ETHICS In August 2007, newspapers reported what

seemed to be yet another sad incident of

Table of Contents fraternity violence. Cris Anthony Mendez, a
twenty-year-old student of the University of
Ethics: Foundations of Moral the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the
Valuations hospital in the early morning hours,
Chapter The Ethical Dimension of unconscious, with large bruises on his
1 Human Existence chest, back and legs. He passed away that
Lesson 1: Value morning, and the subsequent autopsy
Lesson 2: Sources of report strongly suggests that his physical
Authority injuries were most probably result of
Lesson 3: Senses of the hazing. What exactly happened remains an
Self open question, as none of those who were
Chapter Utilitarianism with him that night came forward to shed
2 light on what had transpired? Needless to
Lesson 1: The Principle of say, none of them came forward to assume
Utility responsibility for the death of Cris.
Lesson 2: The Principle of
Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho
the Greatest Number
fraternity publicly denounced the death of
Lesson 3: Justice and
Cris, those members who had been with
Moral Rights
him that night vanished, avoiding and
Chapter Natural Law
refusing to cooperate with legal
3
authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and
Lesson 1: Thomas Aquinas
the general public clamoured for justice. In
Lesson 2: The Greek
a move that surprised the student body, the
Heritage
UP Chancellor called on all fraternities to
Lesson 3: Essence and
justify their continued existence.
Varieties of Law
Meanwhile the case of the tragic death of
Chapter Virtue Ethics
Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It
4
remains that way up to this day.
Lesson 1: Happiness and
Ultimate Purpose No one knows just what exactly happened.
Lesson 2: Virtue as No charges have been filed, no definitive
Excellence testimony has been forthcoming. But there
Lesson 3: Moral Virtue and is more to this for us than just a criminal
Mesotes mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we
Chapter Synthesis: Making may find ourselves asking questions such
5 Informed Decisions as ‘What is the value of one’s life?” “What
Lesson 1: The Moral Agent exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his
and Contexts so-called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps
Lesson 2: Moral “is there any good in fraternities?” These
Deliberation questions that concern good and bad, or
Lesson 3: Self Society and right or wrong - and these questions
Environment concerning value are the kind of questions
that we deal in ethics.

CHAPTER 1 - THE ETHICAL DIMENSION LESSON 1 - VALUE

OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
Definition of Ethics
Introduction
The good things that we should do and the
bad things that we should avoid; the right
ways in which we could or should act and
the wrong ways of acting. It is about what
is acceptable and unacceptable in human
behaviour. It may involve obligations that
we are expected to fulfil, prohibitions that
we are required to respect, or ideals that
we are encouraged to meet.
Clarifications and Terminologies
1. Recognize that there are instances
when we make value judgements that
are not considered to be part of ethics.
Kinds of Valuations
a. Aesthetics – derived from the Greek word
“aesthesis” (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers
to the judgements of personal approval or
disapproval that we make about what we
see, hear, smell, or taste.
used to refer to a proper way (or right way)
of doing things but may not necessarily be
an ethical.
e.g.
Learning how to bake, for instance I am
told that the right thing to do would be mix
the dry ingredients first, such as flour or
sugar before bringing in any liquids, like
milk or cream: this is the right thing to do
in baking but does not belong in the
discussion of ethics.
2. Ethics and Morals
* Morals – used to refer specific beliefs or
attitudes that people have or to describe
acts that people perform.
* Ethics – the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and
ideal ways of thinking

3. Descriptive and Normative

e.g.

For instance, I could say that a new movie I * Descriptive Ethics – reports how people,
had just seen was a good one because I particularly groups, make their moral
enjoyed it or a song I heard on the radio valuations without making any judgement
was a bad one because it had an either for or against these valuations.
unpleasant tone.
* Normative Ethics – often done in
b. Etiquette – certain approval or philosophy or moral theology, engages
disapproval of actions which can be questions “What could or should be the
relatively more trivial in nature. It is right way of acting? In other words, a
concerned with right and wrong actions, normative discussion prescribes what we
but those considered not quite grave ought to maintain as our standards or
enough to belong to the discussion on bases for moral valuations.
ethics.
4. Issue Decision Judgement and
e.g. Dilemma
For instance, I may think that it is right to * Moral issue – used to refer to those
knock politely on someone’s door, while it particular situations that are often the
is wrong to barge into someone’s office. source of considerable ad inclusive
Perhaps I may approve of a child who debates (thus we would often hear topics
knows how to ask for something properly such as capital punishment and euthanasia
by saying please, and otherwise, as moral issue)
disapprove of a woman that I see picking
her nose in public. * Moral Decision – when one is faced in a
situation and confronted by the choice of
c. Technical Valuation – derive from the
what act to perform.
Greek word “techne” the English words
techniques and technical which are often
e.g. For instance, I choose not to take
something I did not pay for.
* Moral Judgment – when one is an
observer who makes an assessment on the
actions or behavior.
Going beyond whatever motivations or
incentive is present in an instance of
cheating (or not doing so), our thinking may
take on a level of abstraction, that is
“Cheating is wrong” by recognizing proper
reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond

e.g. For instance, a friend of mine stole rewards and punishments, it is possible for

from a store and I find it wrong to do so. our moral valuations, decisions and
judgment to be based on a principle or a
* Moral Dilemma – Going beyond the matter moral framework.
of choosing right over wrong, or good over
bad, and considering instead the more Principle
complicated situation wherein one is torn
Rationally established grounds by which
between choosing one of two goods or
one justifies and maintains her moral
choosing between the lesser of two evils;
decisions and judgement.
When an individual can choose only one
from a number of possible actions and Moral Theory/Framework
there are compelling ethical reasons for
the various choices. A systematic attempt to establish the
validity of maintaining certain moral
e.g. A mother may be conflicted between principles. It is a structure which can
wanting to feed her hungry child, but then evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain
recognizing that it would be wrong for her decision or judgement. This can make us
to steal. reflect on the principles that we maintain
and thus, the decisions and judgments we
Reasoning
make. By studying these, we can
Why do we suppose that a certain way reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately
of acting is right and its opposite is wrong? strengthen our principles, thereby
The study of ethics in interested in informing better both our moral judgments
questions like these: Why do we decide to and moral decisions.
consider this way of acting as acceptable
while that way of acting is unacceptable?
To put it in another way, what reasons do
LESSON 2 – SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
we give to decide or to judge that a certain
way of acting is either right or wrong? Several common ways of thinking about
ethics are based on the idea that the
A person’s fear of punishment or
standards of valuations are imposed by a
desire for reward can provide him a reason
higher authority that commands our
for acting in a certain way. It is common to
obedience. In the following section we will
hear someone say “I did not cheat on the
explore three of such ideas: law, religion
exam because I was afraid that I might get
and culture.
caught”. The promise of rewards and the
fear of punishment can certainly motivate AUTHORITY OF THE LAW
us to act, but are not in themselves
determinants of the rightness or wrongness It is a system of rules that are created and
of a certain way of acting or of the good or enforced through social and governmental
bad in particular pursuit. Is it possible to institutions to regulate behavior. It has
find better reasons for finding a certain been defined as the science of Justice or
way of acting either acceptable or the Art of Justice. Law is a system that
unacceptable? regulates and ensures that individuals or a
community adhere to the will of the state.
Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of individual discovers how the Divine wants her to
a systems of sanctions administered act. Further, someone maintaining more radical
form of this theory might go beyond this
through persons and institutions, which all
instruments of Divine Revelation and claim that
help in compelling us to obey. Provides us
God “spoke” to her directly to instruct her what
with an objective standard that is
to do.
obligatory and applicable to all.
 We are presented with a
One point to be raised is the prohibitive more or less clear code
nature of the law. The law does not tell us of prohibitions and many
what we should do; it works by of these prohibitions
constraining us from performing acts that given by religion – “Thou

we should not do. To put it slightly shall not kill, “Thou shall
not steal”, Thou shall
differently, the law cannot tell us what to
not commit adultery” -
pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be
seem to intuitively
satisfied thinking about ethics solely from coincide with our sense
the negative perspective of that which we of what ethics should
should not do, disregarding the important rightly demand.
aspect of a good which we could and
 Religion is not simply
should do, even if the law does not require
prohibitive but it also
us to do so?
provides us ideals to
pursue.
To make this point concrete, recall the
story of a toddler who had been run over by  Provides us with not
a couple of vehicles. While there were many just a set of commands
passers-by who witnessed what had but also Supreme
Authority that can
happened for quite a long while, no one did
inspire and compel our
anything to help. The child later died in the
obedience in a way that
hospital. The law does not oblige people to nothing else can.
help others in need, so none of these
passers –by were guilty of breaking any
law. However, many people reacting to this
On the practical level, we realize the presence of
sad news report share a sense that those a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands
passers-by were somewhat ethically differently from its adherents, which would
culpable in their negligence. In view, of all apparently result in conflicting ethical
this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a standards.
way that does not simply identify it with
obedience of the law. On conceptual level, we can see a further
problem where one requires the believer to
AUTHORITY OF THE RELIGION clarify her understanding of the connection
between ethics and the Divine.
“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore
and always heed his charge: his We maintain that generally speaking it is a good
statutes, decrees, and thing for a person of faith to abide by the
teachings of her particular religion. But the
commandments.” Deuteronomy 1:11
divine command theory demands more than this
(New American Bible)
as it requires us to identify the entire sense of
right and wrong with what religion dictates. The
Divine Command Theory
conceptual problem we have seen and the
The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being practical difficulties of simply basing ethics on
commands and one is obliged to obey her the divine command theory are reasons enough
Creator. There are persons and texts that one to wonder whether we have to set this thinking
believes are linked to the Divine. By listening to aside. Now let us clarify one point: Our calling
this figures and reading these writings, an into question of the divine command theory is
not calling to question of one’s belief in God; it is as when a particular African tribe
not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. thought it is advantageous and
Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether
therefore right for them to wipe out
there may be more creative and less problematic
a neighbouring people through a
ways of seeing the connection between faith and
terrible practice of genocide? Are
ethics, rather than simply equating what is
ethical with whatever one takes to be we in no position to judge if this is
commanded by God. wrong? Would we be satisfied with
concluding that we cannot judge
another culture?
3. We realize that we are in no position
to render any kind of judgement on
AUTHORITY OF CULTURE the practices of even our own
culture. If our culture was the basis
Culture is the integrated pattern of human of determining what is right or
knowledge belief and behavior that wrong, we would be unable to say
depends upon the capacity for learning and that something within our cultural
transmitting knowledge to succeeding practice was problematic, precisely
generations. because we take our culture to be
the standard for making such
Cultural Relativism – From the reality of
judgments.
diversity, it is possible for someone to jump
4. We can maintain it only by following
to the further claim that sheer variety at
presumption of our culture as a
work in the different ways of valuation
single clearly defined substance or
means there is no single universal standard
as something fixed and already
for such valuations, and that this holds true
determined. Now, it is always
as
possible to fid examples of a certain
culture having unique practice or
well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what
way of life and to distinguish it from
is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
other culture’s practices, but it is
relative to, or that is to say, dependent on
also becoming increasingly difficult
one’s culture.
to determine what exactly defines
James Rachels’ Criticism one’s culture.

1. The argument of criticism is *Positive Points

premised on the reality of
difference. Different cultures have Promotes sense of humility, that is,
moral codes. We cannot say that urging us not to imagine that our own
any moral code is the right one. But culture is superior to another. Such
the disagreement may mean that humility, however, should go hand in hand
the question of who is right or with a capacity for a rational, critical
wrong is not immediately evident, discernment that is truly appreciative of
but it does not mean that there is no human values.
correct resolution to the
disagreement. *Weak Points
2. We realize that we are in no position
It basically renders us incapable of
to render any kind of judgement on
discerning about what values we may wish
the practices of another culture.
to maintain as we are forced to simply
This seems to be a generous and an
accept whatever culture gives us. It keeps
open minded way of respecting
us from exploring whether there are values
others but what if the practice
that are shared between cultures; keeps us
seems to call for a comment. Such
from comparing and judging- either
positively or negatively – the valuations 1. Simplicity – when an idea is marked
that are made by different cultures. by simplicity, it has unique appeal to
it; a theory that conveniently
identifies a single basis that will
somehow account for all actions is
LESSON 3 – SENSES OF THE SELF
a good example of this.
It is sometimes thought that one should not
rely on any external authority to tell oneself 2. Plausibility- It is plausible that self-
what the standards of moral valuation are, interest is behind a person’s
but should instead turn inwards. In this actions. It is clearly the motivation
section we will look into three theories behind many of the actions one
about ethics that center on the self. perform which are obviously self-
serving; it could very well also be
SUBJECTIVISM the motivation behind an
individual’s seemingly other-
- Recognize that the individual
directed actions.
thinking person (the subject) is at
the heart of all moral valuation. She 3. Irrefutable – there is no way to try
is the one who is confronted with to answer it without being
the situation and is burdened with confronted by the challenge that,
the need to make a decision or whatever one might say, there is the
judgement. self-serving motive at the root of
everything.
- The individual is the sole
determinant of what is morally good Thus, if we cannot refute it, shall we
or bad, right or wrong. consider it as true? And “Do we
accept the consequences of this
 “No one can tell me what is
theory?”
right or wrong”
ETHICAL EGOISM
 “No one knows my situation
better than myself” - It does not suppose all actions are
already inevitably self-serving.
 “I am entitled to my own Instead, ethical egoism prescribes
opinion” that we should make our own ends,
our own interests, as the single
 “It is good, if I say it is good”
overriding concern. We may act in a
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM way that is beneficial to others, but
we should do that only if it
“Human beings are naturally self-centered, ultimately benefits us.
so all our actions are always already
motivated by self-interest”. The theory It is not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s
describes the underlying dynamic behind own desires, but the imposition of a will to
all human actions. As a descriptive theory, power that is potentially destructive of
both the self and the others. One can take
it does not direct one to act in any
on this view, if one wishes, but it is also
particular way. Instead, it points out that
possible to wonder whether there is a way
there is already an underlying basis for how
of recognizing our being in the world with
one’s act. The ego or self has its desires
others, of thinking of our own wellbeing
and interests, and all our actions are
concomitantly with the wellbeing of others.
geared toward satisfying these interests.

Strong Points