MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 1

CHAPTER 1

THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY

General Objective:
After this Chapter students will be able to:
1. Understand the meaning and nature of Philosophy
2. Appraise the importance of Philosophy

Specific Objectives:
After this Chapter students will be able to:
1. Explain the different definitions of Philosophy
2. Discuss the nature of Philosophy:
2.1 Philosophy as an activity.
2.2.Philosophy as a conceptual analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Ethics is a special branch of Philosophy that deals with human conduct or Morals.
Hence it is sometimes called Moral Philosophy. To understand better the nature of Ethics
is to have a good grasp of the nature of Philosophy.

What, then, is Philosophy?

There is really no agreed definition of Philosophy only collections of different,

and sometimes contradictory, claims. There are two reasons for this: first, Philosophers in
the past have sought to confine Philosophy within narrower boundaries, because
Philosophy tends to claim too much. The quest is to search for the appropriate subject
matter of Philosophy and the method of investigations that is distinct to it. The second
reason is the direct consequence of the first. The attempt to narrow down the meaning of
Philosophy was a failure - the original breadth of meaning of Philosophy remained
reflective of its concerns over the every facet of human existence. From the ruins of such
quest, are its various definitions.

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 2

THE MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY

Although the endeavor to give Philosophy a precise definition to make it a distinct

and systematic discipline has failed (and will always fail), it is not however a futile
endeavor. The various definitions offer insights about the nature of Philosophy as a
special field of human inquiry. They reflect the diversity of Philosophical concerns:
from man and his society, to his science, politics, economics and even his Religion. The
various descriptions of Philosophy, from ancient to contemporary period could be viewed
as reflective of the history and evolution of Philosophy itself.

For our purpose, we will take into account the following widely held definitions
of Philosophy:
1. The Love of Wisdom.
2. The love of exercising one's curiosity and intelligence (Herodotus).
3. The love of "wisdom" that can face the test of critical discussions (Plato).
4. The collective name for questions that have not been answered to the
satisfaction of all that have asked them (William James)

We will consider each of these definitions and try to explain why they fail to
grasp adequately the true essence of Philosophy – and in so doing, we will discover
that Philosophy, as a life-activity, that need not to be defined but experienced.
Towards the end of this Chapter, it is expected that we will formulate a practical
perception of Philosophy that will best reflect our conception of Ethics. So follow closely
the discussions concerning the definitions of Philosophy below.

COMMON DEFINITIONS OF PHILOSOPHY

Love of Wisdom

Some usually define Philosophy as the "Love of Wisdom". The reason for this is
etymological (i.e. based exclusively on the study of the origin or historical development
of the term). The Greek word Philos is usually translated as Love, and Sophia is
ordinarily translated to English as Wisdom. The term Philosophy therefore crudely refers
to the compound Philosophia and is thus translated into English as the "Love of wisdom".

Generally, this definition is good enough for ordinary discussions, but it is

inadequate if we desire a deeper understanding of the meaning of Philosophy. It is best to
point out that the term Sophia had a much wider range of application than its English
equivalent Wisdom. Wisdom is narrowly defined as understanding what is true, right, or
lasting (The Grolier International Dictionary: 1978, Vol. II, p1469). But Sophia means
more than understanding of truth or of rightness but more on the application of such
understanding in the ordinary affairs of man. In the same way, Sophia is more than
Intelligence because Sophia is more concerned with the practical application of

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 3

intelligence, that is, wherever intelligence can be exercised in the practical affairs of man
there is always room for Sophia. One may understand truth, but may refuse to be truthful;
or one may proclaim that he is a lover of wisdom but may refuse to do what is wise. For
this reason, the definition that philosophy is simply the love of wisdom comes
insufficient. If it is insufficient, meaning the definition is not enough to cover
distinctively the interest and purpose of philosophy, then there is a need to look for better
definition.

Love of Exercising One's Curiosity and Intelligence

Herodotus, instead of using the term Philosopia, has used the term Philosophein
in context in which it means nothing more than the desire to know or to find out. Hence,
Philosophy connotes the love of exercising one's curiosity and intelligence. To
Philosophize is therefore to find pleasure in wondering about the world, the universe, or
about life itself.

Unfortunately, this definition of Philosophy proves to be very broad because it

tends to cover other fields of human inquiry. How can we distinguish the difference of
Philosophy from Poetry, Sophistry, Cosmology and other forms of inquiry that also
display the love of exercising curiosity? If, for example, a poet in his poem wonders
about the beauty of a tree, does his wondering make him a philosopher? Or if one
wonders if the universe is static or expanding, does it make him a philosopher? Certainly
not. Clearly, more is needed to be said than simply saying the desire to know or to find
out in defining Philosophy.

Love Of "Wisdom" That Can Face The Test Of Critical Discussions

Plato, a well-known student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle, aimed at

solving the problem concerning the definition of Herodotus. According to him
Philosophy sought a "wisdom" that can face the test of critical discussions. As suggested
in his dialogue, Apology (the term dialogue in this statement is a general name referring
to all the Books written by Plato because characters, or actors, are used to convey his
opinions and ideas), this criterion at once rules out almost every type of what is
ordinarily called wisdom. As compared to Poetry and other forms of inquiry, Philosophy
formulates a clear, articulate, and discussable system of ideas and principles. Let us clear
this point by comparing the wisdom found in poetry and the wisdom offered by
Philosophy. In poetry ideas are presented in the form of metaphors:

“Life is like a garden of roses – love is its water, hope, its sunshine”

You don’t need to push yourself hard to understand what it means – because it
could mean anything. Examples like this one, according to Plato, will make us doubt if
the poet himself understands what he is saying. On the other hand, in Philosophy, a
philosopher presents a clear thesis (a sort of an assertion about something – see example
below) and allows other philosophers to discuss it clearly and critically. Plato claimed for

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 4

Philosophy a method, which according to him, is exclusive to it. He called it Dialectics –

that is, Philosophy proceeds by criticizing received opinions and deriving at the end a
refined opinion worthy of belief (i.e. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis). For instance:

Juan: Pedro, how do you define man?

Pedro: Man walks using only two legs – thus, man is a biped animal (Thesis)
Juan: But Chickens are also biped animals; does it mean that human beings and
chickens are one and the same? (Antithesis)
Pedro: They are both animals, yes. But definitely they are not the same – because
Man possesses something that makes him different from other biped
animals like chickens.
Juan: And what is that something that marks Man from other biped animals?
Pedro: Unlike chicken, Man thinks.
Juan: So how do you define Man now?
Pedro: I propose another definition: Man is a rational animal (Synthesis).

The short dialogue above shows how the received opinion is being criticized and
how a refined opinion is derived in considering the criticism. This process is called
Dialectics (it is also called the Socratic Method, see Chapter 2).

For Plato, Philosophy is also the highest form of inquiry, just because it alone
involves no presuppositions and if ever it does try to speculate or presuppose things, its
speculations and presuppositions are controlled by the discipline of close criticism.
Philosophy also concerns itself with the relationship between eternal and temporal
realities. This, Plato claims, can make knowledge possible and distinct from mere beliefs
and opinions.

Many philosophers have thought that Plato had adequately defined Philosophy.
On the contrary, if we reflect on the definition of Plato, we will realize that the same
problem arises – what is the difference of Philosophy with other forms of study that
emphasize critical discussions? For instance, Science also puts its scientific ideas under
critical tests and discussions. Clearly, then critical discussions are not exclusive to
Philosophy. Platonic idea that Philosophy deals with the relationship of temporal and
eternal realities is again not exclusive to Philosophy. Modern Science, for example, seeks
to discover General Principles or Laws of Nature that could explain all physical
phenomena. Since these Principles are said to be unchanging or at work since the
beginning of time, what then is the difference of Philosophical concern, which is the
relationship between the eternal and temporal realities, with that of Scientific Concern?
Another problem: Science, because of its method, is believed to be free from
presuppositions or assumptions. If Philosophy is also without assumption, then,
Philosophy is not different with Science, but Philosophy is said to be different and it is
even believed to be higher than Science. If it is so, then what differentiate Philosophy
with Science? There must be a precise definition that could identify Philosophy as an
independent branch of Human Knowledge.

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 5

The Collective Name for Unanswered Questions

William James defined Philosophy as a collective name for questions that have
not been answered to the satisfaction of all that have asked them. To ask, for instance,
“What is the origin of the Universe?” ,“What is the meaning and purpose of life?”, “Is
there life after death?” “How should I live my life?”, etc. already constitutes a dealing
with Philosophy. If one is curious enough, he or she would ask further - what happens to
Philosophy if unanswered questions are satisfactorily answered? James suggests that
once answers are found, they would form part of a special Science. One case to prove this
is the birth of cosmology or the scientific study of the universe. Ancient Philosophers
(e.g. Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, and most notably Aristotle etc.) are the first ones
to inquire and speculate about the nature of the universe: “What is the nature of the
Universe?” The wondering about the cosmos continued for many centuries. However,
during the time of the Scholastics, or the Great Church Scholars, in the Medieval period,
the answer takes a more systematic (but still unsatisfactory) form. The idea concerning
the cosmos is largely based in the Aristotelian philosophy (i.e. man and Earth takes the
central position in the universe, one “scientific” proof is the common sense observation
that the Sun Revolves around the Earth), which, by this time, has been incorporated in
the doctrine (and dogmatically held) by the Roman Catholic Church through the teaching
of St. Aquinas (in his magnum opus “Summa Theologica”). But since the inquiry about
the nature of the universe is essentially empirical and not speculative (empirical means
something capable of being observed by the senses – material things like tables and
chairs which we could observe around us are empirical things). Many, like Galileo,
believe that the answer offered by the Church is inadequate. So they continued to search–
and after performing experiments and surviving the harsh reactions from the Church, they
found a better and more satisfying answer (man and Earth is insignificant in the order
and vastness of the universe, as shown by empirical observation that Earth revolves
around the Sun and not the other way around). This discovery, and other theories that
came after it, (like the Newtonian Physics, etc.) has paved the way for the formal birth of
Cosmology. With a satisfying answer found, Cosmology has ceased to be a special part of
Philosophy.

What does our discussion show us? The far-reaching implication of this definition
is that Philosophy, by trying to answer its own questions (thereby giving life to other
branches of Human Knowledge), slowly digs its own grave. If all unanswered questions
are finally answered – Philosophy ceases to exist. Philosophy (unanswered questions)
clearly depletes (by answering) its very own existence!

However, the next important question is – Was James successful in adequately

defining Philosophy? Unfortunately, James’ definition, like our previous definitions,
failed in capturing the meaning of Philosophy. James’ definition claims at once too little
for Philosophy - because Philosophers do not restrict their attention only to Science.
Philosophers does not only ask questions that could lead to the creation of special science
if answered, but it also ask the relationship of these Sciences to Human Society (for
instance industrialization and the issues of deforestation, and pollution, etc.), or the

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 6

relationship of Science and Human Morality (for instance the morality of human
cloning). Again, defining Philosophy in this way is clearly problematic.

PHILOSOPHY AS A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

There are still a lot of definitions that Philosophers have proposed in order to
define categorically what Philosophy is. But time and time again, these definitions are all
too narrow or too broad to state the real meaning of Philosophy. This book will not
attempt to join in the fray of giving Philosophy a conclusive definition. This is done with
purpose.

Philosophy is meant to be experienced, not necessarily to be defined. All we need

to do in order for us to understand the meaning of Philosophy is to experience it, that is,
by living and doing Philosophy. It is like understanding the meaning of wonder, to
understand the meaning of wonder is to experience genuinely the sense of wondering -
like a child looking at the moon with great awe, and asking for the first time, “mommy,
where does the moon came from?” Philosophy after all have been born at that very
moment when the first humans began to experience such childish wonderments – and it is
being born in us every time we allow our minds to wander and to wonder amidst the
everydayness of our human existence. But unlike simple wonderings, Philosophy
demands more – it tells us to act, to do something about our wondering: “Is this action
Right?” We should not stop in our simple wondering – we should try our best to find out.
And if we discover that it is not Right, then “what should we do?” – to answer this
question and to act appropriately is to experience Philosophy.

POINTERS ON THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY

Basing from our discussions let us now get two things straight about Philosophy:
Firstly, Philosophy is not really a subject – it is an activity. One does not simply study
it - one does it. As an activity, Philosophy requires the cultivation of certain qualities in
man, which among others, include the following:

1. Ability to Wonder – The predisposition of the mind to wonder and to be

curious about everything, from the peculiar to the very ordinary. It also
suggests the personal interest to speculate about things (for instance the
questions “What is the meaning of life?”, “What is the purpose of life?”, “Is
there God?” etc.)

2. Sense of Autonomy – The quality of the mind to be independent or the

freedom of the will from external control and influence. For instance, a person
with a sense of autonomy would not blindly believe what authorities claim to
be the truth (Even if the one claiming the truth is my beloved pastor, before I
accept his statement about X is true – he must provide some good reasons why
I should believe him) or would not simply follow instructions uncritically
(“My pastor told me to visit him alone tonight and pray privately with him in

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 7

his room – only imbeciles will follow that instruction - I am not dim-witted to
be easily tricked.”). Sense of autonomy also refers to our willingness to
subject even our cherished ideals and beliefs under critical reflection and
scrutiny (For instance, a person asking himself: “God is a benevolent God,
but why did God allow evil to exists?”).

3. Sense of Objectivity – The ability of the mind to think reasonably and to

render impartial judgments (For instance, “The fact that action X is wrong
will remain to be wrong even if the person who commits action X is my son”).
Objectivity also refers to open-mindedness and tolerance to ideas, opinion, or
beliefs of others which we may not share (For example the belief that, “No
one is for certain that what we believe is always true – every opinion should
therefore be heard and properly considered if we want to arrive at a more
complete picture of truth). It also refers to the courage in accepting the
wrongness of personally held opinion and abandoning it for a more reasonable
one (for instance, “I previously thought that my belief about X is reasonable –
now that what I believe about X is proven to be unsound, there is no more
reason to hold my belief about X – so, I must get rid of it for something
better).

And secondly, Philosophy is largely a matter of conceptual analysis or thinking

about thinking. Philosophy is not merely about thinking, it is also about reflecting on the
contents of our thoughts, reflecting about our reflections: “Are the things which I
believed to be good really good?” “Am I thinking about others morally?” Putting this in
mind, we are now ready for our study of the activity of life called Ethics or Moral
Philosophy.

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 8

CHAPTER 2

THE STUDY OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

General Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Develop insights on the nature of moral Philosophy
2. Appraise the significance of Philosophy in the contemporary life

Specific Objectives
After this Chapter, students will be able to:
1. Explain the definition of Moral Philosophy
2. Discuss the significance of Moral Philosophy.
3. Explain the Assumption of Moral Philosophy.
4. Explain the scope of Ethical study

INTRODUCTION

Juan: Tell me, what is your idea of justice? How could we best act justly?
Pedro: I believe that justice is giving one his due. So, one way of acting justly is
to return the borrowed property of others. Because returning their property
is their due.
Juan: So when you borrow my bolo, it is only just for you to return my bolo
because it is my property. Is that what you mean?
Pedro: Yes. That would be acceptable.
Juan: If, after borrowing my bolo, I lost my sanity and I become uncontrollably
violent, would you still return my bolo?
Pedro: Of course not. You might use it to harm yourself and other people.
Juan: But the bolo is my property, is it not?
Pedro: Yes.
Juan: And returning my property is my due – is it not?
Pedro: Yes.
Juan: And you defined justice as giving one his due – am I correct?
Pedro: Yes.
Juan: But in the case we have just considered, you are not willing to return my
bolo which is my property, and therefore my proper due. What then
becomes of your definition?
Pedro: (Silent)

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 9

THE SOCRATIC WAY

The short dialogue presented in the introduction of this chapter shows how Juan
tried to demonstrate the contradiction of Pedro’s idea of Justice – without directly telling
him about the contradiction. All Juan did is to ask questions. This process is what we call
the Socratic method. Questions are presented to guide us in thinking about our basic
assumptions in life. It makes us discover our mistakes in a very special way – the manner
of discovering the faults imbedded in our beliefs is special because by answering some
questions we make the discovery ourselves. We can see that Socrates, through his method
of investigations, displays humility in his desire to share what he knows: he never told
people what to believe, but rather, he simply asked questions and left people realize the
errors imbedded in their own opinions. In this way, Socrates demonstrates the
importance of applying the critical methods of rational inquiry, by tearing down
man’s unfounded assumptions, man comes closer to the truth – about himself.

This best reflects the true activity of Ethics. It is not all about saying what others
ought to do, but, like the activity of a midwife, helping others give birth to their own
ideas and know how to critically examine them, before acting from them. The pursuit of
truth by the critical methods of rational inquiry is the way human beings ought to live
their lives. It is in this context that we can readily agree with Socrates when he preached
that man must examine his life, because an “unexamined life is not worth living”. Now,
are you living an examined life? Answering this one important question sheds light to the
nature and significance of our study of Ethics.

THE BIRTH OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

It all started when man began to wonder about how he should treat and how he
should live his life with others. Man’s interest in the rightness of his actions and his
desire to live the Good life provides the reason for the birth of another exciting branch of
Philosophy. Philosophers called it “Ethics” or ”Moral Philosophy”. Ethics comes from
the Greek word “Ethos”, which means “Character”. For the Greeks, Ethics essentially
deals with the development of virtuous and moral character. They believe that developing
such character would make one know the “right thing” to do and live the “right way of
life”.

But what precisely is the right way of life? For Socrates, the great Greek moralist
(probably the first western moralist), the answer is an examined life. Examined life is a
life guided and enriched by self-awareness or a sort of self-knowledge through critical
self-examination. Self-examination simply means that we should know what we desire
and know if they are permissible (morally agreeable, acceptable etc.) or not; we should
know what we believe in and know if they are right or wrong; we should know who we
are, what we are and so on. For Socrates, the first Ethical Imperative we should observe
(and try hard to live up with) is “Know thyself”. This leads us back to the nature of
Ethics: it is a tool that can help us in investigating ourselves – anything and everything
about what we assume to know of ourselves as moral beings.

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 10

WHAT MORAL PHILOSOPHY IS

It is important to take note that we will use Ethics and Moral Philosophy to mean
the same thing. So expect that these two terms will be used interchangeably in most of
our discussions.

For the purpose of this book, let us define Ethics as a special branch of Philosphy
which deals with the study of the principles of right moral action. Hence, Ethics aims to
study the principles underlying the desirable types of human conduct and to prescribe the
principles and methods for distinguishing right from wrong and good from bad. Ethics is
thus concerned on questions such as: “What make my action right or wrong, and how
could I know it?” “How should I live my life?” “How should I treat other human beings
and how should I be treated?” etc.

If we are to try reading these questions thoughtfully, we will have the impression
that Ethics is not a chance topic or something people of the past invented for the pleasure
of discussing morality, but Ethics is something that was born out of human experience
and out of the necessity to know how we should fashion our existence vis-à-vis the
existence of other human beings.

WHY WE STUDY MORAL PHILOSOPHY

These are cold facts about Ethics: Ethics cannot make a person wealthy. Never
did we hear stories about people becoming rich because of their devotion to honesty and
goodness (remember anyone?). If there are few people who are lucky enough to be
rewarded, and thus become few-hundred-thousand-pesos richer, because of their honesty,
the material gain is brought by mere accident or as an indirect consequence of being
honest – not because of being honest per se (good for them they are rewarded, because
not all honest people are rewarded materially). It is not their honesty, but the fortunate
consequence of them being recognized and awarded, which made them richer.

Ethics cannot make a person handsome or beautiful. Mother Nature blessed

Socrates, the first western moralist, with a poorly designed physique that no lover of
beauty will ever find appealing – his gifts of wisdom and moral excellence have failed to
turn him into an Adonis, or anything close to Aga Muhlach. If this is so, then what is the
point of studying Ethics? Why not scrap Ethics as an academic subject and devote the
time to other practical and timely endeavors, right? – Wrong. If we expect to find earthly
riches and physical beauty in our study – then there is nothing to find in Ethics. But if we
desire to know how we could be a better person, then Ethics can be a pot of Gold.

The significance of Ethics lies on its offer to help man secure his moral elevation,
and its offer to help man to better his world. The reward of the study of Ethics is not
necessarily material progress but moral uprightness, “the discovery of true values of life”
and the inspiration to live a moral life. Though it is true that Ethics could not make one
wealthy and beautiful, however, it could promise the rewards of self-respect and self-

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 11

worth, of deeper understanding and appreciation of love, of respect, of service, of life and
the world. In short, Ethics affords man the opportunity to rediscover his humanity.

And what is the value of Ethics as an academic subject for students? The answer
is quite simple, it makes us not only as better students but also as better future members
of our society. As one educator aptly puts it

“Students as future members and leaders of our society, are the ones who
urgently need the study of Ethics, (because) without Ethics we will have
college graduates despite having earned degrees are bereft of vital
affirmation, firm conviction and social commitment (Amable.1995. p9).”

However, Ethics is not only significant because it helps us achieve our elevated
ideals – the other reason for its importance is its practical use to our everyday social life.
Ethics helps us in making sound moral decisions especially on difficult cases where clear
and easy answers are lacking. Ethics also furnishes the norm (standard or pattern) by
which relations among men are regulated, it provides basis for cooperation based on
mutual respect and mutual understanding, thus it contributes to the formation of a just
and orderly society where man can fairly earn a living and secure for himself his own
necessities and comforts.

The study of ethics is made more important if we realize that we exist with other
people – who have dignity that can be degraded by our actions and decisions in life.
Sometimes it is not important whether a person is wealthy or not, at the end of the day
money cannot buy lasting companionship, true friendship, love and spiritual salvation.
Sometimes it is not important whether a person has a beautiful appearance or not, after all
physical beauty is just an appearance – it won’t last forever, it fades away with ages.
Sometimes it is more important to treasure a wealth and beauty that will make us truly
loved by others. It is our moral goodness that will make others like us no matter who we
are. It will make us truly beautiful and satisfied.

SCOPE OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Ethics is necessary Human - because the locus (or the viewpoint) of the study of
Ethics revolves around man as a being who relates with his environment. But it does not
necessarily mean that Ethics only deals with Human Relationships or about anything that
is exclusively Human. Ethics also focuses on the moral relationship of man with other
beings in the world (for example how we should treat animals, etc.), and even including
his relationship with his material environment (Have you heard about environmental
ethics?). Generally, there are four conceivable areas which are covered by Ethical study:

1. Man and “fellow” man – Ethics primarily deals with the “oughts” or “shoulds”
of human existence vis-à-vis existence of other human beings. Thus the questions,
“How should I treat other people?”, “Is helping other people in distress
something I ought to do?”, etc. It investigates how should a person lives his life
with others. Man (as an animal being) becomes a human being or a person (that

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 12

is, as a moral being) because he does not exist in a state of license (or absolute
freedom) to do anything as he pleases (For instance to murder a fellow human
being). His desires and actions, how he treats himself and others is necessarily
regulated by a generally accepted precepts of morality that considers the welfare
of other persons.

2. Man and his Society – Ethics also deals with the study of man, as a member of a
moral community (a community of other rational beings). It investigates how man
should relate with his community and vice versa. It prescribes how man should
best contribute to the welfare of his community and how his community should
best foster his personal growth and improvement. “Is my action benefits the
society in general?”, “Why should I respect the laws of my community?”, “Is it
right to prioritize the interest of the society over the interest of the individual?”,
“Does my society respect my rights and dignity?”.

3. Man and other sentient beings – Ethics investigates not only the moral aspect of
human relationships, it also deals with the study of the relationship that should
exist between human beings and other sentient creatures (i.e. lower forms of
animal existence). “Is it ethical to use other sentient beings, which are also
capable of experiencing pain, for the advancement of human knowledge?”

4. Man and his Natural Environment – The study of Ethics also covers how man
should treat his natural environment, it tries to provide a rational basis for
environmental conservation and protection in view of the duty to respect the right
of future members of the moral community. “Man needs to prosper, but is it
Ethical to sacrifice the environment for the sake of progress and development?”,
“Confronted by necessity and scarcity, what is more ethical- to use the scarce
resources for the sake of the living or to conserve these resources for the sake of
the future and unborn generation?”

ASSUMPTIONS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Moral Philosophy proceeds from some basic assumptions. Without assuming

certain qualities about the human nature, doing Moral Philosophy or Ethics will be
pointless, it would be a futile human endeavor. Assumption means fundamental beliefs or
statements that are accepted to be self-evident. When we say self-evident it means that
we accept something to be true without the burden of proving or of proof. Things are self-
evident when they are too obvious to be proven. For instance, our belief that our parents
love us is self-evident – there is no point to look for evidence to prove that they indeed
love us. We simply assume it. Let us explain this point. We might say that our parents do
love us because they send us to school – but we are not sure enough to consider this as an
absolute proof since they might be sending us to school not out of their love to us but out
of their sense of obligation. Doing things out of love is different from doing things out of
obligation. The same applies to cases when they give us things we wanted – their act of
giving us things we like is not an infallible proof that they love us – they can give us

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 13

things because of other reasons. So, to stop these pointless doubting whether our parents
love us or not, we need to simply assume (that is, without proving it) that they love us.

Most books concerning the study of Ethics present a long list of assumptions. But
we will consider only the two most important and most common assumptions of Ethics.

1. That man is a rational being – This means that we assume that man is a
thinking being. Man acts with purpose or man knows his reason for acting,
unlike a lowly animal (for instance a dog), which acts merely from instincts
and reflexes. As a rational being, man is also capable of moral judgments – he
is aware of the intention and the consequences of his action, and capable of
judging them as right or wrong or good or evil. In short, man knows what he
is doing because he is rational or a thinking creature.

2. That man is a free being – This assumption means that man is a free agent
who acts according to his own will and volition. In general, this assumption
tells that man has the capacity to exercise choice of actions. This assumption
implies the capability of man in choosing and doing what is good.

If we take a closer look, we will see that these two assumptions provide basis or
grounds for our system of giving praise and blame, reward and punishment. Without
assuming the existence of rationality and freedom in man, it is impossible to judge acts as
ethical or unethical, moral or immoral. They (assumptions) provide for the very reason
why we are held responsible for our actions. That is, only through assuming that we think
and we are free, we can say that are actions are our full responsibility.

Let us explain further why this is so. For us to judge an act (for instance stealing)
to be immoral, the act must be performed by a person who is aware about the moral
wrongness of his act and who has freely decided to perform the act even if he knew that it
is immoral. If we remove the elements of knowledge (rationality) and freedom, it is no
longer plausible to judge the act as immoral, hence the person committing it as worthy of
blame and punishment. Let us provide specific examples to elucidate this point: In cases
wherein a person is not aware that his act constitutes stealing, he could hardly be judged
as someone who has committed an unethical (albeit, illegal) act. For instance a tourist
who thought that an item on display is a token to be given away (to visitors) for free (but
on the contrary it was for sale), and acting from his belief (that the item is free) he took
one, did he commit stealing? It is not hard to see that he can’t be blamed for stealing. Of
course it is plausible to point out that the tourist is still blameworthy because he failed to
ask if what he thought (that the item is free) is accurate – but that is beside the point, the
point is (assuming that he indeed sincerely thought that the item is free) we cannot fairly
accuse him of stealing. Another example would be a toddler who pockets his playmate’s
chocolate bar. The toddler, because he or she is still unable to discern the wrongness of
taking the property of others, cannot be blamed for stealing. The same problem arises
when the element of freedom is removed in actions - In cases wherein a person is
physically forced or who have acted under grave threat to perform an immoral act, he

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Articulo, Archie 14

could hardly be blamed and justly punished for committing the act. Consider the case of a
kidnap victim who is forced by his kidnappers to kill another kidnap victim under the
grave threat that failure to comply will surely result to his decapitation (beheading). That
person, if he chooses to comply, cannot be judged fairly to have committed a heinous
crime.

It is clear that these two elements (rationality and freedom) could mitigate or
aggravate the degree of moral responsibility of persons. Moral responsibility is thus
basically defined based on these two assumptions (We shall discuss Moral Responsibility
in greater extent in succeeding Chapters).

EVALUATOR’S COPY
2ND EVALUATION, 2ND Semester, S.Y. 2003-2004