ETHICS, MORES AND VALUES

Learning Outcomes:

In this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Discuss the nature of mores and values in ethics;

2. Explain the difference between values and moral values;
3. Differentiate between a moral judgment and a moral decision; and
4. Explore the difference between intellectual choice and practical choice

Introduction:

This lesson aims to analyze the nature of mores and values in ethics. It discusses the interplay
between the individual as a free moral agent, and his/her society or environment, as well as the process
of value experience, including the difference between values and moral values. In broad strokes, it gives
a background on the nature of morality and the mores which are the subject matter of ethics. It examines
the nature of mores, including the development of the notion of what is „right‟ in our culture. The module
also examines the notion of freedom as it relates to morality, together with the wide range of values and
moral values, including the nature and basis of the choices that we make.

Discussion:

The Realm of Morality: Ethics and Mores

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the systematic questioning and critical
examination of the underlying principles of morality. Ethics came from the root word „ethos‟ which refers to
the character of a culture. Ethos includes the attitude of approval or disapproval in a particular culture at a
given time and place. The subject matter being studied in ethics is morality. Morality came from the root
word „mores‟, which refers to the customs, including the customary behavior, of a particular group of
people. This con-stitutes the core of the attitudes and beliefs of a particular group of people. Therefore,
mores (in Latin) and ethos (in Greek), both refer to customary behavior.

Ethics as the study of moral goodness or badness or the rightness and wrongness of an act and it
has two general approaches — normative and meta-ethics. Normative ethics an-swers the question,
„What is good?‟ It pertains to norms or standards of goodness and the rightness or wrongness of an act.
A comprehensive normative ethical system tries to give a moral framework where its standards of morality
are based. An example is Christian ethics with its well defined and clear parameters and definition of what
is good and bad based on its comprehensive framework. Meta-ethics, on the other hand, examines the
presuppositions, meanings, and justifications of ethical concepts and principles. For example, instead of
assuming that there is an objective moral truth, meta-ethics will question the basis for this by asking
whether or not morality is objective or subjective, or by posing questions about the assumption of a moral
theory such as „What is your justification for claiming in your theory that pleasure is good?‟ The study of
ethics and morality entails an analysis of both the individual human person acting as a free moral agent
and his/her society with its social rules and sanctions that set limitations on individual behavior. Individual
behavior is governed by a sense of what is the right thing to do, which is based on the customs or mores
of a particular society. For example, the way parents raise their children is governed by the mores of their
society.
 The Role of Society and the Individual in the Emergence of Mores

William Graham Sumner, a well-known sociologist and anthropologist, claims that our notion of
what is „right‟ stems from our basic instinct to survive. That is, human beings formed groups in order to
meet the task of survival, and from living in groups they observed best practices and developed the most
practical way of doing things. From these practices emerged traditions and notions of the right thing to do.
For example, for each group of people there is a right way of catching game, a right way of treating
guests, and a right way of dressing up. Sumner refers to these notions of „right‟ and „true‟ as „folkways‟.

Sumner states further that mores come from folkways, with the added element of societal welfare
embodied in them. In order to preserve society and its accepted norms and practices, the individual,
consciously or unconsciously, defends and upholds society‟s notions of what is right. At the same time,
the group as a whole develops social rules and sanctions, which may be implicit or explicit, in order to
preserve the group practices and to control the behavior of the individual for the purpose of maintaining
order in society.

Thus, customs emerge out of repeated practices, while from the individual observance of group
practices emerge habits. This becomes the culture of a particular group or society. Mores become the
compelling reason to do what ought to be done, because it is the right thing to do to preserve and protect
society. Mores exert social pressure on the individual to conform to society‟s expectations in terms of
character and behavior — that is, to come as close as possible to the ideal man or woman

Even as society defends and preserves its mores, these same mores may change to adapt to
new conditions. The changes in the mores of a particular society do not happen in an instant, but they
happen unconsciously over time. For example, during the Spanish period, women wore dresses that
covered them from head to toe, and it was thought that seeing a woman‟s ankles was tantamount to
seeing her naked. But women‟s fashion has changed so much through the years that our Spanish
ancestors might well be rolling in their graves at the way women are dressed today. According to Sumner,
this point can be summarized thus: “The „morals‟ of an age are never anything but the consonance
between what is done and what the mores of the age requires.”

Consequently, with regard to morality one always has to consider two points of view the point of
view of society, together with its customs, social rules, and social sanctions, and that of the individual or
the free moral agent who develops habits in the course of following the social norms established by
society. Ultimately, it is still the individual, in his/her capacity as a rational and free moral agent, who will
decide whether to follow these norms.

On the other hand, society is not homogenous, because there is an interplay of varying views and
groups where the individual belongs. The factors that may affect the individual‟s choices are varied and
even contradictory at times. The individual may belong simultaneously to different groups, and these
groups could exert varying and sometimes contrasting degrees of influence on him/her. For example,
individuals can be influenced by their family, peer groups, church, school, the mass media, and social
media. Ultimately, however, it is still the individual who would make his/her own moral decisions.

As mentioned, the notion of morality develops with the interplay between society and the
individual. Here, society would be composed of different groups that directly or indirectly shape the values
of the individual. These values serve as the individual‟s guide in his/her pursuit of what he/she believes to
be the moral or the „good‟ life. Note that the individual is assumed to be a free moral agent who can make
choices and deliberate or reflect before acting or making a decision. Moreover, as society grows and
becomes more complex, the different groups that comprise it could put forward competing values,
including different notions of „what is good‟. In this case, it is the rational individual who can decide for
him/herself which moral principles to uphold, based on his/her upbringing and the influence of various
groups in his/her society (family, church, school, peer groups, social media, mass media, etc.). Therefore,
the individual plays a pivotal role as a free moral agent in analyzing, choosing, and valuing what he/she
considers as most important when he/she makes his/her choices

Society, as a whole, functions as a way of controlling the behaviour of an individual. It becomes

necessary to impose social controls and sanctions so that the individual would be guided accordingly. To
a certain extent, society coerces its members to follow its rules to maintain order. For example, even if we
are irritated by people who disobey traffic rules, we are not free to do what we would like to do, like kill
them, because we are bound by the mores of our society. These mores become the basis of the morals
of that society when expressed or laid out as ethical principles that its members are bound to respect and
follow. This is the force or power of mores. The individual can feel this power whenever he/she does
something against the rules of society and he/she is bothered by his/her „conscience‟ as if he/she is
hearing the voices of elders telling him/her what he/she should do.

According to Sumner, as society grows, it becomes more difficult to control the behavior of its
members, and there is a need to formalize and codify some of the rules that we are bound to follow.
Thus, from mores as the embodiment of societal welfare, laws and institutions emerge in order to protect
society and to set some system of societal control over the behavior of individual members. These laws
could be positive laws and customary or common laws, while institutions could be coercive or enacted.

Sumner states that common laws or customary laws are part of the customs of our society, and
they emerge unconsciously as part of the mores of our culture, whereas positive laws are formulated and
are products of rational reflection, discussion, and verification. For example, our constitution and penal
code are part of the positive laws of the Philippines while certain practices in our culture like „sabong‟ or
cockfighting with its own rules of the game, or the informal practice of transacting personal loans without
collateral (also known as “5-6”) from enterprising people, and even keeping common law wives on the
part of philandering husbands have long been part of our culture and are examples of our customary or
common law. They may not be legal but these practices are part of the Filipino culture and are accepted
or tolerated by many.

Institutions, on the other hand, can be considered crescive or enacted. Crescive institutions,
according to Sumner, are products of our mores like our very rich religious practices which mirror the
religiosity of Filipinos. In contrast, enacted institutions are products of rational reflection and are purposely
established to cater to the needs of the members of society, in the process establishing order and
protecting society. Examples of enacted institutions are our banking system and land titling system.

Unfortunately, not everything that has been passed into a positive law can be considered moral or
in accordance with the mores originally intended to serve societal welfare and protect society. In this
regard, an important question to consider is: Is what is legal moral?

Freedom and Morality

The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to individual rights, has been
widely used in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a whole. Freedom as a concept that
pertains to the moral realm is examined in this section. An important question that must be brought to
light is: What is freedom and how is it exercised in the realm of morals?
 John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of radical freedom by claiming
that “man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man” as an unconstrained free moral agent in
the sense that he always has a choice in every aspect of his life. Even if somebody points a gun at his
head, he still has a choice whether to follow the wishes of his captors. Sartre claims that “Man is nothing
else but that which he makes of himself.” “Man” is never compelled or determined; he is totally free and
therefore, totally responsible for all the things that he does.

When you exercise freedom in making your choices, you are taking control and assuming full
responsibility for those choices. However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this freedom is
not absolute. You cannot do anything that you please without taking into consideration the norms of your
society. Mores are there to serve as a form of social control to limit, govern, or regulate your behavior in
order to maintain order in your society. For example, you cannot just go about killing people you consider
as obnoxious. You are perhaps familiar with the saying „your freedom ends where my freedom begins‟.
Within the given parameters of our environment, including the economic, political and social environment,
we assume freedom. Our discussion will come to nothing if we assume otherwise — i.e. that human
beings are not free and their choices are always determined by factors or forces in their environment.
This deterministic view is tantamount to saying that human beings are like robots or machines whose
actions and functions can be predicted like cause and effect given the parameters of the variables in
his/her environment. Nor can we embrace fully the extreme view of radical freedom without taking into
consideration the norms of our society.

Freedom of the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free moral
agent. Moral, in this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accordance with one‟s own
moral discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full responsibility for one‟s own actions and
is using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as a moral being. Aside from our reason and critical
thinking, we also have the ability to empathize or to feel what other beings feel and to situate ourselves in
their shoes.

Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligation

According to John Mothershead, there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur:
freedom and obligation. As explained above, freedom is assumed when one is making choices and is the
agent taking full responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her
actions for some future goal. This is in accordance with the individual‟s moral and rational capacity to
know and discern what is right and wrong. This condition of freedom can be seen as limiting or
constraining the realm of morals for human beings. Animals do not have the capacity to look forward and
consciously plan for the future. Even when ants hoard their food for the rainy days, this action is based on
instinct. Only human beings are capable of planning for their future, planning their life, and setting their
goals as a result of these plans.

The assumption of freedom entails another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral sense,
obligation is construed as a one‟s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral being. In
other words, it is seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this budgeting and planning for the future
because the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by being obliged to do so.

In other words, you are not free to be unfree. In making moral decisions and choices, it is within
the capacity of the human person as an active and free moral agent to exercise his/her freedom of choice
as his/her obligation to him/herself. Our discussion of freedom entails this basic presupposition: That the
human person is free in the exercise of making choices in the realm of morality — that is, in making
choices with regard to determining what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her
own life. This can be summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full responsibility
for your actions and being obliged to do so

When was the last time you blamed other people for a mistake that you made? There is a
tendency for people to blame others for their choice of a course of action. For example, a couple who
freely choose to marry each other out of love could, when the marriage sours, blame each other for their
predicament and end up saying he/she was forced or coerced by the other into the marriage. However, it
is one‟s obligation to oneself to exercise one‟s capacity for deliberation and reflection by thinking about
the consequences before making a decision. In other words, this is an exercise of one‟s rationality to the
fullest without forgetting one‟s humanity and his/her capacity for empathy.

Only Human Beings Can Be Ethical

Another basic tenet in ethics is the belief that only human beings can be truly ethical. Most
philosophers hold that unlike animals, human beings possess some traits that make it possible for them
to be moral:

a. Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious. The qualities of
rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness are believed to confer a full and equal moral status
to those that possess them as these beings are the only ones capable of achieving certain values
and goods. These values and goods are something that outweigh the types of values and goods
that non-rational, non-autonomous, and non-self-conscious beings are capable of realizing. For
instance, in order to attain the kind of dignity and self-respect that human beings have, a being
must be able to conceive of itself as one among many, and must be able to consciously select his
actions rather than be led by blind instinct. Many ethicists thus believe that only rational,
autonomous, and self-conscious beings deserve full and equal moral status. Because only
human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious, it then follows that only human
beings deserve full and equal moral status. Moreover, the values of appreciating art, literature,
and the goods that come with deep personal relationships all require a being to be rational,
autonomous, and self-conscious. These values, and others like them, are the highest values to us
humans; they comprise those which make our lives worth living.
b. Only human beings can act morally or immorally. Strictly speaking, an animal which devours
another animal cannot be said to be immoral In the same manner, no matter how 'good' an
animal's action seems to be, it cannot be technically said to be moral.
Only human beings can act morally or immorally. This is important in ethics because only beings
that can act morally can be required to sacrifice their interests for the sake of others. Not able to
truly act morally, animals could not really sacrifice their own good for the sake of others, but
would even pursue their good at the expense of others.
c. Only human beings are part of the moral community. The so-called moral community is not
defined in terms of the intrinsic properties that beings have, but rather in terms of the essential
social relations that exist between or among beings. Distinctively, only human beings can
possess or practice values such as love, honor, social relationships, forgiveness, compassion,
and altruism.
Moreover, only human beings can communicate with each other in truly meaningful ways, can
engage in economic, political, and familial relationships with each other, and can also form deep
personal relationships with each other. These kinds of relationships require the members of such
relationships to extend real concern to other members of these relationships in order for the
relationships to continue. These relationships are what constitute our lives and the values
contained in them.
 Another thing human beings have that no animal has is the ability to participate in a collective
cognition, That is, we, as individuals, are able to draw on the collective knowledge of humanity in
a way no animal can.

Freedom as a Foundation of Morality

As explained above, one of the reasons animals.cannot.be truly ethical is that they are not really
autonomous or free. Likewise, a, robot, no matter how beneficial‟s functions may be, cannot be said to.be
moral, for it has no freedom or choice but to work according to what is commanded based on its built-in
program.

Basically, morality is a question of Choice. Morality, practically, is choosing ethical codes, values,
or standards to guide us in our daily lives. Philosophically, choosing is impossible without freedom.

Morality requires and allows choice, which means the right to choose even differently from our
fellows. In their daily lives, people make the choice to give to charities, donate time and money to
schools, mentor children, open businesses, or protest against animal cruelty.

Everyone who wishes to functions morally and rationally in a society has to make choice virtually
every minute of the day. Practically, the sum of our choices can be said to define our specific 'morality.
Applicably, using the government or one's culture to coerce people to behave in a certain way is not
morality but the antithesis of morality. This principle in ethics applies even when the motive is pure.

Minimum Requirement for Morality: Reason and Impartiality

The late Philosophy professor James Rachels (1941-2003) holds that moral judgment must be
backed by sound reasoning and that morality requires impartial consideration of all parties involved
(Rachels, 1999). It is thus submitted that reason and impartiality compose the "minimum conception of
morality or, as some put it, the minimum requirement morality.

Reason as requirement for morality entails that human feelings may be important in ethical
decisions, but they ought to be guided by reason. Sound reasoning helps us to evaluate whether our
feelings and intuitions about moral cases are correct and defensible.

Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that each individual's interests and point of view
are equally important. Also called even handedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of
justice holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. (Detailed
discussions on reason and impartiality can be found in a later section of this book. For other introductory
topics about Ethics, you may read the Appendix A: "Ethics: A Primer" of this book)

The Human Person as a Free Being

First, what does "human person mean? In philosophy, a human being is more than its biological
components. The human being is a person endowed with characteristics that are material, spiritual,
rational, and free. A human person is a being (the Aristotelian idea of being connotes actuality; existence;
an actual condition or circumstance) with inborn properties that he or she uses to direct his or her own
development toward self-fulfillment. One of the inborn properties of the human person is freedom.
 Philosophical Insights on Freedom

We have mentioned freedom numerous times. What is your understanding of freedom?

Philosophers talked about this concept extensively. Here are some philosophical insights on freedom.

Freedom is a Gift

According to Gabriel Marcel, freedom is the ability to act significantly. Free acts are significant
because they help to make us who we are as human being. Freedom is not merely the ability to make
arbitrary choices because we are not free if everything that we can choose to do is insignificant in the first
place. Freedom is the ability to make significant choices and, according to Marcel, it is a gift given to us
by God. (Hernandez, 2009)

Freedom is Complementary to Reason

One of Aristotle's ethical doctrines asserted that freedom and reason are complementary. In
Aristotle's view, the human person as a moral agent must exercise practical rationality in order to
determine how to pursue his or her ultimate end (telos). Self-direction, rather than bare spontaneity, is the
crucial characteristic of the free person. Aristotle considered freedom and reason as necessary faculties
for consciously making sense of things (events, occurrences, phenomena, situations). (Walsh, 1997).

Freedom is Absolute

Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's concept of freedom is not the freedom to do

something or anything. In Sartre's view, the human person is "absolutely free". Freedom sets the human
person apart from other creatures. You might say "But what about animal freedom? Animals unless
caged are also free. Animals just roam around, eat when they need to, and sleep where they want.
Animals are not tied down with responsibilities like humans" Yes, it is true that animals are unless caged
free, In fact, animals also have a notion of freedom. When they are caged, animals will try to escape from
their cages. This kind of freedom is called freedom from restrictions. It is a primitive kind of freedom. It is
freedom for mere survival.

Humans, on the other hand, have a higher kind of freedom. The freedom of the human person is
beyond freedom from restrictions. In fact, a person in jail is still free. He is free to think, to change, and to
become a better person. A prisoner is free to redefine himself. As human persons, we are free to make
choices. We are free to decide. And we are free to use this freedom to attain goals higher than satisfying
basic needs.

Freedom Demands Responsibility

Jean-Paul Sartre said "You are free" because he believed a person always has a choice. Thus,
according to Sartre, you must choose. His idea was that freedom is the capacity to choose, that even not
choosing is a choice (Gallinero, 2014). It is important to note however, that he also added the concept of
responsibility to freedom. According to Sartre, even though individuals must make their own choices
because they are free, these choices (though freely made) also have consequences to it. These
consequences to freedom are something that the person must endure. Therefore, it can be said that in
Sartre's concept, responsibility follows freedom (Gallinero, 2014).

Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu also discussed freedom and responsibility. Lao Tzu advocated that
a person can and should choose to act, but his or her actions should be that which would result in
harmony. Lao Tzu's idea was that in any society, the exercise of one's freedom is not absolute. The
person is free to do anything; but it is not without consequence of one's actions (Gallinero, 2014).
Responsibility, as a moral quality serves as a voluntary check and balance of one's freedom. Without
proper balance limitless freedom is as dangerous as an extremely controlling social group. Great social
injustices have resulted from such radical mindsets.

Values and Choices

This section explains the reason behind the claim that only human beings are moral. The nature
of our value experiences is explained, including the difference between a value and a moral value as well
as the distinction between moral decisions and moral judgments and between intellectual and practical
choices.

Only humans are moral

According to Mothershead, conduct refers to deliberate human action. It is a result of the process
of reflection based on the idea that the human person is endowed with the capacity to think and plan
his/her own life using his/her rationality and to weigh the consequences of his/her actions.

In general, we do not ascribe morality to animals or to natural calamities like typhoons,

earthquakes or tsunamis, for example. Even if typhoon Yolanda claimed around 8,000 lives, it would be
nonsensical to declare that typhoon Yolanda was immoral. Animals are not capable of the act of
deliberation or reflection. If your cat or your dog eats your fried chicken, this is not an action based on
reflection and deliberation but on instinct — for example, the cat or dog does not think about whether it
would be depriving its master of food for dinner. Animal behavior is instinctive whereas human behavior is
a matter of conduct. While some animals have been recognized to have the ability to solve simple
problems and the ability to connect events like cause and effect, they develop these through the process
of conditioning, where positive and negative reinforcement are used for the animal to learn the behavior.
An example is Skinner‟s pigeon which was conditioned or trained to peck five times for food to be given.
Another example is a chimpanzee, shown to have the capacity to solve simple problems by using simple
instruments or devices in order to reach his food, like using a stick to get the food placed in an area not
near enough for his bare hands or to use a stool to reach and pull the string to turn on the light.

Some philosophers have debated whether some animals have the capacity to be moral because
of stories where pet animals like dogs have been recognized as heroes for saving lives. In the
Philippines, we have our version of a hero dog named „Kabang‟ whose upper snout was badly damaged
when she went between her master‟s daughter and a tricycle to protect her from being run over. Do you
think that what Kabang did is a moral act? Did it entail deliberation or was it based purely on instinct and
conditioning? As a compromise to these two opposing views, some philosophers have agreed to call this
pre-reflective morality in animals because animals are not capable of the wide range of deliberation,
reflection, concept construction, and rational and critical thinking that humans are able to do. In other
words, this is morality that occurs prior to deliberation and reflection. According to Mothershead, only
humans are moral in so far as they are capable of deliberate human action.

Value Experience: Values and Moral Values

In the process going through our everyday lives, we cannot help but choose and consider the
options available to us. The range of choices is so wide and varied. It ranges from the most trivial to the
most difficult choices and decisions that we have to make in our life. When we are in the process of
choosing among the alternatives in a given situation, even in the most trivial things like choosing our outfit
for the day, or what to eat, or what hairstyle to adopt, the process of value experience comes into play.
Mothershead adds that this is the side-taking part of our experience. This valuation process happens
when we make choices and indicate our preferences, for example, when we like or dislike, approve or
disapprove, favor or disfavor. Values are the result of this process of value experience where you set
which priorities to pursue. They may also be considered as imperatives that you have set your mind to do.

According to Mothershead, “All values are priorities with respect to some aspect of human
experience. This is usually expressed by saying that values are imperatives; they make a claim upon us,
whether we admit the claim or not.” We do this valuation process when we set priorities among the
choices or alternatives available to us. For example, choosing to buy smartphones over something else
reflects the value placed on being socially connected.

Now when does a value become a moral value? The priorities that we attach to values are limited
in its scope of importance or significance in our life. For example, money is a value and as a student you
might save money in order to buy something that you value more, like a new mobile phone. Once you
have that new mobile hone, you will be fulfilled until the next object of value that you would consider worth
saving up for. In other words, money is a value because it is a means to an end, which could be another
value more important than money and for which you are willing to give up your money. Your textbooks
are of value throughout the school year that you are using them. But once the school year is over, you
would normally discard them to make way for a new set of textbooks in your shelf for the next school
year. The value of looking at a beautiful face is often appreciated by many. When a beautiful person
passes by, everybody would look at that person and perhaps appreciate beauty when they see it. But that
is all there is to it. This is because beauty is just a value.

Can beauty become a moral value? Can money become a moral value? Can chastity and purity
become a moral value? Mothershead argues that a value can become a moral value if it becomes an
unlimited priority in its scope of relevance in our life. This is to say that one is willing to give up other
values in order to promote what s/he considers as a moral value. Thus, a moral value takes precedence
and priority over other values. In other words, you are willing to give up other values just to promote this
moral value. Moreover, the priority claimed by this moral value is unlimited because it could influence your
decisions in other aspects of your life and you are willing to set other values aside for it. For example,
those who value chastity and purity are willing to forego love in order to remain chaste and pure. Money
could also become a moral value for some people who set aside other values, like family ties or
friendship, for the sake of money. This could be the reason why we sometimes hear negative labels like
„Mukhang pera yan‟, „Walang kai-kaibigan o kamag-anak, lahat pera pera lang ang katapat‟, „Diyos niya
ang pera!‟ Still others may consider beauty as a moral value when they are willing to take risks to their
health, like having surgical enhancements in order to achieve beauty.

Values and moral value may change over time. As one matures and grows older, there are
values and moral value that one outgrows and a new set takes over. These changes could be brought
about by changing circumstances or by unforeseen events. For example, after the aftermath of Typhoon
Yolanda, people in the affected areas may have re-examined their priorities as they faced the reality of
losing their loved ones.

Moral Judgments and Moral Decisions

According to Mothershead, “Making moral judgments is budgeting actions”. Furthermore, for him,
“[a] moral decision is the most important class of moral judgments” because it “has reference to the
judger‟s own future action.” Our moral decisions reflect our choices as to what should be included or
excluded in our life. This is what freedom entails — to make these choices, and in effect, to plan and
budget our life, including mapping out plans for the future.

Mothershead also states that “not all moral judgments are decisions” as “many of our moral
judgments have reference to other people or groups of people.” We often render moral judgments on
what others should or ought to do. Here, we are like spectators, where the process of budgeting or
planning extends to other people or groups, and goes beyond our personal life and endeavors. This
activity could extend outside of our personal space, to our neighbors, to celebrities we do not know
personally, to other ethnic groups and even to people outside our country of origin.

It has been said that Filipinos are prone to making moral judgments even on people they barely
know. Perhaps this is also true of people in other countries. In general, people have a propensity to make
moral judgments on other people. In fact, it could sometimes become a pastime or a habit for some,
taking the form of giving unsolicited advice. These judgments could have a wide range of application and
could extend into the indeterminable future. When we claim for example, as a moral judgment, that no
one should be allowed to punish an innocent person, this judgment has a wide and far reaching
application beyond our lifetime.

Intellectual Choice and Practical Choice

In our actions as free moral agents and the exercise of moral reasoning, there tends to be what
Grassian has labelled as “the confusion between what one ought to do and what one would be inclined to
do”. We can adapt an objective point of view and ask ourselves, “What do I ought to do given this
situation?” With this question in mind, we could very well examine and analyze the situation as objectively
as possible with the use of our intellectual and rational capacity, in order to come up with an intellectual
choice. This is the process of giving normative answers as rational moral beings. Normative answers are
answers about what we ought to do from a moral system that we uphold and its moral principles. These
normative or prescriptive answers would also take into consideration the behavior that is expected of us
by society. For example, when you are being asked to resolve a moral dilemma, you can try to give your
intellectual choice as a normative answer. Here you are using your imagination because you are not, as it
were, facing that actual moral situation described in the dilemma. In this case, the answers that you are
inclined to give are prescriptive in this imaginary and hypothetical situation.

On the other hand, the question “What would I be inclined to do, given this situation” has to do
with the practical choice when faced with the actual situation. There seems to be a difference between
making moral decisions in actual situations where you are involved and the normative answers that you
give when you are confronted only with a hypothetical situation. These practical choices when confronted
with the actual situation have to do more with the psychological aspect of the person actually embroiled in
the moral situation or dilemma, according to Grassian. He adds that “[o]ur quest, however, is not the
psychological one of what an individual would as a matter of fact be inclined to do in a given situation but,
rather, the normative one of what he morally ought to do. The mere fact that an individual might be
inclined to act in a particular way does not show that that is the way he should act.”

For example, psychological and emotional stress and lack of time to deliberate during an actual
moral situation may affect a person‟s moral decision in that situation. A person may be so engulfed by
emotions that s/he may sometimes fail to make the right choice. Or the stress could make the person's
practical choice inconsistent with her/his intellectual choice. This is the root of the confusion, Grassian
claims. The business of philosophy is the examination of what one ought to do — i.e., one's intellectual
choices. It is hoped that given the luxury of time to reflect on moral problems and situations, when the
time comes for one to confront actual problems and situations, one would make the correct choices
based on what one ought to do.

Conclusion:

To sum up, mores come from our folkways which are the source of our notion of what is right, but
with the added element of societal welfare in order to protect, preserve and maintain society. In the study
of morality, which is the subject matter of ethics, there are two points of view to consider: first, the point of
view of society, together with its customs, social rules and sanctions; and second, the point of view of the
individual or the human being as a free moral agent. According to Mothershead, there are two necessary
conditions for morality to occur: freedom and obligation. Freedom is assumed when one is making his/her
choices and is the agent who is taking full responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process,
planning and budgeting his/her actions for some future outlook or goal. This is in accordance with his/her
moral and rational capacity for knowing and discerning what is right and wrong. Together with the
assumption of freedom is obligation. In its moral sense, obligation is construed as one‟s duty to oneself to
exercise this freedom as a rational moral being. In other words, it is seen as a person‟s duty to
him/herself to do this budgeting and planning for the future. Thus, according to Mothershead, only
humans are moral in so far as they are capable of deliberate human action.

Value experience is the side-taking part of our experience. This valuation process happens when
we make choices and indicate our preferences, for example when we like or dislike, approve or
disapprove, favor or disfavor. Values are the result of this process of value experience where you set
which priorities to pursue. They may also be considered as imperatives that you have set your mind to do.
Mothershead argues that a value can become a moral value if it becomes an unlimited priority in its scope
of relevance in one‟s life.

Moral decisions comprise the most important class of moral judgments because these have
reference to the judgers‟ own future action. A moral judgment has reference to other people or groups of
people, specifically with regard to what they should or ought to do. “What ought I to do given this
situation?” With this question in mind, we could examine and analyze the situation as objectively as
possible using our intellectual and rational capacity in order to come up with an intellectual choice. This is
the process of giving normative answers as rational moral beings. Normative answers are answers about
what we ought to do from a moral system that we uphold and its moral principles. On the other hand, the
question “What would I be inclined to do given this situation?” has to do with the practical choice that we
make when faced with the actual situation. There seems to be a difference between making moral
decisions in actual situations where we are involved and the normative answers that we give when we are
confronted with a hypothetical situation.

References

Albert, Ethel et al. Great Traditions in Ethics, 4th ed. (California: Litton Educational Publishing, Inc., 1989.

Boyce, William and Larry Cyril Jensen. Moral Reasoning: A Psychological and Philosophical Integration
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978), pp.5-17.

Dupre, Ben. Philosophy Ideas, You Really Need to Know (London: Quercus Publishing Plc, 2007) pp.
64-75.
Grassian, Victor. Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary Moral problems, 2nd
ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992) Chapters 3-5, pp.11-47.

Howard Kirschenbaum and Sidney Simon, eds. Readings in Va l u e s Clarification (New Yo r k : J.C.
Penney, 1972

McKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (Belmont: Wa d s w o r t h Publishing,

1995.

Mothershead, John L. Ethics: Modern Conception of the Principles of Right (New Yo r k : Henry Holt and
Co., 1955), Chapters 2, pp. 21-36.

Sartre, John Paul. “Existentialism is a Humanism,” in Alburey Castell and Donald Borchert.
An Introduction to Modern Philosophy: Examining the Human Condition, 4th ed. (New Yo r k :
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985) p. 84, pp. 80-102.

Sioco, MP & Vinzons, I. (2016) Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Quezon City: Vibal
Publishing Group, Inc. Chapter 3, pp. 60-73.

Sterba, James P. Morality in Practice, 3rd ed. California: Wa d s w o r t h Publishing Co., 1990)

Stokes, Philip. Philosophy: The Great Thinkers (London: Arcturus Publishing Ltd., 2007)

Sumner, William. “Folkways”, in Johnson, Oliver, ed. Ethics: Selections from Classical and
Contemporary Writers (New Yo r k : Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 289-310.

Sumner, William. The Case for Ethical Relativism” In Klemke, Kline & Hollinger, eds. Philosophy: The
Basic Issues (New Yo r k : St. Martin‟s Press, 1982), pp. 496-511