls proposes the following two principles of justice:

(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

(a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings
principle, and

(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.

First priority rule:

Rawls proposes these principles, along with the requirement that (1) must be satisfied
prior to (2), and (2b) must be satisfied prior to (2a). Principle (1) and Principle (2b)
may also be thought of as principles of distributive justice: (1) to govern the
distribution of liberties, and (2b) the distribution of opportunities. Looking at the
principles of justice in this way makes all principles of justice, principles of distributive
justice (even principles of retributive justice will be included on the basis that they
distribute negative goods).

Justice as fairness refers to the conception of justice that John Rawls presents in A
Theory of Justice. This conception of justice concerns society’s basic structure—that is,
“society’s main political, constitutional, social, and economic institutions and how they
fit together to form a unified scheme of social cooperation over time.”1
Rawls constructs justice as fairness in a rather narrow framework and explicitly states,
“Justice as fairness is not a complete contact theory.”2 Its purpose is to show how we
ought to allocate a cooperative surplus of resources to individuals in society. As a result,
justice as fairness relies on two implicit assumptions about the societies in question:
first, social cooperation is possible and can work to everyone’s mutual advantage, and
second, there exists a moderate surplus of available resources

to be distributed. Justice as fairness cannot be used to determine the just distribution

of sacrifices to be made by a society’s members when resources are scarce.

More generally, it cannot help us identify just social policies in societies where
background conditions (e.g., scarcity of natural resources, cultural barriers, war) have
eliminated the possibility of mutually advantageous social cooperation.

The principle of justice could be described as the moral obligation to act on the basis of
fair adjudication between competing claims. As such, it is linked to fairness, entitlement
and equality.

Graded Essay ; answer and explain in less than 200 words.

1. What are the principles of fairness?
2. What is fairness and justice in ethics? Give examples of your
explanation.
3. Why justice and fairness is important?
4. What is the importance of equality ?
5. What is the strongest arguments of Rawls theory or justice?

Teaching Learning Activities:

 Interview a friend who had experience injustice in his life emotioanlly
and socially and ask her/him how he had cope with it . Discuss your way of motivating
your friend and how you rationalize the importance of being strong and being a fighter
in life. At least 200 words and paste the picture of your friend and you in the bond
paper even sideviews only.

References :
https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/thomas-aquinas-ethics-anti-capitalism/

https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/aristotle1.html

https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/utilitarianism/