Presented to the Philosophy Department

De La Salle University - Manila

Term 3, A.Y. 2019-2020

In partial fulfillment

of the course

In GEETHIC (A51)

Synthesis Paper

Submitted by:

Madrazo, Jayann Danielle S.

11825464

Submitted to:
 Mark Anthony Dacela

September 28, 2020

This Ethics course has taught me alot. It broadened my knowledge about

Ethics and my stances on certain ethical situations or dilemmas. Every lecture

with this class is a “a-ha” moment for me. I honestly enjoyed having to meet and

discuss ethics with my groupmates. It made me get to know them more and it

made me realize other perspectives. Ethics distinguishes good and bad, and

right and wrong. Ethics made me more aware of the choices I make and that

they have consequences, both for ourselves and others. We face choices that

affect the quality of our lives, I believe that studying Ethics helps me with making

decisions in my life. As a Legal-management student and a future lawyer, I’m

very fact-based and I use the law as a basis on how to act properly and what is

right and wrong. Ethics on the other hand, is similar to law but it is more of a

social construct and it engages our emotions, our principles and empathy to

certain situations. This course also made me realize that doing what you have

the right to do – as in doing something that is not illegal – is not always identical

to doing what is right. Furthermore, this course taught me about different

theories and point of views in ethics.

Ethics and morality are closely linked to each other. I define Morality as a

collective standard that tells you what is right and wrong and it is passed on

through family, religion and culture. Additionally, Moral accountability means

the deservingness of a person for moral blame or praise based on their action. I

love the theory of moral relativism/ethical relativism. I believe there is no

universal right and wrong. What may be right to others is wrong to me, and what
may be wrong to me may be right to others. For example, In middle eastern

countries, they perceive polygamy as moral or as right. However, here in the

Philippines, as a majority christian country, polygamy is forwned upon and

considered as immoral.

Consequentialism means that an action is good if the results are good. I

define it as “the ends justify the means.” For example, cheating is bad but you

helped your friend cheat so that she could pass the exam. In consequentialism

that is justifiable. A form of consequentialism is Utilitarianism, which means that

maximizing the overall good -- the good of others and self. For example, in the

trolley problem, using utilitarianism, the best choice to make is to let one person

die for the sake of the many. One problem I have for Utilitarianism is that it

answers the question “what decision is right?” by answering “what decision

brings about the most good, pleasure or happiness?” For example, we can use

utilitarianism to justify lying to another person to avoid immediate negative

consequences of hurting feelings or damaging the relationship. But if no one

ever provides truthful answers to tough questions adverse long-term

consequences can result. The lie leads to further bad decisions made from

ignorance or bad information, leading to far more dire consequences.

Divine command theory is a theory that means our morality is based on

God. I believe that Morality is separate from God. I believe morality is based on

authority. Yes, I acknowledge that God is omnipotent and all powerful although

not all his actions are morally right. An example is the 10 commandments, God

said “Thou shall not kill”, which is ironic because God made the rules but he
can’t follow them. God killed a lot of people in the story of Noah’s Ark. I find it

contradictory and unfair that it’s acceptable if God kills but when us normal

humans it’s wrong and we shall suffer. God even manipulated Abraham by

telling him to kill his son for a test which in the first place God gave his son to him.

Furthermore, God gave us free will but he wants us to follow him without his

manipulation. For example, he placed a forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden,

prohibiting Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree. If he really is omnipotent

and powerful, he could have just removed the tree or he couldn’t have made

the forbidden tree. In comparison with Natural law theory, it holds that morality is

universal, not at the will of God but at the will of reason. I lean more towards

Natural law theory that Morality is separated from God, however I question it

because there is no basis for morality.

Categorical Imperatives aren't flexible in nature. They do not take in

account the many different factors in a given situation. Categorical Imperatives

are harmful and unforgiving to those who are caught up in situations that entails

pleasing one party while harming the other. Since they are absolute in nature,

categorical imperatives do not give room for choice-making if it’s at the

expense of someone else. Say for example a situation entails that lying would

have more benefits however categorical imperatives would still reject that claim

and state that lying is wrong in whatever context. Human beings are irrational in

nature, making the theory impractical. Another issue is that there are problems

where if a person sees it good or at least not bad, then that would mean that

everyone should do it. The issue here is that if it’s a stupid action, everyone

needs to do it acctoding to the universality princple. Another factor here is that,

envibe moral values. If not, Kant’s ethics is not practical.

By Immanuel Kant’s belief, lying can never be justified. When one lies,

he/she goes against his own categorical imperative, and categorical

imperatives are absolute in nature. By virtue of natural-born human dignity and

Kan’t argument with regards to human rationality, lying is an immoral decision of

free choice. Even if it is meant to “protect” someone, lying is unethical in nature.

Being human means being able to act on one’s free choice, and if this entails

constructing webs of lies, even if it’s to help someone, it’s still wrong; even more

if it will harm someone else. On the other hand, Kohlberg argues that lying, (or

other acts such as stealing) is justified if it brings about more justice than not

lying. Although deontological, Kohlberg adapts a belief that is not as fixed as

Kant’s.

In conclusion, with all the theories and information I learned from this

course, no specific theory is applicable in a universal sense. Our actions should

be driven by our principles and these ethical theories are just a basis for our

beliefs. All the theories have pros and cons and they all are applicable to our

day to day decision-making. It is great to learn different perspectives of right

and wrong and different levels of right and wrong.