The Value of the Human Person

Ethics Sub-Lecture 1
Consider the following images

? The images that proceed this slide are example of the

various realities of the human person. Reflect on each
picture and write it down.
The thing is

? Whether we are aware of it or not our perception of

ourselves and others drives and motivates how we
value the human person.
 The thing is

? People in general have a preconceived understanding of how things are based on the
reality they belong to. (Based from Cultural, Societal, Religious, and other worldviews
that differ within each concept and among the same concepts.)

? Because of this people have a tendency to have a certain biases that guide one’s rational
judgment. (Which in and of itself isn’t necessarily wrong)

? However, the danger of clinging to biases is the irrational judgments that allow us to
unnecessarily discriminate people who differ from us.
Before Getting into Ethics

? Before we try and begin to understand the concept of ethics

and morality

? We have to understand the object and subject of the

Moral/Ethical Act.

? That is the human person

 What do we mean by Value?

? We do not mean the values such as principles, virtues, standards, etc.

? When we attempt to understand the Value of the individual person we wish to answer the
question; “Why is this person important?”, “why should we have to consider each person?”

? When we ask these questions we start to consider how we should act towards others and
ourselves, how we should judge and consider certain situations and circumstances etc.
 Our approach on Ethics and
Moral Philosophy is
SECULAR. Meaning any
Disclaimer contradiction with one's
personal, cultural, or
religious beliefs is merely for
educational discussion.
6 Things Ethics is not
1. Ethics is not a
“check up.” It is not a
checklist of rules that
determine whether or
not something is right
or wrong. Instead it is
an investigation into
real and substantial
questions of eternal
importance. (What is
a good person?)
2. Ethics (or “morals”)
are NOT the same as
“mores.”
Mores are how we do behave,
morals are how we ought to behave.
Mores, or social norms, are facts,
whereas morals are values. Mores
are patterns of behavior, whereas
morals are principles of behavior.
Mores are common to both man and
beast, while morals are proper to
man alone. This point corresponds
to the distinction between Shame
(mores) and Guilt (morals). Shame
is social and guilt is individual. Dogs
feel shame, but not guilt.
3. Ethics is not psychology. Ethics is not about feelings.

4. Ethics is not ideology.

5. Ethics is not the same as Meta-Ethics. Ethics is thinking about Good and
Evil. Meta-Ethics is thinking about Ethics.

7. Ethics is not religion. One does not need religious faith to study ethics.
 Mental Exercise

Is stealing always
Can killing be wrong?
justified?
Should we always respect
Is there a good reason ideas that are contrary to
for cheating on your our own?
partner?
Should sex only be for
the married?
Morality is the differentiation of
intentions, decisions and actions
between those that are distinguished
as proper and those that are improper.
Morality can be a body of standards
or principles derived from a code of Morality
conduct from a particular philosophy,
religion or culture, or it can derive
from a standard that a person believes
should be universal.
ETHICS & MORALS

The Introduction
 Moral Philosophy is one of the
major schools of philosophy.
MORAL Moral philosophy relates to
PHILOSOPH practical philosophy, while
Y metaphysics refers to theoretical
philosophy. Morality thus
speaks of action 
 Thus it asks questions such as;

Is abortion justifiable?
May war be just?

Is the death penalty moral?

What Should Humanity
Do?
What Should I Do?
 Mental Exercise

Dautan O Dili
Wearing complete Slapping your
uniform teacher

Kicking a poor man Eating during

on the street classes

Spitting on your Wearing a bikini in a high

clients food end restaurant

Sleeping during Making noise while

classes eating
Let Us Define Before
We Engage
Morality Vs. Ethics
 Source of Principles

• Ethics are external standards that are provided by institutions,

groups, or culture to which an individual belongs. For example,
lawyers, policemen, and doctors all have to follow an ethical code laid
down by their profession, regardless of their own feelings or
preferences. Ethics can also be considered a social system or a
framework for acceptable behavior.

• Morals are also influenced by culture or society, but they are

personal principles created and upheld by individuals themselves.
 Consistency and Flexibility

• Ethics are very consistent within a certain context, but can vary
greatly between contexts. For example, the ethics of the
medical profession in the 21st century are generally consistent and
do not change from hospital to hospital, but they are different from
the ethics of the 21st century legal profession.

• An individual’s moral code is usually unchanging and consistent

across all contexts, but it is also possible for certain events to
radically change an individual's personal beliefs and values.
 Conflicts Between Ethics and Morals

• One professional example of ethics conflicting with morals is the work of a

defense attorney. A lawyer’s morals may tell her that murder is reprehensible
and that murderers should be punished, but her ethics as a professional lawyer,
require her to defend her client to the best of her abilities, even if she knows
that the client is guilty.

• Another example can be found in the medical field. In most parts of the world,
a doctor may not euthanize a patient, even at the patient's request, as per
ethical standards for health professionals. However, the same doctor
may personally believe in a patient's right to die, as per the doctor's own
morality.
 Origins

• Much of the confusion between these two words can be traced back to
their origins. For example, the word "ethic" comes from Old French
(etique), Late Latin (ethica), and Greek (ethos) and referred to customs or
moral philosophies. "Morals" comes from Late Latin's moralis, which
referred to appropriate behavior and manners in society. So, the two have
very similar, if not synonymous, meanings originally.
• Morality and ethics of the individual have been philosophically studied for
well over a thousand years. The idea of ethics being principles that are set
and applied to a group (not necessarily focused on the individual) is
relatively new, though, primarily dating back to the 1600s. The distinction
between ethics and morals is particularly important for
philosophical ethicists.
 Ethics Morals
What are they? The rules of conduct recognized in respect Principles or habits with respect to right
to a particular class of human actions or a or wrong conduct. While morals also
particular group or culture. prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is
ultimately a personal compass of right
and wrong.

Where do they come Social system - External Individual - Internal

from?

Why we do it? Because society says it is the right thing to Because we believe in something being
do. right or wrong.

Flexibility Ethics are dependent on others for Usually consistent, although can change
definition. They tend to be consistent within if an individual’s beliefs change.
a certain context, but can vary between
contexts.
The "Gray" A person strictly following Ethical
Principles may not have any Morals
at all. Likewise, one could violate
Ethical Principles within a given
system of rules in order to maintain
Moral integrity.
A Moral Person although perhaps
bound by a higher covenant, may
choose to follow a code of ethics as
it would apply to a system. "Make
it fit"

Origin Greek word "ethos" Latin word "mos" meaning

meaning"character" "custom"

Acceptability Ethics are governed by professional Morality transcends cultural

and legal guidelines within a norms
particular time and place
 Three Branches of Ethics

Ethics as a field of study is divided into

three branches;
Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and
Applied Ethics
 Metaethics

The term “meta” means after or beyond, and,

consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a
removed, or bird’s eye view of the entire project of
ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of
the origin and meaning of ethical concepts.
 Metaethics

When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics,

the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area
of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral
semantics to moral epistemology. Two issues, though,
are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning
whether morality exists independently of humans, and
(2) psychological issues concerning the underlying
mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.
 Normative Ethics

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards

that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a
search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The
Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative
principle: We should do to others what we would want
others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to
steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car.
Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving,
then I should help feed starving people.
 Normative Ethics

Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine

whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based
on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie
to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden
Rule is an example of a normative theory that
establishes a single principle against which we judge all
actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of
foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.
 Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of

the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues such
as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent
years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into
convenient groups such as medical ethics, business
ethics, environmental ethics, and sexual ethics.
Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an
issue to be considered an “applied ethical issue.”
Moral Agent
Understanding
Standards
Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about
what is right and wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral standards
are those concerned with or relating to human behavior, especially the
distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong) behavior.
Moral Standards Vs. Non-Moral Standards
Characteristics of Moral Standards
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the
kinds of actions they believe are morally right and
wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of
objects they believe are morally good and morally bad.
Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral
values and moral principles.
 The following six (6) characteristics of moral
standards further differentiate them from non-
moral standards:
a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant
benefits.
Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously
impact, that is, injure or benefit human beings. It is not
the case with many non-moral standards. For instance,
following or violating some basketball rules may matter
in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one’s
life or wellbeing.
b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.
Moral standards have overriding character or
hegemonic authority. If a moral standard states that a
person has the moral obligation to do something, then
he/she is supposed to do that even if it conflicts with
other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.
c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by
authoritative bodies or persons such as nations’ legislative
bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the
process of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards
cannot be changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular
authoritative body. One thing about these standards,
nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy
of the reasons that are considered to support and justify them.
d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to
moral standards. To be more accurate, however, it
entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in
the relevantly similar situation. If one judges that act A
is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally
right for anybody relevantly similar to P.
e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis
of the interests of a certain person or group, but one that
goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint
in which each person’s interests are impartially counted
as equal.
f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and
vocabulary.
Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of
moral standards. These moral standards are generally put forth
as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no
unnecessary harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles
are proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to action.
Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign
praise and blame, and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of
guilt.
Characteristics of Non-Moral Standards
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are
unrelated to moral or ethical consideration. Either
these standards are not necessarily linked to
morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic
examples of non-moral standards include rules of
etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and
various house rules.
Freedom
Sartre & Lewis
Human Capability

Humanity is endowed with the capability of reason.

Every individual can think, decide, judge, critique,
reject, object, obey, disobey, and whatever action
that deals with the need of the mind.

Human intellect is so unique to humans themselves

that every action always goes through a catalyst, which
is our minds. Without our minds we cannot do the
many actions attributed to our species just as the
actions mentioned above.
Human Capability

With that in mind, regardless of the limits given to us by

society, what occurs in our minds is solely in our control.

No once can think for us, if there are people who can think for
us, than it is still our choice to allow them to.

We are always free no matter how imprisoned we feel by the

expectations of other people.

Freedom is given to every human being whether handicapped

or not.
Freedom Within in the Context of Morality

Every action we make is based on our

capability to make a decision.
No human act is an act without freedom,
or we can say that every action you
make is based on your freedom to
choose what you think you should do.
2 Viewpoints on Freedom in Morality

Jean-Paul Sartre (Freedom and

Responsibility)

C.S. Lewis ( Moral Interdependence)

Jean-Paul Sartre
Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre (Pronounced SART) was

an atheist existentialist
philosopher, critique,
novelist, dramatist, and Nobel
prize winner.

He is notable for his many

works such as, Nausea, The
Devil and the Good Lord, and
The Flies, to name a few.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre, being an atheist, revolves his philosophy of

freedom and morality on the basis that humanity only
depends on himself and should solely be responsible for
himself and is only accountable to himself.

Since there is no God then we can never attribute our

goodness/badness to another being we consider to be
supreme.

We are accountable for our own actions and our own

existence.
Jean-Paul Sartre

In his work, Nausea, we find a notable

quote that is suitable for our discussion
on freedom in the context of morality.
Jean-Paul Sartre

“Man is condemned to be
free; because once thrown
into the world, he is
responsible for everything he
does.”
To Simplify

The choices you make, the opportunities you

miss, the good you could have done but did
not do, the person you hurt (whether
intentional or not), your backbiting, your
lying, your studiousness, your drunkenness,
your piety, basically everything you do, ONLY
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
In Summary

• There is no other choice other than to act on the

freedom by which you are condemned to have.

• Since we cannot do anything outside our personal

freedoms, then the manner by which we act is
what defines our principles and virtues, how one
understands morality is dependent on how one
executes ones freedom.
C. S. Lewis
C. S. Lewis

Clive Staples Lewis

Irish-born scholar, novelist, and

author of about 40 books, many of
them on Christian apologetics,
including The Screwtape
Letters and Mere Christianity. His
works of greatest lasting fame may
be the Chronicles of Narnia, a
series of seven children’s books
that have become classics
of fantasy literature.
C. S. Lewis

Lewis being a theist (one who

believes in a Divine Being)
centered his understanding of
morality around his Christian
beliefs.
 C. S. Lewis

In his book Mere

Christianity,
Lewis likens
freedom and
morality to that
of a fleet of ships.
Dissecting the Quote

“Morality and
freedom are like a
fleet of ships”
Dissecting the Quote

Within ONE fleet are a multitude of

ships. Often around 7 ships or 30 or more
ships comprise one fleet.
Three Major Points

• Each ship must stay out of each others

way and must not collide

• Every individual ship must be

seaworthy (everything working in
order)

• The fleet must be in its proper course

Relating to Morality

• Morality is social. It is concerned with fairness

and harmony between people.

• Morality is individual. It is concerned with

harmony within the individual person.

• Morality has a purpose, connected with the

overall purpose of human life
1

• No ship gets in the way of other ships otherwise

they may collide and cause an incident.

• Likewise humans, being rational beings, have the

intellect to not get in the way of other people
knowing that other people are rational beings as
well in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.
2

• Now every ship is independent from the rest of

the ships. Every ship can function even without
the help of other ships. And to ascertain the that
no accident happens it does not get in the way of
other ships

• Likewise every individual human being functions

individually without having to depend on other
people. One makes sure to check his own
bearings.
3

• No ship goes to sea without a proper course. A

ship cannot sail from the port of Iligan intended
for Cebu but ends up in Tokyo.

• Likewise, morality serves a purpose for the

good of humanity. Morality cannot be for the
benefit of an individual or a group but for the
good of all.
To summarize

• Lewis’ explanation of morality is not unique to

himself, rather it is an overall principle of
religious traditions throughout the human race.

• To avoid harming others is the main principle of

every religion, to make sure that we are in
harmony with others as well as ourselves, and
by extension you contribute to the good of
everyone.
What We Can Learn
What We Can Learn

• We have seen the viewpoints on

morality by an atheist and a theist.

• But what value can we get from

these two great thinkers of history?
More importantly
what value have
YOU seen?
For Sartre

• You have to be responsible for your

actions since you are a free agent and
your actions are based on your impulses
and judgment.

• You cannot escape the consequences of

your actions
For Lewis

• Our freedom is the freedom to not

harm others, to be in harmony with
others as well as yourself.

• Our morality guides us towards

harmony
Moral Dilemmas
The Challenge of Making a Choice
 Basically, the word ‘dilemma’ refers
to a situation in which a tough choice
has to be made between two or more
options, especially more or less
What is a equally undesirable ones.
“Dilemma”?

From this meaning or definition

alone, we can see that not all
dilemmas are moral dilemmas.
 Moral dilemmas are situations in which a
difficult choice have to be made between
two courses of action, either of which
entails transgressing a moral principle.
What is a Moral
Dilemma?

It is safe to say that at the very least,

moral dilemmas involve conflicts between
moral requirements.
 We can classify
moral dilemmas
according to
levels:

(b) organizational,
(a) personal, (c) structural.
and

The Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas

 Personal Dilemmas
are those experienced
and resolved on the
personal level. Since
a. Personal many ethical
Dilemmas decisions are
personally made,
many, if not most of,
moral dilemmas fall
under, or boil down
to, this level.
 French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre gave an example or a case that could
exemplify a personal moral dilemma:

“Sartre tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German
a. Personal offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight
Dilemmas forces that he regarded as evil. But the student’s mother was living with him,
and he was her one consolation in life.’

“The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes

him as being torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but
certain efficacy, personal devotion to his mother; the other of much wider
scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an
unjust aggressor.” (“Moral Dilemmas,” n.d.)
Ethical cases encountered
and resolved by social
organizations are
organizational moral b.
Organizational
dilemmas. This category Dilemmas
includes moral dilemmas in
business, medical field, and
public sector.
For example, a hospital that believes
that human life should not be
deliberately shortened and that
unpreventable pain should not be
tolerated encounters a conflict in b.
resolving whether to withdraw life Organizational
support from a dying patient. This is a Dilemmas
common moral dilemma faced by
healthcare organizations and medical
institutions.
 Moral dilemmas also
arise in professional
work. Administrative
bodies in business are
confronted with
b. situations in which
Organizational several courses of
action are possible but
Dilemmas
none of them provide a
totally successful
outcome to those
affected by the
decision or actions
taken.
 These moral dilemmas in business
involve issues about corporate
practices, policies, business
behaviors, and the conducts and
b. relationships of individuals in the
organizations. Other business-
Organizational related dilemmas pertain to the
Dilemmas social responsibility of businesses,
employee rights, harassment,
labor unions, misleading
advertising, job discrimination,
and whistle blowing.
 On the part of public sector,
government leaders and employees
have a moral duty to act in a manner
b. that is fair and unbiased. They should be
Organizational loyal to the public and ought to put
Dilemmas public interest before personal gain,
and fulfill duties of competency,
integrity, accountability, and
transparency.
Having said that, public officials nonetheless may encounter foreseeable moral dilemmas
in fulfilling these ideals. So ethical or moral dilemmas which arise include the following
– becoming whistle blower
even if it means potentially
derailing a policy objective
one is pursuing; and,
-whether or not to favor
family, friends, or campaign
contributors over other
constituents;
examples:
– resigning from
organizations in which
membership may give rise
to future conflicts;
-favoring the agenda of
one’s political party over a
policy one believes to be
good for the community;
– accepting gifts if it is
legally permitted but b.
creates the appearance of
impropriety. Organizational
Dilemmas
– dealing with conflicting
public duties inherent in
serving both as a council
member and as a member
of an agency or
commission;
c. Structural Dilemmas
These structural moral dilemmas
pertain to cases involving network
of institutions and operative
theoretical paradigms. As they
usually encompass multi-sectoral
institutions and organizations, they
may be larger in scope and extent
than organizational dilemmas.
 An example is the prices of medicine
in the Philippines which are higher
compared to other countries in Asia
and in countries of similar economic
c. Structural
status. Factors affecting medicine
Dilemmas
prices include the cost of research,
presence of competition in the
market, government regulations, and
patent protection.
 The institutions concerned may want
to lower the costs of medicine,
thereby benefiting the Filipino public,
but such a move may ruin the
c. Structural interests or legal rights of the
Dilemmas involved researchers, inventors or
discoverers, and pharmaceutical
companies which own the patent of
the medicines or healthcare
technologies.
 An example of dilemma which is also structural in nature is that of
Universal Health Care (UHC). Locally applied, it is called “Kalusugan
Pangkalahatan” (KP). It is the provision to every Filipino of the highest
possible quality of health care that is accessible, efficient, equitably
distributed, adequately funded, fairly financed, and appropriately used by
an informed and empowered public.

c. Structural “Kalusugan Pangkalahatan” (KP), as a government mandate, aims to

ensure that every Filipino shall receive affordable and quality health
Dilemmas benefits by (ideally) providing adequate resources – health human
resources, health facilities, and health financing.

Nonetheless, health financing is first and foremost a big issue here.

Government could set aside bigger budget for health for the
implementation of this provision. But then, this would mean cutting
down allocations on other sectors (such as education or public works.).