ANDRES BONIFACIO COLLEGE

College of Arts and Sciences

College Park, Dipolog City

ETHICS
Lesson 1

ETHICS
 May be described as a critical reflection on various life situations. It is an inquiry into
some standard to guide one’s action, or as a tool to understand a given condition.
 Is about matters such as the good thing that we should pursue and the bad thing that we
should avoid; it may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that
we are required to respect, or ideals that we are encouraged to meet.

CLARIFICATIONS and TERMINOLOGY

I. Kinds of Valuation
Our first point of clarification is to recognize that there are instances when we make
value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics.

A. Aesthetics- judgments of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what

we see, hear, smell, or taste.
 The movie I had just seen was a “good” one because I enjoyed it.
 The song I heard on the radio was a “bad” one because it has an
unpleasant tone.
 Your opinion on what should be the best sawsawan for a chicken
barbeque.
 Clothes design and taste of food.

B. Etiquette- concerned with the right or wrong actions, but those which might be
considered not quite grave enough to belong to the discussion of ethics.
 I think it is right to politely knock on someone’s door than to barge into
one’s office
 Perhaps I may approve of a child who can ask for something by properly
saying please.
 I disapprove of a woman picking her nose in public.
 Clarification: I am displeased seeing a healthy young man who refuses to
offer his seat on a bus to an elderly woman. Yet my indignation and shock
would be much greater of I were to see a man deliberately push another
one out of the bus.

C. Technical- which is often refers to a proper way of doing things.

 The right thing to do in baking a cake
 Learning how to play basketball

ETHICS AND MORALS

Our second point of clarification is on the use of the words “ethics” and “morals”. This
discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as ethical, unethical, immoral,
amoral, morality and so on.

As we proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word “not” when
applied to the words “moral” or “ethical” as this can be ambiguous.

 Cooking is not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does not belong to a
discussion of ethics;
  Lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is that the act of lying would be
an unethical act.

“Morals” may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to
describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an individual’s personal
conduct is referred to as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be
described as immoral.

“Moral judgment” or “moral reasoning”, which suggests a more rational aspect. The
term “ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human
behavior and ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledged as an intellectual discipline
belonging to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are also generally
described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In addition, with regard to the acceptable and
unacceptable ways of behaving in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics” (e.g.,
legal ethics for the proper comportment of lawyers and other people in the legal profession;
medical ethics for doctors and nurses; and media ethics for writers and reporters).

DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE

Our third point of clarification is to distinguish between a descriptive and a normative

study of ethics.

Descriptive Study of Ethics reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral
valuations without making any judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of
study is often the work of the social scientist: either a historian (studying different moral
standards over time) or a sociologist or an anthropologist (studying different moral standards
across cultures).

Normative Study of Ethics, as is often done in philosophy and moral theology, engages
the question: What could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In other words, a
normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as our standards or basis for moral
valuation. When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always advisable to recognize whether
one is concerned with a descriptive view (e.g., noting how filial piety and obedience are
pervasive characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative perspective (e.g., studying
how Confucian ethics enjoins us to obey our parents and to show filial piety).

ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGMENT, AND DILEMMA

As the final point of clarification, it may be helpful to distinguish a situation that calls for
moral valuation. It can be called a moral issue. For instance, imagine a situation wherein a
person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility presents itself for her to steal it. This
is a matter of ethics (and not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for one’s
property.

We should add that “issue” is also often used to refer to those particular situations that
are often the source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we should often here topics
such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral “issue”).

When one is placed in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform,
she is called to make a moral decision. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not
pay for. When a person is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior of
someone, she is making a moral judgment. For instance, a friend of mine chooses to steal
from a store, and I make an assessment that it is wrong.
 Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and
considering the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two
goods and choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is referred to as a moral dilemma.
We have a moral dilemma when an individual can choose only one from a number of possible
actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices. A mother may be
conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it would be wrong
for her to steal is an example of a moral dilemma.

REASONING

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite wrong? The
study of ethics is interested in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of
acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another
way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either right or
wrong?

A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him reason for acting in a
certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “I did not cheat on the exam because I was
afraid that I might get caught”, or “I looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to
get a higher allowance”. In a certain sense, fear of punishment and desire for reward can be
spoken of as giving someone a “reason” for acting in a certain way. But the question then would
be: is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way
of understanding reason because it does not show any true understanding of why cheating on
an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing. The
promise of rewards and fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in
themselves determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting or of the good
and the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way
of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?

I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I make
the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in the position to get better grades for
her by cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgment of praising her for this. In
making this kind of moral decision or moral judgment, the question can be asked: Why?

Asking the question “why” might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of
rewards and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking.
Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond whatever
motivation or incentive is present in the instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other words,
our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular
situation and arriving at a statement like, “Cheating is wrong”, by recognizing proper reasons for
not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation-
our decisions and judgments-to be based on a principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating
is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for the importance and validity of testing.
From this, we can define principles as rationally established grounds by which one justifies
and maintains her moral decisions and judgments.

But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than another? Why should I
maintain that I should care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong? We can maintain
principles, but we can also ask what good reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. One
person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life
has priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another’s life does not
contribute to humans happiness but to human misery instead. How do we exactly arrive at any
of these claims?
 These are where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish
the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or
of ideas, it can also be referred to as framework. We can use this term, “framework”, as a
theory of interconnected ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can
evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment.

There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we
maintain and thus, the decisions and judgements we make. By studying these, we can
reconsider, clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better
both our moral judgements and moral decisions. In The Apology of Socrates written by Plato,
Socrates makes the claim that it is the greatest good for a person to spend time thinking and
discussing with others these questions on goodness and virtue.

SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on the idea that the standards
of valuation are imposed by the higher authority that commands our obedience. In the following
section, we will explore three of such ideas: the authority of the law, the authority of one’s
religion, and the authority of one’s own culture.

LAW

It is supposed that law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country’s criminal and civil codes.
Making this even more particular, in Dipolog, residents are constrained to follow any provincial
laws or city ordinances. One can easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the
barangay or village level, where local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to
follow. The term positive law refers to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put
forward by an authority figure that requires compliance.

At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts
that we immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder or theft), which we also know are
forbidden by law. However, there are some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that
generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining here is
a more controversial one: the more radical claim that one can look to the law itself in order to
determine what is right or wrong. But the question is: can one simply identify ethics with the
law?

One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we
should do; it works by constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. To put it
slightly differently, then law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. In the line with
this, we might find that there are certain ways of acting which are not forbidden by the law, but
are ethically questionable to us. For instance, a company that pads its profits by refusing to give
its employees benefits may do so within the parameters of the law. The company can do so by
refusing to hire people on a high basis, but offering them six-month contracts. Constrained to
work under this contractual system, the employees are thus deprived not only of benefits, but
also of job security. Here, no law is violated, yet one can wonder whether there is something
ethically questionable to this business practice. The fact that one can make such a negative
value judgment of the practice where there is no violation of the law is already a hint that one
can look to something beyond the law when making our ethical valuations.
 In view of all this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a way that does not simply
identify it with obedience to the law. Later, we shall see how the concept of law is creatively
utilized in the Deontology of Immanuel Kant in a more ethically significant way.

RELIGION

This verse is the first line of Chapter 11 of the book of Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim
that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that
one is obliged to obey her God in all things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to
as the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands
and one is obliged to obey her Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are
linked to the Divine. By listening to these figures and reading these writings. An individual
discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of
this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God "spoke"
to her directly to instruct her what to do.

We are presented with a more-or-less clear code of prohibitions and many of these
prohibitions given by religion "Thou shall not kill," "Thou shall not steal," and "Thou shall not
commit adultery"-seem to intuitively coincide with our sense of what ethics should rightly
demand. In addition, there is an advance here over the law because religion is not simply
prohibitive, but it also provides ideals to pursue. For instance, one may be called to forgive
those who sinned against him or be charitable to those who have less. Further, taking religion
as basis of ethics has the advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a
Supreme Authority that can inspire and compel our obedience in a way that nothing else can.

However, there are some problems with this. First, on the practical level, we realize the
presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which
would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. Experience teaches us that sometimes
even within one and the same faith; difference can be a real problem. For instance, we can
easily imagine a number of Christians agreeing that they should read and find their inspiration
from the Bible; but we could also easily imagine them disagreeing on which particular lines they
need to focus on. The problem of difference thus remains.

If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it the case
that this is so only because God commanded it or that killing is in itself wrong, and that is the
reason why God commanded it? If we were to accept that it is wrong to take another's life
because God commanded it, we are left with the difficult conclusion that there is nothing
inherently wrong with killing. It is only because God said so-"Thou shall not kill"-that we
consider such an act wrong. It would seem then that there is something arbitrary about it all, in
the sense that God could will whatever He wants. On that basis and nothing further, we have
the distinction between rights from wrong.

CULTURE

Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are
ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity
of how different people believe it is proper to act. There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art
vs. Indian art), religious differences (Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette differences
(conflicting behaviors regarding dining practices). In these bases, it may become easy to
conclude that this is the case in ethics as well. There are also various examples that seem to
bear these out: nudity can be more taboo in one culture than in another. Another example
would be how relations between men and women can show a wide variety across different
cultures, ranging from greater liberality and equality on one hand, to greater inequality and a
relation of dominance versus submission on the other. From the reality of diversity, it is possible
for someone to jump to the further claim that the sheer variety at work in the different ways of
valuation means there is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds
true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is
relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one's culture. This position is referred to as cultural
relativism.

There is something appealing to this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to
conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures make
their ethical valuations. By taking one's culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our
valuations. This teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we
are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is
acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture's moral code is neither superior to nor
inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and
applicable to us.

Criticisms of cultural relativism:

 The argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference.

Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one
moral code is the right one. In other words, disagreement may mean that the
question of who is right or wrong is not immediately evident, but it does not
necessarily mean that there is no one correct resolution.

 Under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind
of judgment on the practices of another culture. This seems to be a generous and
an open-minded way of respecting others.

a) What if a particular African tribe thought it is advantageous and therefore

right for them to wipe out a neighboring people through a terrible practice of
genocide?

b) What if some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive toward

women reaching to the point of violence?

c) What about the traditional practice of head-hunting that is still maintained

by certain societies in the Cordilleras?

Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would we be satisfied with

concluding that we cannot judge another culture? But this is one of the
implications of cultural relativism.

 Under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render judgment

on the practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for
determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that something within our
cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be the
standard for making such judgments.

 Perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism is that we
can maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single, clearly-
defined substance or as something fixed and already determined.
 In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined culture gives
way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this is to call into question an idea like
cultural relativism, which only makes sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion of what can
be defined as culture.

We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it is a problem in
our study of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought. On the positive
side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, which is, urging us not to imagine that our
own culture is superior to another.

SENSES OF THE SELF

It is sometimes thought that one should not rely on any external authority to tell oneself
what the standards of moral valuation are, but should instead turn inwards. In this section, we
will look into three theories about ethics that center on the self: subjectivism, psychological
egoism, and ethical egoism.

SUBJECTIVISM

The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the individual thinking person
(the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the
situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment. From this point,
subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is
morally good or bad, right or wrong. A number of clichés familiar to us would echo this idea:

"No one can tell me what is right and wrong."

"No one knows my situation better than me.

“I am entitled to my own opinion”

"It is good if I say that it is good."

There is something appealing about these statements because they seem to express a
cherished sense of personal independence. But a close look at these statements may reveal
problems and in seeing these, we see the problems of subjectivism.

"No one can tell me what is right and wrong." In a sense, there is some validity to
this. No one can compel another to accept a certain value judgment if she herself does not
concur with it. However, we know that this statement cannot be taken as absolute.

"No one knows my situation better than me”. Once again, in a sense, there is some
validity to this. This particular person who is put in a certain situation, which calls for a decision,
has knowledge of the factors that affect her situation and decision. But to take this fact as a
ground for not listening to others is to have a mentality that imagines that one's own situation or
concern is so personal and unique that there is no way another person can possibly understand
her and give her any meaningful advice.

"I am entitled to my own opinion”. Here, once again, is a valid point that is often
misused. Certainly, each person has the right to believe what she believes and has the right to
express this. But this right is often stubbornly misconstrued as some kind of immunity from
criticism and correction. A bigoted racist has an opinion against anyone who is dark- skinned,
an anti-Semite has an opinion against Jews, and a misogynist has an opinion against women.
We realize that these opinions are highly problematic because there is no basis for considering
any of these groups of people as inferior. We would rightly be indignant about an employer who
pays his female employees less than the male employees, simply because he is of the opinion
that women are inferior to men.

“It is good if I say that it is good." With this line, we get to the heart of the problem
with subjectivism. The statement implies: "It is my personal consideration of X as good that
makes X good. X is good on the basis of my saying so. "The problem now becomes: "What is
my basis for saying X is good? “This renders subjectivism an untenable view for someone who
is interested in ethics; It takes the fact that I am the subject making the valuation and uses this
fact as the very basis for that valuation. But when "," as subject, am asking what is right or
wrong, good or bad, with subjectivism, there is no other basis that I can look toward.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM

Let us consider another cliché. It would go like this: "Human beings are naturally self-
centered, so all our actions are always already motivated by self-interest”.

This is the stance taken by psychological egoism, which is a theory that describes the
underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to
act in any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basis for how
one acts. The ego or self has its desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward
satisfying these interests. This may not seem particularly problematic when we consider many
of the actions that we do on a day-to-day basis. I watch a movie or read a book because I want
to, or go for a walk and do some window shopping in the mall because I enjoy that. I take a
certain course in college because I think it will benefit me, or I join an organization because I
will get some good out of it. We do things in pursuit of our own self-interest all the time.

But what about other types of behavior that we would commonly say are directed toward
the other? Consider, for example, an act of generosity, in which someone helps a friend with
her thesis rather than play videogames, or someone makes use of her free Saturday helping
build houses for Gawad Kalinga? The psychological egoist would maintain that underlying such
apparently other-directed behavior is a self-serving desire, even if one does not acknowledge it
or is even conscious of it. Perhaps he only helped his friend with her thesis because he is trying
to impress her. Perhaps she helps out with Gawad Kalinga because this is how she believes
her sense of guilt at being well-off compared to others. The idea is that whether or not the
person admits it, one's actions are ultimately always motivated by self-serving desire.

This theory has a couple of strong points.

 The first is that of simplicity. When an idea is marked by simplicity, it has a unique
appeal to it; a theory that conveniently identifies a single basis that will somehow
account for all actions is a good example of this.

 The second is that of plausibility. It is plausible that self-interest is behind a

person's actions. It is clearly the motivation behind many of the actions one
performs which are obviously self-serving: it could very well also be the motivation
behind an individual's seemingly other-directed actions. It is not only plausible, but
also irrefutable.

Psychological egoism is an irrefutable theory because there is no way to try to

answer it without being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might say, there
is the self- serving motive at the root of everything.
 So psychological egoism, when we look at its consequences, leads us to a cynical view
of humanity, to a gloomy description of human nature, and finally to a useless theory for
someone who is concerned with asking herself what is the right thing to do. This is because it
ends up nullifying the possibility of any normative ethics in its view of the already-determined
human being.

ETHICAL EGOISM

Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all our
actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should
make our own ends, our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way
that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us. This theory
acknowledges that it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and given that, everyone ought to put
herself at the center. One should consider herself as the priority and not allow any other
concerns, such as the welfare of other people, to detract from this pursuit.

It is clear that we have our interests and desires, and would want them satisfied. Thus,
this question can be asked: Why should I have any concern about the interests of others? In a
sense, this question challenges in a fundamental way the idea of not just a study of ethics, but
also the effort of being ethical: Why not just look after one's own self? To examine ethical
egoism, we will take a look into Plato's Republic, which is Plato's response to the assertion that
one should only care about one's own interests.

ASSIGNMENT:

1. Read the Story of Gyges in “The Republic” by Socrates

This is what ethical egoism ultimately translates into-not just some pleasant pursuit of
one's own desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is potentially destructive of both the
self and of others. One can take on this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder
whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of our own
well-being concomitantly with the well-being of others. Perhaps this is what the study of ethics
is all about.

KEY WORDS

1. Ethics
2. Morality
3. Aesthetics
4. Etiquette
5. Technique
6. Descriptive
7. Normative
8. Positive Law
9. Divine Command Theory
10. Cultural Relativism
11. Subjectivism
12. Psychological Egoism
13. Ethical Egoism