1.

Take a moral principle such as “Don’t steal” and analyze it according to the four traits
of moral principles.
One moral principle that almost all of us are familiar with is the “Golden Rule” which
states that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. Such way of thinking has
been inculcated in our minds to as far back as our preschool years. We are always taught by
the adults to be nice to other people and to do what is deemed right. However, when we look
at it from a wider perspective, we can infer that perhaps, what has been guiding our morality
as children and eventually, as adults, may not be wholly within the boundaries of morality.
We learned the “Golden Rule” as children but are all the things taught to us by the adults
considered moral in every sense or are they bound by the context of where we reside? Can
we consider ourselves good when we abide by a moral principle and yet witness that the
people who taught it to us are diverging away from their own teachings? If such is the case,
then, is the moral principle even acceptable as one when it is nothing but a mere concept of
what is good? Whenever people deviate from what is considered good even just once in their
lives, is it not that they already rejected the principle they ought to live by? Hence, to further
understand the deeper meaning behind the “Golden Rule,” we can associate it with the four
traits of moral principles that are believed to be inherent in every moral concepts and actions
that govern our morality.
First, we should look at the “Golden Rule” based on its prescriptivity. Such moral
principle should be seen as somewhat like an automatic command in a computer. It should
not be given much thought when we apply it in our lives because in situations wherein it is
applicable, it should always be what we should opt to do. There should not be any hesitation
to do it for all our actions should revolve around it. Let’s take for example a scenario wherein
you are walking in a busy street and you see a rushing female government officer drop her
wallet without her noticing it. And by the time you look up, she was no longer in vicinity.
Applying the “Golden Rule,” we know that we should pick up the wallet and return it to the
lady. It is what is expected of us because we are guided by the thought that if we were in the
lady’s shoes, we would have wanted another person to do the same for us. It is more of
placing ourselves in others’ shoes that provides the foundation of our moral actions. And
when we say that such moral principle is what is prescribed or asked of us, we know that like
every command, failure to do so would give us some sort of unwanted consequence such as
feelings of regret or guilt that would haunt our conscience. Just as not following a doctor’s
prescription would lead us to suffer more from our illness, failure to comply with moral
principles like the “Golden Rule” would mean more harm for us in the long run, moral
deterioration, if I may say.
Secondly, the “Golden Rule” should have universalizability. Taking into account the
same example, the said moral principle should be seen not as self-directed. Rather, it should
be all-encompassing. It applies to every human being who possesses the rational mind that is
capable of deciphering right from wrong. Given the situation of the wallet and the lady, you
are aware that more likely than not, you are not the only one who has witnessed the situation
at hand. And thus, you know that the “Golden Rule” should govern not only your thoughts
and actions but as well as that of the others who noticed the wallet fall to the ground. What is
right for you should also be what is right for everyone. This means that the “Golden Rule”
should not be bound to an individual who wants to be good but it should be inherent in the
hearts of all and should be accepted as the right thing to do in whatever situation one is faced
with. It should neither be limited by cultural traditions nor religious beliefs. One could not
say, “I should not bother myself with the lady because I’m in a city where people have to
mind their own business,” or “I should not pick up that wallet because I’m Christian and
she’s with the government that is passing on a law that approves of abortion.” Furthermore,
we should see this moral principle as one with firmness wherein despite any situation we find
ourselves being put into, the guidance it should have for us would prevail and we would
always find ourselves acting on it.
Thirdly, the “Golden Rule” should possess the trait of overridingness. It should be one
that coexists with other principles that we accept into our lives or even those that we do not
fully abide with but acknowledge their existence. When we all follow the “Golden Rule,” this
does not imply that there can no longer be laws, cultural traditions, or religious dictates.
There will always be authoritative principles put forth by various groups, may it be the
government or the religion where we are baptized into. However, what is important that in
every person’s struggle to lead a normal life, there will always be the option of abiding moral
principles. Given the same example context, even if a city ordinance is passed stating that all
lost items be turned over to the police department, in acting morally, we should always go
with the decision of abiding the protocols put forth by our government. It may be
inconvenient for the woman but as responsible citizens, we are not only expected to act
morally but also legally. Yes, we can look for the woman in the place where we presume she
works in and return the wallet to her but we also have the legal duty to turn the wallet over to
the police department and given that such act is not deviant of our moral act of returning to
the rightful owner what has been lost, we are still obliged to apply legal principles to as far as
our morality is concerned.
Fourth, the “Golden Rule” should have, in its basic sense, publicity, which in most cases
is not a problem for again, as I have mentioned, such moral principle has been popularly
accepted, taught, and applied to people from all ages. Such is not kept private and personal
because in order for it to bear fruit, it must be dimensional and not linear. Everyone should
be aware of it so that it will actually work in its full potential– guiding people and providing
them with the consequences of going against it. In the given example, the “Golden Rule”
should have been present in the minds of not only one but most, if not all, of the people who
witnessed the event and everyone who thought of it must reflect its effect on the moral
person through unified acts of moving to pick up the wallet with the intention of returning it
to the woman.
Finally, when we take the “Golden Rule” into account, we should be keen on the context
where we stand. When we do things we want others to do unto us, it should not be damaging
on our part, to the extent that even if it costs so much of us, we still do it because it’s morally
right. There will be certain instances wherein we also have to consider the consequences the
act of doing what is right entails. Take for example the same context with the wallet and the
woman but this time, you are also running late for an important meeting at work where your
position as manager heavily relies. When you apply the “Golden Rule,” you are aware that
you have to retrieve the wallet for the woman but this means you have to head to the police
department to hand it over as prescribed by law. In terms of morality, you have the initiative
to do what is right but morality extends not only to one person but it goes as far as our duties
to all the people our lives are concerned with. Yes, you have the duty to do what is right for
the woman but you need to remember that you also have the moral duty toward your boss
who is waiting for you, to your subordinates who rely on you to represent your department,
and even to your family who depends on the income you acquire from work. We should then
look at morality not as a puddle that is limited by the amount of water that accumulated over
 the few minutes of rainfall. Instead, we should see it as an ocean that extends to the farthest
corner of our lives, taking into account the larger perspective rather than being bound to a
certain happenstance.

2. Illustrate the difference between a moral principle, a religious principle, a legal rule, a
principle of etiquette. Are these sometimes related?
I think the main difference between moral principle, religious principle, legal rule, and
principle of etiquette all comes down to the foundation– the essence of why they were
established or why they exist in the first place. To further give substance to this idea, let’s
take for example a scenario in a workplace. Imagine yourself as an employer sitting inside an
office along with other department heads, preparing for a panel interview for potential
employees and a woman comes in dressed in a sheer blouse that gave a view of her
undergarment. No one says anything but knowing your colleagues you know that some
disapprove of the woman’s appearance while some of the men took pleasure in the sight but
you as a man with principle, what would you think or do if you rely on your moral principle?
Religious principle? Legal rule? Or principle of etiquette?
First, based on your religion, you would deem her appearance as unacceptable for it
served as some sort of temptation to those around her. You would take on the defense that
she must dress properly to avoid the occurrence of sin which is against God’s will. A
principle is established to act accordingly so as to please God and to live in what would be
beneficial to Him and His community of believers and by living by that principle, you’d
probably not voice out your concern, in an attempt not to push your belief toward others, but
you’d mark her resume ‘X’ because you don’t want people from your workplace being
exposed to the woman and you reason that it is what is best for all.
Second, with regard to the legality of the woman’s attire, take for example the context is
in the United Kingdom, as a man who obeys by the law, you’d probably avoid generalizing
the fact that the person before the panel is an indecent woman and therefore, should not be
hired. You would abide by the Equality Act and try to prevent any discrimination within the
process of employment. You act rightfully because you don’t want to transgress the law. You
are abiding with what has been passed by the government that is deemed as good for a
majority of people. However, you know that you have this slight disapproval of the kind of
outfit the woman chose to wear yet you want to give her a chance and not speak of the issue
because you are guided by your fear of being reported to authority and by your instinct to act
in accordance to the law of your land.
Third, with regard to etiquette, you would probably deem her improper and opt not to
hire her, not because of your religious beliefs or because of sexual discrimination but because
you see her as one who has failed to commit to what is expected of a person going in for a
job interview. You reason that it is only just that one dress in formal clothes because it
exudes the level of professionalism that your company boasts in the industry where you
operate and solely because it’s the norm. It’s what the society dictates in terms of dressing up
in a workplace.
However, when acting based on moral principle, you’d probably stand up and offer the
woman your coat before you begin the interview and afterward, you’d come up to her and
reprimand her privately so as not to embarrass her in front of the entire panel. You would
allow yourself to be governed by conduct of what is right. You would not let religion, legal
dictates, or societal norms cloud your judgment on what to do on the certain situation.
Despite the differences on how these principles push us to act in certain ways, there still
remains a string that binds them all together and allows them to co-occur in certain
circumstances. Take for example the law concerning the illegal act of stealing. This legal rule
makes people think that stealing is a crime and should not therefore be done because it puts
another of our fellow citizen at an unfavorable condition while the thief lives off in luxury
over what he/she has stolen. However, it also might be so that this law was passed not solely
because of that reason but also because, for example, here in the Philippines, the Christians
that make up a huge chunk of our population believes that is against God to steal things from
others. Also, when we go to Church, we dress appropriately because we want to be in our
utmost respectable appearances before God but despite this, we are also acting on what
society is expecting from us. We wear Sunday dresses or formal shirts and dress pants
because it has been customary to show up in such clothing whenever we attend masses.
Another thing is when we give benefits to the senior citizens here in the Philippines both in
accordance with the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003 and because we deem it our duty
to allow the elderly to live more comfortably, to recognize their importance in our society,
and to live by our Filipino virtue of being family-oriented. In terms of morality though, like
 the issue of killing a person, we avoid doing such act because we know it is wrong to take a
person’s life from him or her and yet all the same, we may also have been guided by the
religious principle that tells us only God’s will could determine a person’s death and killing
is a mortal sin, or by the law deems it illegal to murder someone, or even by the dictates of
society that views the killing of a person as that belonging outside of the societal norms and
expectations.
All these principles govern human behavior. Without them, we would not have flourished
to become the civilized societies that we are today. However, we should be wary of the
invisible boundaries that they set. Our religious principle should not allow us to live
superficially. We should not learn to decipher the things that belong to the divine world and
those that belong to our humane world. In legal context, we should also learn to accept that
laws are made not solely for what is good all the time but rather for what is good for a
majority of people in specified circumstances. Not all laws are established for the sake of
morality. Some are merely passed on because it is of the public’s desire and it is not always
that what the larger number of people wants is what is good and right. Our notion of being in
proper etiquette should also be seen as going beyond what is accepted as the standards. We
should not settle for conformity or for the sake of belongingness. Among all these, we should
instead strive to live for the purpose of being moral– of finding the goodness inherent in us
through living and acting on the conduct of morality.

3. French painter Paul Gauguin (1848–1903) gave up his job as a banker and abandoned
his wife and children to pursue a career as an artist. He moved to Martinique and later
to Tahiti, eventually becoming one of the most famous postimpressionist artists in the
world. Did Gauguin do what was morally permissible? Discuss this from the
perspective of the four domains of ethical assessment.
In all perfect sense of morality, Paul Gauguin had not shown the moral conduct expected
of man. He had basically abandoned not only his life but also his duties to his family and to
others in need of his service. And for what? For a small glimmer of hope that he may succeed
in his dream of becoming a world-renowned artist. Is what he did right, then? Does his
success mean that he is not to answer for his ethical misconduct? When we look at it from the
four domains of ethical assessment, we can see that perhaps despite the luck he experienced
as a hopeful artist, he may still have done what is considered a wrong act in the eyes of
morality.
First, in terms of his actions, it is clear that he had committed an unjust decision when he
left. As a married man, he had the obligation to take care of his wife. As a father, he had the
responsibility to nurture his children and provide them with their needs until they are old
enough to fend for themselves. And as an employee of the bank where he worked, he had the
duty to provide his services and notify them of his resignation rather than simply shocking
them of his sudden departure. What he did, he did for himself. He acted out of his selfish
desire to fulfill his longing of being an artist. He acted for his own benefit, overlooking the
effect his decision might have on the people around him.
Second, based on the consequences of his actions, it still points out that what Gauguin did
was not in the light of what is morally right or permissible. Weighing the effect it had on the
family and other people he left behind, everything is tipped off by the huge amount of
negativity. He left the bank in sudden need of a banker to fill his place. He had his wife
bearing all the responsibility of raising their children. And most importantly, he had placed
deep emotional scars in his children’s hearts. He had deprived them of the father they
deserved all for the sake of his dream which he favored more than the life he could have
lived alongside his family. Indeed, his actions did bear fruit but does not entirely justify the
fact that he had transgressed the dictates of morality.
Third, Gauguin had never acted with the kind of character a virtuous man would have. He
knew for certain the consequences of his actions. He knew what is right and yet he opted to
satisfy his wants. If he so willed, he would have made it a point to do what is right for the
family he created. He could have found means to pursue his dreams without putting his
family and others at a disadvantage but he never did such a thing. Instead, he ran away from
the life he had and put it all in his past like it was as easy as giving away a centavo. The
virtue of being considerate toward others had flown off his mind and was, in its place,
replaced with egocentric desires.
Finally, the last domain deals with motive– where things may seem more complex in
Gauguin’s situation. We are aware that what he did is reasoned by his dream of becoming a
successful artist. It is, then, perfectly understandable that he acted because he deemed it
beneficial for himself and he saw more opportunities for him in that road but when we take
morality into account, we do not only consider what is good for ourselves. Rather, morality is
all-encompassing. It extends beyond our individual notions of good and forms some sort of
an invisible vessel where all good in the world in whatever situation can be found. Now,
when we enter the fact that he did get something out of his actions, can we consider
Gauguin’s decision as morally permissible? Honestly speaking, I do not think so. When he
did what he did, his success had not been certain. He had merely been fortunate enough to
actually make it in the field of arts. His achievement is not reason enough to prove that he
had been moral in his choices. His motive was, for all sense of the world, to erase the life he
built for himself and make a new one as an artist. Had he not triumphed in his efforts, the
same thing would still happen to the people he left behind. They would still suffer in his
absence and the only difference is that he, too, would experience misery and possibly even
regret. The only reason that he never actually did anything to correct his misconduct is
because he attained something from his choice for if he didn’t, there is a possibility that he
would have lived in guilt over his conscience and perhaps, he would have even returned to
his previous life. Oftentimes, we do what is wrong but because we benefit too much from it,
we fool ourselves into thinking that we did what is right but just because we have been
blessed with luck, it does not mean we had done what is deemed moral.