By: Group 6

1
What is the value of studying ethics if none of the
four major ethical theories suchas Utilitarianism,
Natural Law ethics, Kantian Deontology and Virtue
Ethicsis definitive or final?

2
• Each ethical theory represents the best attempts of the best
thinkers to give fully thought-out answers to the question of ethics
suchas “What ought to do?” and “Why ought I to do so?”

• The quest to answer these questions has not reached its final
conclusion. Meaning, the story of humanity appears to be the
never-ending search for what it means to be fully human in the face
of moral choices.

3
• These questions of what the right thing to do is and why are
considered to be everyone’s concern.

• Neither the laws nor rules of one’s immediate community or of a

wider culture of or religious affiliation can sufficiently answer
these questions, especia ly when different duties, cultures or
religion intersect and conflict.

• Reason has a role to play in addressing these questions, if not in

resolving them. It is therefore the power that identifies the
situations in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with one
another.

4
• The first level is personal. It can understood to mean both the
person in relation to herself (the person who’s making moral
valuation), as well as her relation to other human beings on an
intimate or person-to-person basis.

• Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act

in relation to other human beings and toward self. Ethics
can help navigate what ways should be in dealing with them.

5
• The second level is societal. Society in this context means one’s
immediate community (neighborhood, barangay or town), the
larger sphere (one’s province, region or country), or the whole
global village.

• Culture is a very broad term and can extend to such realms as art,
laws, field of knowledge and custom of community therefore may
lead to conflicting ideas. Ethics serves to guide one
through the potentially confusing thicket of an
individual’s interaction with her wider world of social
roles.

6
• The last level will be in relation to physical environment. It
refers to the non-human, natural world that serves as home and
source of nurturance for all beings. Thus, ethics is also concerned with
the humanbeings’ responsibility toward their natural world.

• The environmental crises that the world is currently facing today

such as global warming, endangerment of some species are
existing proofs that there is a need to think ethically about one’s
relationship to her natural world.

7
• Human individual is the one who is tasked to think about what is
“right” and why it is so, and to choose to do so. “Who one is” is
another major topic in the act of philosophizing.

• A Filipino philosopher, Ramon C. Reyes, in his essay “Man

and Historical Action” explained that “who one is” is a cross-
point. He means that one’s identity, who one is, or who I am, is
a product of many forces and events that happened outside
of one’s choosing.

8
• “Who one is” is a function of physical events in the past and
material factors in the present that one did not have a choice in.
Meaning physical factors are already given, they have
happened are still happening whether you want or not.

• Example of this cross-point is a Filipino to be born in an

archipelago with tropical climate situated near the equator.

9
• One did not choose her own parents (physical) and yet her own
personality, character traits and her overall way of doing things and
thinking about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents
and how they brought her up. Thus, in this cross-point, who one is in the
sense of her character or personality is affected and been
shaped by one’s relationships as well as the physical factors
affecting her character.

• Example of a character that is shaped by physical factor is the stance of

Europeans before about the laziness of Filipino. Rizal argued that this
mistook “laziness” was a function of the tropical climate.

10
 SOCIAL
• Reyes argued that “who one is” is molded in large part by the
kind of society and culture -which one did not choose-that one
belongs to. This cross-point interacts with physical and
interpersonal factors that affect an individual.

• Example: Filipinos have their own way of doing things

(pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values ( closely- knit
family ties) and even their own notion of right and wrong
(communal vs.individualistic rights).

11
• This cross-point pertains to the events that one’s people has
undergone. Thus, one’s people’s history shapes “who one is”. This
cross-point also interacts with the three cross- points mentioned.

• Example: Philippines had a long history of colonization that

affected how Philippine society has been formed and how
Philippine culture has developed. It shaped an individual who is a
member of the Philippine society. Christianity which is brought to
usby the Spaniards has formed Philippine society and culture.

12
 EXISTENTIAL

• However, being a product of all these cross-points is just one side of

“who one is”. It is also a project for one’s self. This happens
because a human individual has freedom. This finite (not
absolute) freedom means that the one has the capacity to give
herself a particular direction in life according to her own ideal
self. Thus, “who one is” is a product of the four interacting cross-
points which are outside his choosing and ideal future for herself.

13
• A common opinion many people recognized is the so-ca led
cultural relativism, is that one’s culture dictates what is right or
wrong for an individual. Generalizations concerning supposed
Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes especially since
one may be hard to think if any other culture does not exhibit
such traits.

• American philosopher James Rachels (1941-2003) provided a

clear argument against the validity of cultural relativism.

14
• Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that
there is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality.
Since different cultures have different moral codes, then there is no
one correct moral code that all cultures must fo low. The
implication is that each culture has its own standard of right and
wrong.

15
• Ethics, therefore, should not be reduced to one’s own
cultural beliefs and practices as these beliefs may
enlighten her to what is ethically correct or wrong.
Moral development therefore is a prerequisite if the
individual is to encounter ethicalsituations.

16
• Many religious fo lowers assume that what their religion teaches can be
found either in their sacred scripture or body of writings or in other forms
of preaching. But a critical, philosophical question of “What exactly
does a sacred scripture (or religious teaching) command?”.

• This is a question of interpretation since even the same passage from a

particular religious tradition can have many different interpretations
from religious teachers even from within the same tradition. Moral
agent, therefore, must still , in full responsibility, cha lenge herself to
understand using her own powers of rationality, but with full
recognition of her situation and what her religious authorities claim their
religion teaches.

17
• Another concern is that one must determine what justifies the claim of a
particular religious teaching when it commands its followers on
what they “ought to do”. When something is morally good, is it
because it is good in itself and that is why God commands it, or is it good
because God simply says so?

• An example is when terrorists who are religious extremists use religion to

justify acts of violence they perform on fellow human beings. The
problem is that too many people perform heinous acts simply because they
assumed they were following the teachings of their supposed religion,
without thinking whether these acts are harmful.

18
• American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg theorized
moral development which according to him happening in six
stages, and which he divided into three levels.

• The first level is pre-conventional. It corresponds to how infants

and young children think. This level, whose reasoning is centered on
the consequences of one’s actions is divided into two stages. The first
stage of reasoning centers around obedience and the avoidance of
punishment. Later, a child enters into the second stage of
reasoning and learns to act according to what she thinks will serve
her self-interest.

19
Example of pre-conventional level”

First stage- (fear of punishment) Achild who will stop

crying because he is afraid that his father might scold him.

Second stage- ( self-serving) Achild who will eat

whatever he can see inside their refrigerator to satisfy
his/her stomach.

20
• The second level is the conventional level. It is the age in which
older children, adolescents and young adults learn to conform to the
expectations of the society. The third stage is when one begins
to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expects of
her. The individual here assumes that what will benefits her
best is when the other members of her group approve of her
actions. The fourth stage is achieved when a person realizes that
following the dictates of her society is not just good for herself
but more importantly, necessary for the existence of society itself.
The individual at this stage values most the laws, rules and
regulations of her society.

21
• Example of conventional stage.

Third stage- (Conforming to the value of one’s group) An

individual who is studying his lessons with his
friends before attending the class since that is what his
friends always do.

Fourth stage- (Valuing the laws, rules and regulations of the

society) An individual who thinks that stealing is bad since
there is a law prohibiting it.

22
• The third and the highest level is what Kohlberg ca ls post-
conventional. The morally responsible agent in this level
recognizes that what is good or right is not reducible to
following the rules of one’s group.

• Moral maturity, therefore, is seen in an agent who acts on what she

has understood using her full rationality. In the fifth stage, the moral
agent sees the value of the social contract or the agreements
that rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly or
implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the
commongood are what ought to honor and fo low.

23
• On the other hand, the sixth and the highest stage of moral
development that exists beyond the 5th stage of the social
contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal ethical
principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all
the conventions (laws, rules and regulations) of society are only
correct if they are based on these universal ethical principles.

24
• Example of post-conventional level

Fifth stage- (value of the social contract) An individual who

participated in a rally protesting for the rights of
everyone. That individual is doing this not only because
there is a law provided their rights to expression but
because it will benefit the majority and will contribute to the
commongood.

Sixth stage- (Based on universal ethical principles) This is

when an individual always consider what is ethically good
based on his rational thinking.

25
• The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making an
informed moral decision. What an individual must do is to educate
and cultivate her feelings so that they do not remain in the pre-
conventional level, that is, of self-centered feelings which are only
based on individualistic notions of pain and pleasure.

26
 WHAT MUST A
MORALLYMATUREINDIVIDUAL DO WHEN
SHEISCONFRONTEDWITH A MORAL PROBLEM?

27
• The first step is to determine our level of involvement in
the case at hand. After ascertaining our involvement in the
potential moral situation, the next step then is to make sure of
the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a
moral situation or not. Is it really a moral situation or just merely in
the level of aesthetics or of etiquettes? We must also identify
whether an item in consideration is truly factual or merely
hearsay, anecdotal or an unfounded assumption.

28
• The third step is to identify all the people who
may potentially be affectedby the implications of a
moral situation or by our concrete choice of
action.After identifying these people (stakeholders), we must
think of reasons or actions, aside from our own self-serving ones, to
come up with conclusions in the sense that we take consideration of
everyone’s welfare.

29
• The final step 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 moral agent must be able to learn how to
avoid this seduction of surrendering to blind
simplification.

30
• The first one is a situation in which we need to
clarify whether a certain action is morally right or morally
wrong. This is where the different ethical theories or frameworks
can serve.

• The second type involves determining whether a

particular action in question can be identified with a
generally accepted ethical or unethical action. Ex. Issue
of death penalty. Can we say that this issue is tantamount or
equivalent to murder?

31
• The third type points to the presence of ethical
dilemma. Dilemmas are ethical situation in which there are
competing values that seem to have equal worth. The problem is
concerned with either a choice between two competing moral goods
or two evils. The individual at this point must identify the
probable consequences that a particular choice of action will bring
to the stakeholders concerned in order to determine which choice,
possibly is the best.

32
• These ethical theories may serve as guideposts, given that they are
the best attempts to understand morality that the history of
humanthought has to offer.

• Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing

that act is good if it will bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number of those affected by the action. It puts more value
on the notion of “common good” compared to any of the other
ethical frameworks we have covered.

33
• The natural law theory, puts more emphasis on the supposed
objective, universal nature of what is to be considered morally
good, basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a
“human nature”. This theory has the assumption that whatever is
right what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses of one’s
being or of one’s conscience because what is good is imprinted in our
very being in the form of natural inclinations.

34
• Kantian deontology puts its focus on rational will, freed from
all other considerations, as the only human capacity that can
determine one’s moral duty. Kant focuses on one’s autonomy as
constitutive of what one can consider as moral law that is free from
other ends and inclinations. These inclinations including pain and
pleasures as well as conformity to the rules of the group.

35
• Aristotle’s virtue ethics indicates the needs for the habituation
(habit) of one’s character to make any and all of these previous
considerations possible. To weigh the co lective happiness of
human beings, to choose to act on what one’s innermost nature
dictates, and to practice one’s autonomy regardless of all other
considerations. Solid resolve of one’s character can only be
achieved through the right kind of habituation.

36
37
• According to Mill, what is good or right does not simply reduce
to what “I feel is good for me”. It instead puts premium on the
higher kinds of pleasure that are appropriate to the human being
and which would be of benefit to the greatest number affected.

38
• Thomas Aquinas’, Natural Law theory states the natural
tendency to maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action
therefore that sustains and cultivates one’s biological or physical
existence is to be deemed good, while actions that lead to the
destruction of one’s existence is to be called bad or evil. Taking care
of one’s being is a moral duty hat one owes to herself and to God.

39
• Kant’s deontology, celebrates the rational faculty of the moral
agent which is merely above sentient beings as compared to
other beings. Its principle of universalizability cha lenges the
moral agent to think beyond his own preferences and desires
and to instead consider what everyone ought to do. It teaches
one to always treat humanity, whether in her own self or in any
other individual , as the end or goal of all human. When it
comes to telling what ought do in a particular situation, the
highest authority is the rational individual herself.

40
• Aristotle’s Virtue ethics teaches that one must always find and
act on the mesotes whether in treating oneself or any other human
being. Mesotes involves identifying the relevant feelings that are
involved and being able to manage them. Temperance is one
Aristotelian virtue that clearly applies to treating oneself and other
people close to oneself fairly and with much circumspection.

41
• Mill’s Utilitarianism will always push for the greatest happiness
principle as the prime determinant of what can be considered as
good action, whether in the personal sphere or in the societal
realm. Thus, Filipinos cannot simply assume that their action is
good because their culture says so. Instead, the fundamental
question ought to be “Will this action bring about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number?”

42
• Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law theory, emphasized that human
life , the care and education of children, and the promotion of truth
and harmonious social living should be in the mind of an
individual when she performs actions directed to the larger
whole. For Aquinas, no harmonious social life will be possible if
individuals that comprise such a society do not value human life. The
morally responsible agent under this theory, must guard against
committing any act that can go against peaceful and orderly social
life.

43
• Immanuel Kant’s deontology argues for the use of
universalizability and of humanity as end in itself to form a
person’s autonomous notion of what she ought to do. An
individual must make sure that if she were to follow a law, she
must understand why it is truly the right thing to do. Citizens of a
particular society ought to make sure that the laws and rules that they
come up with are in line with what universalizable moral duty
will prescribe.

44
• Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the guide to all the
actions that a person has to take. The case of the Overseas
Filipino Workers (OFW) for example must perform their jobs in
other countries, and so they must balance the need for
acculturation (adjustment and integration of other culture) and at
the same time keeping their Filipino identity. Temperance once
again presents itself as it is much needed in dealing with the
other participants in social intercourse.

45
• Utilitarianism pointed out that this hedonistic doctrine that
focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human
decision-making should extend into other creatures that can
experience pleasures and pains such as animals. Animal ethics argue
that humans should always take into account the potential pleasure or
pain that they may inflict on animals. What is good then is not only
what is good for the greatest number of human beings affected, but
also for the greatest number of creatures that can feel pleasure or
pain suchas animals.

46
• Kantian deontology focuses on the innate dignity of the human
being as possessing reason, it can be argued that one cannot
possibly universalize maxims that, in the end, will lead to invalid or
flawed social existence. Can one accept the following maxim as
something that everyone ought to fo low? Ex. “One ought to not
worry about environmental destruction, as long as it produces
economic wealth for my society?” Such thinking is shortsighted and
in the end, does not produce universalizable maxims.

47
• Aristotle’s ethics, also pick up on the problem of
virtue and ask how this can possibly lead to
shortsightedness
becoming a better person. According to this theory, one
becomes a better person if she learns to expand her vision to see
beyond what is merely at close hand. Meaning, seeing beyond the
immediate is a virtue. Therefore, one must see beyond the satisfaction
of immediate economic needs and make sure that harming the
environment for the sake of such will not eventua ly lead to
something muchworse.