KIEL ANDREW F.

MALONZO
ETHICS 33

ACTIVITY 1
1. What is the aim of ethics? Why is Ethics “the only necessary knowledge”? Do you believe that
morality should or should not be based solely on religion? Why? Is it possible to establish a moral
system without any reference to religion? If so, how? If not, why not? What could be the basis of
such a system if not religion? Describe your position in detail.

• The aim of ethics varies in different ways and aspects. In philosophy, the aim of ethics is a
systematic way to comprehend, analyze, and identify topics of right and wrong, good and
evil, admirable and lamentable in connection to the well-being of sentient beings'
relationships. It is the standard of what’s good and right. According to some, ethics seeks
to distinguish between what is morally good and what is morally bad; alternately, ethics
seeks to develop the standards by which one can live a life worth living. Ethics is the only
necessary knowledge as it develop skills in expressing your own values and beliefs,
providing reasons for your actions to others, and allowing you to question others' values
and from that, it’ll be a guide for us to live morally every day. Morality is wide as it seems
to be seen or thought by religion and I think that it shouldn’t be purely based on religion
because we have different society and tradition that influence one’s morality but as
religious person, I think that is impossible to be morally good without religion or God
because actions should be judged by a systematic ethical analysis, and this analysis can be
cannot be learn without the basis of religion. In addition, I think it is impossible but we
could establish moral actions by just relying on what person sees and learn from its
tradition, culture and environment and these people are called A theist. Lastly, as a family-
oriented person, I can clearly say that I personally learn from my parents the standards of
good moral with knowing its religious background and explanation and I can say that
people can be moral just by following the moral rules based from religion.

2. To what extent do you feel human beings need rules in order to be moral, and to what extent do
you feel they should be free to adapt their behavior to different situations? Be specific, giving
examples and illustrations.

• The purpose of ethics is to establish good and proper behavior principles. Ethics is the
study of the fundamental concepts that serve as the foundation for moral rules.
Furthermore, ethics is different from morals because being morally good is just by
following the moral rules. I would feel that human beings need orders to be morally good
regarding to their pleasures and desires. For example, the lust feelings felt by a person to
another person just by seeing them around, and that needs to be controlled as it is an
unethical action and expression that may cause contrary to the moral rules. In addition,
cultural barriers of different people may have been part of this matter. There are 3 types of
ignorance; Concomitant, Consequent and Antecedent. And for example, if a foreign has
these traits of not being aware of the moral rules in a specific place he/she will act according
to the rules just like I have mentioned earlier that being morally good is just an act of
following the moral rules. Lastly, enforcing rules is the key to keeping humans civilized;
those rules are what we call the law. the law is set to prevent humans from falling out of
the line to which we call normal, where what we call normal is the morally correct, law-
abiding citizen. the necessity to enforce the law upon a single citizen may vary on how far
that person strays away from that line. In line with this topic, I think one’s person is allowed
and free to adapt their behavior to different situations once they are unaware of the moral
rules based from my example earlier. For example, someone coming from a different place
with different cultural beliefs being capable of adapting to situations is a big advantage for
people who often travel or move out of their homes. humans are free to adapt and act based
on the situation they are given. should the question be asking to what extent is one's
behavior be called acceptable in a certain situation, I think that if one is considered ill
mannered, such behavior is only excused if the person is concomitantly ignorant of their
misconduct. Therefore, Humans do not need rules in order to be moral. When speaking of
morality, it is our inner conscience that tells us what is right and wrong. On that fact alone,
we can say that if we use rules to define our moral compass, then we all are not morally
good as we need a controlling concept like laws to prevent us from doing immoral acts.
However, humans must not be given complete freedom either. Freedom is best enjoyed
when there is restraint because we can ensure the safety and peace within our communities.
We do not need rules to define our morality. Instead, we need it to ensure the longevity of
order in our society. All in all, rules and freedom must always be observed but in
moderation.