Cebu Doctors’ University

College of Arts & Sciences

Social Sciences Department

Ethics
Module # 3
Week 10

Lesson: Synthesis: Making Informed Decisions

-Activity Debate Presentation

Discussion:

Chapter Objectives:

1. Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision-making.
2. Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions; and
3. Apply ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self, society and the non-human environment.

Outline:
I. The Moral Agent and Context
II. The Moral Deliberation
III. Self, Society, and Environment

A. The Moral Agent and Context

1. Cultural and Ethics
2. Religion and Ethics

B. The Moral Deliberation

1. Feelings in moral deliberation
2. Moral problems

1 | Page
 3. The value of studying theories or frameworks

C. Self, Society, and Environment

1. Individual self
2. Social life:
3. In the Philippine Context
4. The non-human Environment
5. Closing that is really an opening

Lecture :
I. Introduction: -Notions :
1. Right thing to do=
2. No sufficient Answer =
3. Reason has a role=because Theories and principle=conflict sometimes
- Holistic=community -both human and non-human
- -different factors that shape an individual in – making decisions

II. The Moral Agent and Context

= human individual = "Epimeleia he auto” know thyself
CROSS POINT: adjective

● 1.(of a screwdriver) having a cross-shaped point for turning cross-head screws.

PHYSICAL: -biological, environment

INTERPERSONAL:- personal character, laziness
SOCIETAL:- cultural-fil. culture
HISTORICAL:

Cross Point – part only of Who one is--- A project for one’s self. – Freedom (finite freedom) – But in existential level-Existence – is the
intersection of 1. My choosing 2. Outside my choosing. – Here, Ethics- plays- existential challenge of forming one’s self. We can now focus on

2 | Page
one of the major issues in Ethical thought: What is the relationship between ethics and one’s own culture? The following section focuses on
this philosophical question. :

A. Cultural and Ethics –

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do. -it dictates right or wrong- Generalizations- stereotypes ( Filipinos are hospitable) Fil.
Traits- are the Chinese, not hospitable?
1. The American philosopher James Rachels (1941-2003)- against the validity of cultural relativism in the realm of ethics. Rachels defines
cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality . The argument of this
position is that since different cultures have different moral codes, then there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow.
2. The implication is that each culture has its own standard of right or wrong, its validity confined within the culture in question.

4-However, Rachels questions the logic of this argument

1. first, that cultural relativism confuses a statement of fact (that different cultures have different moral codes), which is merely
descriptive, with a normative statement (that there cannot be objective truth in morality). Rachels provides a counter-argument by
analogy: Just because some believed that the Earth was flat, while some believe it is spherical, it does not mean that there is no
objective truth to the actual shape of the Earth.
2. Rachels also employs a reductio ad absurdum argument. It is an argument which first assumes that the claim in question is correct, in
order to show the absurdity that will ensure if the claim is accepted as such. He uses this argument to show what he thinks is the
weakness of the position.

3. He posits three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of cultural relativism. :

1. First, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs of another cultural anymore as long as the
culture thinks that what it is doing is correct. But if that is the case, then the Jews, for example, cannot criticize the Nazis’ plan to
exterminate all Jews in World War II, since obviously the Nazis believed that they were doing the right thing.
2. Secondly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of one’s own culture. If that is the
case, the black South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a policy of racial segregation that privileges the dominant race
in a society, could not criticize that official state position.

3 | Page
 3. Thirdly, if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the case, then the
fact that many societies now recognize women’s rights and children’s right does not necessarily represent a better situation than
before when societies refused to recognize that women and children even had rights.

Here we recognize cultural relativism (existence between different cultures) but we must not shy away from objective truth in morality. Cultures
may hold certain values in common.

C—diff. bet. Cultures - But - Ex,. Murder - common value

-Fil. Culture--Hospitality

-Rachels ends his article on cultural relativism by noting that someone can recognize and respect cultural differences and still maintain the right
to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs proper rational deliberation.
- the challenge of ethics is not the removal of one’s culture because that is what makes one unique. Instead, one must dig deeper into her own
culture in order to discover how her own people have most meaningfully explored possibly universal human questions or problems within the
particularity of her own people’s native ground
- . What is important is that one does not wander into ethical situations blindly, with the naïve assumption that ethical issues will be resolved
automatically by her beliefs and traditions. Instead, she should challenge herself to continuously work toward a fuller maturity in ethical
decision-making. Moral development then is a prerequisite if the individual is to encounter ethical situations with a clear mind and with her
values properly placed with respect to each other

B. Religion and Ethics

Questions of morality based on religion. – demands philosophical exploration
*religious teaching- Sacred Scripture. Reason – interpretation-historical, existential ideal
* Common of what ought to do. –“ Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or it is because it is loved by the gods”

III. Moral deliberation –moral development

American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) who theorized that moral development happens in six stages, three levels.
1. pre-conventional - it corresponds to how infants and young children think
- centered on the consequences of one’s actions, is divided into stages. The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience and the
avoidance of punishment

4 | Page
 2. Conventional (3 and 4) following rules
3. post-conventional (5 and 6) common good, ethical

FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION

- Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspectives as having no place in a properly executed moral decision.
This prejudice, however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly.
- Note that Aristotle does not say, “Remove all feelings.” Instead, he sees that cultivating one’s character lies in learning to manage one’s
feelings. The emotions are, as much as recent itself, part of what makes one a human being
- an individual’s mind or intellect dictates what one ought to do, can sometimes be overcome by what her feelings actually drive her to do.
- is possible that there can be a disconnect between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual ability of an individual to
perform accordingly. The latter is mainly a function of character formation, that is, of habituating proper management of one’s feelings.
Aristotle accepts that feelings cannot be set aside in favor of some illusory, purely intellectual acceptance of the good. Instead, he sees
moral virtue as a matter of habit to worry about managing one’s feelings in the rightful manner. As his famous line from Book II of the
Nicomachean Ethics puts it:

“Anyone can get angry - that is easy…; But to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive,
and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy.” Doing the right thing for Aristotle is being able to manage one’s feelings so
that she is actually driven or propelled to do what she already sees (intellectually) as right.

- that making a moral decision, because it is all about what she values, cannot but involve her most serious feelings.

MORAL PROBLEMS
1. Involvement
2. Fact
3. Stakeholders
4. Ethical issues involve
a. -Types- 1. Situation-Morally right or morally wrong: murder.
- Why is murder said to be an unethical or immoral act? How will utilitarianism explain the moral significance of this action?
How about the natural law theory? Deontology? Virtue ethics?

5 | Page
 2. determine - ethical or unethical action
-Is killing tantamount to murder? Is the death penalty for a heinous crime by the State wrong?

- 3. Ethical dilemma- Dilemmas are ethical situations in which there are competing values that seem to have equal
worth.

5. The final step, of course, is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision, whether in judging what ought to be done in a
given case or in coming up with a concrete action she must actually perform.

THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS.

These ethical theories or frameworks may serve as guideposts, given that they are the best attempts to understand morality that the
history of human thought has to offer

SELF, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT

INDIVIDUAL/SELF

4 FRAMEWORKS

SOCIAL LIFE: IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE

6 | Page
 4 FRAMEWORKS

THE NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

4 FRAMEWORKS

A CLOSING THAT IS REALLY AN OPENING

-INFORMED MORAL DECISION
-FOUR FRAMEWORKS
-STARTING POINT

1. NATURAL LAW:
-Preservation
-Sexual intercourse
-Reason

2. Utilitarianism: -utility
-greatest number
-Justice and moral rights
3. Deontology:
- duty and agency
- autonomy

7 | Page
 - universalizability

3. Virtue Ethics:
– happiness and ultimate purpose
-Virtue as Excellence
-moral virtue and mesotes

Required Readings:

Bulaong Jr., Oscar G. et al. “ Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation.” First Edition. p.99-127

Compilation “ Natural law -Environment” in Celo content (Synthesis: Making informed Decision) topic.

-end-

_______________________________________________

References:

Bulaong Jr., Oscar G. et al. “ Ethics Foundations of Moral Valuation.” First Edition. 2018.

8 | Page
Reyes, Ramon C. “man and Historical Sction.” Philisophy of Man, edited by Manuel Dy, Jr. 2 nd ed., Makati City: Goodwill Trading Co.
2001, p.113-188.

Rachels, James. “the challenge of cultural Relativism.” The elements of Moral philosophy, New York: Random House, 1986, pp 15-
32.

9 | Page