Topic 1: Ethics and Morality

Introduction

Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, ―character, ―custom), principles or standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals
(Latin mores, ―customs), and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy. From the
etymology of ethics and morality, they both speak of character and a customary way of doing good/bad and right/wrong. Custom
refers to tradition or community habit. Hence, it is something a community of persons always does in a particular way; a way a
person or community usually or routinely behaves in a particular situation. According to Gaffney (1979), the difference is
basically between the realm of theory and the realm of practice. Ethics refers to a set of ideas, principles or convictions
determining what one considers right and wrong in moral conduct, whereas morality refers to practical behavior as judged
according to someone ‘s ideas about right and wrong.

Ethics points to how one thinks about right and wrong and morality points to actual conduct with respect to its rightness or
wrongness. At the outset, ethics and morality have somehow almost a comparable meaning, although ethics is sometimes
limited to the concern for the individual character and morality to the rules concerning good and bad. For the purpose of this
course, both ethics and morality will be used interchangeably while keeping in mind the distinction to avoid a category error.
According to Meacham (2011), the primary task of ethics, or morality, is to guide one‘s actions. To guide one ‘s actions may seem
obviously easy. Any person in general, through the rule of thumb, would readily distinguish what is good from what is bad, and
what is right from what is wrong. A striking problem arises when an individual could hardly make a fine line distinction between
what is good from what is right. This is because what is right does not necessarily mean that it is good, and vice versa, what is
good does not necessarily mean that it is right. In other words, there are many ways of thinking about ethics whose focuses are
on whether specific actions are good or bad, or right or wrong. They help an individual decide what should be done in a particular
case or class of cases or evaluate the actions that a person has done.

Meacham (2011) describes two ways of thinking about ethics, which manifest themselves as two clusters of concepts and
language, or domains of discourse, used to recommend or command specific actions or habits of character: they are called the
good and the right (The subsequent discussion was availed with a special permission from the author).

The Good and the Right

The good has to do with achievement of goals; the right, with laws and rules. The goodness paradigm recognizes that people
have desires and aspirations, and frames values in terms of what enables a being to achieve its ends. The rightness paradigm
recognizes that people live in groups that require organization and regulations, and frames values in terms of duty and
conformance to rules. Goodness and rightness ―are not complementary portions of the moral field but alternative ways of
organizing the whole field to carry out the tasks of morality. Another approach, virtue ethics, focuses on qualities of character
and motives for action. Within Virtue Ethics the distinction between the good and the right is also applicable. Questions about
what sort of character traits one should cultivate can be answered on the basis either of what is good or of what is right.
Compassion and insight are typical goodness virtues, and a disposition of conscientious obedience is a typical rightness virtue.
The good and the right each have their area of applicability; they often get confused, and students need to know the difference
so that errors in ethical judgements are avoided.

The Good

What is good has to do with benefits. Something that benefits something or someone else is called good for that thing or person.
We can think of this instrumentally or biologically. Instrumentally, an android phone is good for sending emails, sending and
receiving text messages, watching movies, playing online and offline games, shopping and many other activities; what is good
for the phone is what enables it to do so well. Biologically, air, water, and food are good for living beings. Instrumentally, what is
good for a thing enables that thing to serve its purpose. To make sense, an instrumental usage of the term ―good requires
reference to somebody‘s purpose or intention. Thus, all products of technologies are good for students, professionals,
businessmen and everybody in this fast-paced environment for so many reasons. We want the comfort and utility they afford
us. The instrumental usage is expressed in terms of usefulness, of utility for achieving a purpose or intention. Some gadgets are
better than others in that they have better and updated software and applications and thus can be used more effectively and
efficiently. The instrumental usage leads to the biological usage. Why is it good for human beings to have comfort and utility? It
is because comfort and utility nourish us and keep us alive. Unlike the instrumental usage, the biological usage does not require
reference to conscious purpose or intention. The biological usage is expressed in terms of health and well-being. Biologically,
what is good for an organism is what helps it survive and thrive, what nourishes it. Some things are better for us than others in
this respect. For instance, a diet of whole grains and vegetables is better, in the sense of providing better health for humans,
than a diet of simple carbohydrates and fats. Another example: some plants need full sunlight to thrive, and others need shade;
thus full sunlight is good for the former, and shade is good for the latter. The good, in this sense, is that which enables a thing to
function well. The instrumental usage intersects the biological when we consider what is good for something that is itself good
for a purpose or intention. For instance, keeping one‘s clothes clean and taken cared of from dirt is good for the clothes; if they
get too dirty or tattered easily to provide a good impact on your personality, they are not useful as clothes. So we can talk about
what is good for the clothes in a way that is analogous to what is good for a living being.

The good, in this sense also, is that which enables a thing to function well. The approach to ethics that emphasizes goodness is
called the teleological approach, from a Greek word, telos, which means ―end, ―purpose, or ―goal. Biologically, what is good
for an organism helps that organism survive and thrive. Instrumentally, what is good for a thing enables that thing to serve its
purpose. Just as good is defined in relation to an end, the value of the end is defined in relation to another end. For instance, a
hammer is good for driving nails. Driving nails is good for, among other things, building houses. We build houses to have shelter
and warmth. And we desire shelter and warmth because they sustain our life. This chain of goods and ends stretches in both
directions from wherever we arbitrarily start looking. This approach is also sometimes called a consequentialist approach or an
effect-oriented approach because both usages give meaning to the term ―good by reference to the consequences or effects of
an action or event. That whole grains are good for humans means that the effect of eating them is healthful. That a cellphone is
good for faster communication means that using it for that purpose is likely to have the effect you want. The Goodness approach
to ethics uses the terms ―good and ―bad and their variants and synonyms to evaluate actions, things, people, states of affairs,
etc., as well as maxims or guidelines for conduct. Some synonyms for ―good in this context are ―helpful, ―nourishing, ―
beneficial, ―useful and ―effective. Some synonyms for ―bad are their opposites: ―unhelpful, ―unhealthy, ―damaging, ―
useless and ―ineffective. There are degrees of goodness and its opposite, badness. That some plants need full sunlight to thrive
and others need shade means that full sunlight is good for the former and not so good for the latter. An ethics – a set of moral
principles or values – based on goodness applied to concerns about choices between courses of action will ask questions about
the anticipated or hoped-for benefits of one course of action as opposed to another. An ethics based on goodness applied to
concerns about character will ask questions about the anticipated or hoped-for effects on one‘s habitual way of approaching
life of one course of action as opposed to another.

The Right

What is right has to do with conformance to rules or regulations. This is easy to see in non-ethical situations. For instance, the
right answer to ―9 divided by 3 is 3. We apply a mathematical rule, the rule for how to do long division, and derive the right, or
correct, answer. In ethical situations, we apply a moral rule to determine what the right course of action is. If one finds a wallet
with some money in it and the owner's identification as well, the right thing to do is to return the money to the owner because it
is wrong to keep something that does not belong to one, especially if one knows who the owner is. The moral rule in this case
is ―it is wrong to keep something that does not belong to you. The approach to ethics that emphasizes rightness is called the
deontological approach, from a Greek word, deon, that means ―duty. A person does her duty when she acts according to the
moral rules. We could also call this a rules-based approach. (By ―rules we mean prescribed guides for conduct, not
generalizations that describe physical reality, such as the laws of nature). According to the deontological approach, an action
is justified on the basis of a quality or characteristic of the act itself, regardless of its consequences. That characteristic is its
conformance to a rule. Morality is concerned with identifying and obeying moral rules. It is right to obey the rules and wrong to
disobey them. Any particular act can be judged right or wrong according to whether and to what extent it conforms to the moral
rules. A central concern, then, is to identify the rules so one can make sure one is acting in accordance with them. Once the
rules are established, all one needs to do in order to be moral is to do one's duty, which is to act in accordance with the rules.

The language associated with this school uses the terms ―right and ―wrong to evaluate actions. Some synonyms for ―right
are ―proper, ―legal and ―correct. Some synonyms for ―wrong are ―improper, ―illegal and ―incorrect. The problem, of
course, is how to determine the moral rules. Humans seem to have an innate sense of morality, of right and wrong; but,
notoriously, the actual set of rules they espouse varies from culture to culture. Although many people unreflectively adopt the
rules taught them by their parents, teachers, religious leaders and culture, the task of philosophy is to provide a rational
grounding for one‘s choice of what rules to follow.

Philosophers have proposed numerous ways of determining what the rules are, such as divine command, the dictates of pure
reason, and using an intuitive moral sense to apprehend an unseen but existent world of values. So far, there is no agreement
on which of these is correct The primary meaning of ―right in an ethical context is conformance to moral rules. There are a
number of other uses of the term ―right in addition to conformance to moral rules, such as the following: 1) Correct, truthful,
as in ―the right answer. This implies that rightness is exclusive, that there is one right answer or opinion and that others are
wrong. 2) The best possible option or a very good option, as in ―the right choice. This also implies exclusivity, but is problematic.
Often one does not need to do what is best. Sometimes one only needs to do something good enough to get a useful response,
a response that gives feedback so one can further hone one‘s strategy, one‘s response to what is happening. 3) Fitting,
appropriate, in harmony with the way things are. This sense is more akin to the goodness paradigm. It asserts an aesthetic
component of rightness, as when one artistically puts an element of a composition in ―the right place. 4) What the speaker
approves of or assumes people generally approve of. This is an uncritical usage and is the least useful.
 Topic 2: Moral versus Non-Moral Standards

Introduction

Moral Standards are principles, norms, or models an individual or a group has about what is right or wrong, what is good or bad.
It is an indication of how human beings ought to exercise their freedom. Norms are expressed as general rules about our actions
or behaviors. Some examples are: ―Take responsibility for your actions; ―Always tell the truth; ―Treat others as you want to
be treated; ―It is wrong to kill innocent people. Values are underlying beliefs and ideals that are expressed as enduring beliefs
or statements about what is good and desirable or not. Some examples are: ―Honesty is good; ―Injustice is bad. Moral
Standards are a combination of norms and values. They are the norms about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or
wrong, as well as, the values placed on what we believe to be morally good and morally bad. In other words, they point us
towards achievable ideals (De Guzman, 2018).

What moral standards do? First, they promote human welfare or well-being; second, they promote the ―good (animals,
environment, and future generations); and third, they prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of a.) Rights (responsibilities
to society); and b.) Obligations (specific values/virtues).

Non-Moral or Conventional Standards are standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral
way. Some examples are: good or bad manners, etiquettes, house rules, technical standards in building structures, rules of
behavior set by parents, teachers, other authorities, the law, standards of grammar or language, standards of art, rules of sports,
and judgments on the way to do things. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics or even with
religion. As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous observance of these types
of standards does not make an individual a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human
well-being.

Some individuals may have heard the term ―Amoral (n.d). What makes this word different from the descriptions above? It
means not influenced by right and wrong. If a person who is immoral acts against his conscience, a person who is amoral does
not have a conscience to act against in the first place. Infants could be said to be amoral since they have not yet developed a
mature mind to understand right and wrong. Some extreme sociopaths are also amoral, since they lack a conscience as a result
of a cognitive disorder. In other words, an immoral person has a sense of right and wrong but fails to live up to those moral
standards. An amoral person has no sense of right and wrong and does not recognize any moral standard.

Another word that needs clarification is the adjective ―Unmoral (n.d.). It refers to something to which right and wrong are not
applicable, such as animals, forces of nature, and machines. For example, Typhoons cause damages to properties and loss of
lives but they are unmoral, since they are formed by unconscious natural processes that exist outside the bounds of morality.
When talking about non-moral agents, such as animals or weather patterns, we use unmoral. ―Moral norms (n.d.) have
different forms. They can be expressed as principles, dispositions, character traits, and even through the life of a person. These
are different ways of specifying criteria for moral judgments.
 Topic 3: Moral Dilemmas

Introduction

A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally
undesirable ones. It is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing
each action.

1) An individual is presented with two or more actions, all of which the individual has the ability to perform.

2) There are moral reasons for the individual to choose each of the actions.

3) The individual cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or actions to perform when there are three
or more choices.

Since there are moral reasons to choose each action, and the individual cannot choose them all, it follows that no matter what
choice the individual makes, he or she will be failing to follow his or her morals. In other words, someone or something will suffer
no matter what choice he or she makes.

Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

1. Individual Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that involves the individual on a personal level. Factors such as personal health issues, family issues,
personal financial issues, peer pressures and socio-economic issues among many others may lead to ethical tensions within
the person himself. Example: A child in the family is in a dilemma whether to donate his kidney for the sake of his sister or not
considering that there may be some health complications that may arise in the future.

2. Organizational Moral Dilemma

This is a moral conflict that occurs in the organization or institution where individuals within the organization will face the
dilemma of personal choices against the working ethics of the organization or institution. Example: a network administrator who
found out about the infidelity of his best friend ‘s wife through her emails is in a dilemma whether to inform his best friend about
it or not considering the policy of the company on personal emails. Other examples may be found in businesses, scholarship
policies, medical field, and employment discriminations among others.

3. Systemic Moral Dilemma

This is a moral dilemma that occurs at a macro level. Factors such as political pressures, economic conditions, societal
attitudes, government regulations and policies may bring about a moral dilemma. These factors affect operations and
relationships which drives an impact to the people, the market, the workplace and others on a local, national and international
level. Examples are death penalty, Contractualization, War on Drugs Program of the Government, RH Law.