Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to

ETHICS standards of right or wrong behavior. The word carries the

A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon concepts of:
this world. Therefore, he must learn to identify what is right
(1) moral standards, with regard to behavior;
from what is wrong. Man should be wise enough to know
(2) moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and
what he is ought to do when confronted with some ethical
(3) a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong
problems in life. If not then he is no different with a robot
action.
who follows only what he is asked to do.
Common synonyms include ethics, principles, virtue, and
Man, as a rational being. Man should behave as a
goodness.
human being and not otherwise. Man should reflect on the
values that are most important to him. It will help him
develop his skills in articulating his own values and how to
A. MORAL standards versus NON-MORAL standards
morally justify or provide ethical reasons for his actions. This
will give him the means in questioning and assessing the Moral standards - are norms that individuals or groups have
values of others in a more critical way. about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right or
wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to
How should people act? What do people think is
morally good or morally bad. It normally promotes “the
right? How do we apply our sense of morality? What does
good” that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well
‘right’ or ‘wrong’ even mean? Is morality based on religion?
as animals and environment. According to many scholars,
These are some of the general questions that we will attempt
Moral standards have the following characteristics;
to answer in the study of ethics. There will be a lot of
challenges since morality has become a complicated issue in (1) Moral standards deal with matters we think we can
the multi-cultural world we live in today. So here we will try seriously injure or benefit whether it is a human, animal
explore what morality is, how it affects our behavior, our or even an environment, such as issue on taking lives
conscience, our society, and our ultimate destiny. We will (suicide), issue on destroying environment in return of
also explore some of the ethical frameworks that we can use business (mining), and taking animals for recreation or
in solving moral dilemmas we are facing in our daily lives. educational purposes;
Making moral decision is where our rational mind is being (2) Moral standards are not established or changed by the
tested. decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies, such as
implementation of tax in Philippines which is created by
The word "ethics" is derived from the Greek "ethos"
the law-making body of the government and amended
(meaning "custom" or "habit"). Ethics is not limited to specific
also by the same.
acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of
(3) Moral standards are overriding, that is, they take
moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or
precedence over other standards and considerations,
Weltanschauung).
especially of self-interest;
Ethics (or Moral Philosophy) is concerned with (4) Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
questions of how people ought to act, and the search for a Hence, moral standards are fair and just; and
definition of right conduct (identified as the one causing the (5) moral standards are associated with special emotions
greatest good) and the good life (in the sense of a life worth (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right,
living or a life that is satisfying or happy). It deals with the wrong, good and bad). -PHILONOTES
basic principles that serve as the basis for moral rules.
Moral standards are the sum of combined NORMS
(general rules about actions or behaviors) plus VALUES
(enduring beliefs about what is good and desirable or not.).
Ethical vs Moral

When a person says “It is right to do this and wrong

to do that” and he practices what he preached, we call him a Non-Moral Standards
MORALIST, but when a person says “It is right to do this and
Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge
wrong to do that” but he himself do not practice the same we
what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way. It
call him an ETHICIST. We sometimes differentiate the two in
is a matter of taste or preference. Such as standards of law,
this way. What is the distinction between being ethical and
etiquette, aesthetics, and even religion.
being a moral? Is there a difference? Or Can they be used
interchangeably? Ethics and morality are not the same thing! Not all moral are legal and not all legal are moral.
If a person follows moral rules he is considered moral person Say for example carrying of gun. It is not immoral to carry gun
and he if he does not, he is therefore, immoral but not especially that you have no intention of using it to harm
unethical. If a person is aware of the basic principles people. However, in the eyes of man-made laws if you are
governing moral conduct and acts in a manner consistent caught with an unlicensed gun, you will be liable of the crime
with those principles, he is therefore considered ethical. of Illegal Possession of Firearms. There is a standard law
Ethics differs from morals and morality in that ethics denotes regulating the possession of gun such as Presidential Decree
the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals No. 1866. Hence, carrying of such is not a moral issue. Law, in
indicate their practice. a general sense, is the principles and regulations established
in a community by some authority and applicable to its
people.
Morality Defined
 Eating with hands in a fine dine restaurant, ***ing The 2018 Miss Asia Pacific International Sharifa Akeel
one’s pimples in public, farting in front of classmates, drinking admitted that she was in a dilemma whether to continue
your classmate’s soft drink without his permission are acts joining the pageant or not because as a Muslim she knew that
that are not with moral standards. These acts can be the muslim society will criticize and even condemn her. Is
categorized under what we called ETIQUETTE. We sometimes Sharifa in a state of moral dilemma in deciding whether to
use the expression “way breeding oi” or “walay etikit nga join the pageant or not? When you are confused on what
tawo” when we dislike the person. But it is to be noted that it course you will take accounting or engineering, do you think
does not follow that when a person lacks of etiquette, he is you are facing a moral dilemma? Is there a moral issue
already immoral. An unethical person is different from a involve when you consider whether to stop schooling to help
person wanting in etiquette. Etiquette is an unwritten code or the family in financial problems or opting to stay in school
rules of social or professional behavior. and let the parents work? What is the moral dilemma there?

Most of the millennials nowadays were very Imagine in the future you come to a car sales event to
conscious of their fashion. Some follows the bohemian style, purchase your very first self-driving autopilot car. These types
some would like to maintain the old vintage fashion style or of cars revolutionized road safety by having better reaction
the sophisticated kind of fashion. In this generation, most of speeds and split-second decision-making capabilities than a
the teenager would go on what is trendy and that is the K- human driver. However, the sales agent explained to you that
POP fashion style or some would call it the OPPA style (the in the extremely rare case of an unavoidable accident, it will
Korean heartthrobs). We sometimes call a person BADOY sacrifice the driver-occupant if it can save more people and
when he lacks taste in fashion but we failed to realize that minimize life casualties as a result. Say, it can avoid ramming
choosing what to wear is a choice and it doesn't not make a crowd of people by forcefully steering the vehicle into a
you a lesser person because it is simply an art. Maybe some wall which may kill the driver. Will you buy the car? What if
fashionista would disagree for they believe that art is an you badly needed to buy a car and all cars were designed as
expression of one’s self. But it does not define your being self-driving cars, will your answer be the same? In deciding
moral. Choosing the kind of fashion, you will follow is a non- whether to buy the car or not, are you now in a moral
moral standard. It belongs to what we called AESTHETICS that dilemma?
deals with the nature of art, beauty, and taste and with the
Surely, you will of course consider your own safety. The
creation of appreciation of beauty. Although Kant once said
possibility of not buying the car is highly probable. Self-
that “beauty is the symbol of morality.” Undeniably, one’s
preservation is just natural for humans but when it involves
assessment in any artwork sometimes raises moral questions.
saving others, there are some however who are willing to risk
Say for example a senior high school student who’s nude-sex
their lives in order to save others. This is a situation where
sketch catches the attention of some netizens because they
moral dilemma occurs. It is a situation in which there is a
believe that it is a kind of pornographic art. But that student
choice to be made, neither of which resolves the situation in
argues “it is just a creation of his imagination and he himself
an ethically acceptable fashion.
did not experienced such”. It now raises the question - Is the
student immoral in doing that? Or do we define one’s Another example is the sincere, qualified candidate
morality through his piece of art? who wants to run in their congressional district. He wants to
create change and he knew that he can well-represent their
Can an atheist have morality at all? When you do not
district if he will win the election. However, his opponent is a
believe in the existence of God, does it follow that you are
known drug-pusher, illiterate but very rich. He knows that his
immoral already? When we engaged in the practice of
district will be in danger if his opponent will win. So, he told
polygeny, do we become immoral? If you are a Muslim, you
himself that at by all means he should win the election. But
are not a polygenis because marrying up to four women is
he knew from the very start that if he will not buy votes, like
allowed. Sadly, if you are a non-muslim engaging such
what his opponent will be doing, he will surely lose the
practice you can be tagged as bigamist! Whether to eat pork
election. Now, some of his supporters are willing to fund him
or not, fast or not, pray five times a day or only every Sunday,
for him to win because they believed on him. But he knew
the wearing of Niqab or Hijab are non-moral standards acts.
that vote-buying is illegal. He is now in dilemma whether to
Most religious people think their morality comes from their
accept the offer or not? Whether he will engage in vote-
religion but that is not always the case. Religion is about
buying or not? This is a situation where a man’s dignity and
valuing and not about reasoning or about truth. Religion is a
integrity are being tested. But as stated above, not all legal
set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the
are moral. It may be illegal to buy votes but does it make the
relations between human beings and the divine.
person immoral if he will buy votes for him to win the
What is then the basis of one’s moral beliefs? Is it election knowing that he has good intention? If you think that
purely personal or self-evident? Or can we consider culture this situation falls down in a moral dilemma, what makes the
the ultimate source of moral beliefs? But how do we identify issue moral then?
if there is such thing as multiplicity of culture? Different
Consider this famous “TROLLEY PROBLEM”. There is
societies have different moral beliefs. Our moral beliefs are
a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead
grounded on our culture. Different cultures have different
on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to
moral standards. Hence, a matter of moral indifference is a
move. The trolley is headed straight for them. Assuming that
matter of taste in one culture and may be a matter of moral
you are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a
significance in another. This is to be discussed in the
lever. If you pull the lever, the trolley will switch to a different
preceding chapter.
set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on
the side track. You have two options:

Moral Dilemma
(1) Do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the “A situation confronted by the choice of what act to perform,
main track. it is called moral decision, I choose not to take something I
(2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track did not pay. When a person is an observer who makes an
where it will kill one person anyway. 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
What do you think is the best thing to do? of course it is easy
it is wrong.
for you to choose the second option. What if that one person
happened to be your loving brother? Will you still choose the “Finally, going beyond the matter of choosing right over
second option? Here, you are facing a moral dilemma. wrong,or good over bad, and considering instead the more
situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two
Man learned his personal moral values when he is
goods or choosing between the lesser of two evils: this is
confronted with moral dilemma. Making moral decision is not
referred to as a moral dilemma. We have moral dilemma
easy. It involves your whole being and even others. In
when an individual can choose only one from a number of
deciding what to do, you do not only consider yourself but
possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for
the people that surrounds you. Sometimes you do not refer
the various choices. A mother may be conflicted between
to the act alone but the consequences of your action.
wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it
would be wrong for her to steal is an example of moral
dilemma.
Difference Between Descriptive ethics and Normative

“A descriptive study of ethics reports how people, particularly

groups, make their moral valuation without making any Tool Used in Ethical Discussion: Reason
judgment either for or against these valuations. This kind of
“Ethics is interested with questions: Why do we decide to
study is for social scientist, historian, sociologist,
consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of
anthropologist. A normative study of ethics, as is often done
acting, its opposite, is unacceptable? To put it in another way,
in philosophy or moral theology, engages the question: what
what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain
could or should be considered as the right way of acting? In
way of acting is either right or wrong?
other words, a normative discussion describes what we ought
to maintain as our standard or bases for moral valuation. “A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward
“When engaging in a discussion of ethics, it is always (Punishment and reward) can provide him a reason for acting
advisable to recognize whether one is concerned with a in a certain way. It is common to hear someone say: “I did not
descriptive view (filial piety and obedience are persuasive cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I might get
characteristics of Chinese culture) or with a normative caught,” or “I looked after my father in the hospital because I
perspective (like, studying how Confucian ethics enjoins us to wanted to get a higher allowance.” In a certain sense, fear of
obey our parents and to show filial piety.) “Philosophical punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving
discussion of ethics goes beyond recognizing the someone a “reason” for acting in a certain way. But the
characteristics of some descriptive theory; also, it does not question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is
simply accept as correct any normative theory. A to say, this way of thinking seems to be a shallow way of
philosophical discussion of ethics engages in a critical understanding reason because it does not show any true
consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why
theories. This is our concern. looking after a member of my family is in itself a good thing.
The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can
NOTA BENE: If one wants to know the ethical systems of
certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves a
T’boli, B’laan, Klagan, Mansaka, Bagobo ug unsa kalahi kini sa
determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of
mga Ilongo, Ilokaco, mao na ni ang gitawag ug descriptive
acting or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it
ethics. Gikinahanglan ug lawom na research for us to have a
possible to find better reasons for finding a certain way of
picture (knowledge) of each of these ethno-linguistic group
acting either acceptable or unacceptable? “I am in situation
ethical system. Then kung dunay comparison, comparative
wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I
studies of ethical systems na yan. And that is not our concern
make the decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was
sa GEC107, we focus on normative ethics.
in a position to get a better grade for herself 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,
TERMINOLOGIES – ISSUE, DECISION, JUDGEMENT, the question can be asked: why?
&DILEMMA
“Asking why brings us to a higher level of thinking.
“Let us distinguish situations that call for moral valuation. It Perhaps one can rise above the particulars of a specific
can be called a moral issue, like, imagine a situation wherein situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive is
a person cannot afford a certain item, but then the possibility present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other
presents itself for her to steal it. This is a matter of ethics (and words, our thinking may take on a level of abstraction, that is,
not just law) insofar as it involves the question of respect for detaching itself from the particular situation and arriving at a
one’s property. We should add that “issue” is also often used statement like, “Cheating is wrong,” by recognizing proper
to refer to those particular situations that are often the reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards and
source of considerable and inconclusive debate (thus, we punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation – our
would often hear topics such as punishment and euthanasia decisions and judgments – to be based on a principle. Thus,
as moral issues). 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 law the only rightful basis for ethics? We should realize that
established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her law is only prohibitive in nature. it constraints us from
moral decisions and judgments. performing acts that we should not do. The law does not tell
us what to pursue, only what to avoid. Should ethics be based
“But why do we maintain one particular principle rather than
only on the negative perspective on what we may not do,
another? Why should I maintain that I should care for fair
how about on action that we think is good for us? The law
play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong? Why is fair play
does not tell us what to do. If the law provide us on the
better than cheating or diskarte? In case of fraternity hazing,
don’ts, sana, it should guide us the dos. It does not tell us
why is it wrong to cause another person physical injury or to
what to do? It tells us what is wrong (prohibitive), but not
take another’s life? We can maintain principles, but we can
what is right? Can anyone think of an action that is right but
also ask what good reason for doing so. Such reasons may
not provided by law? If we can up with examples, the
differ. So, for example, what makes death in a hazing a
examples show what is pointed out in this paragraph.
tragedy? One person may say that life is sacred and God-
given. Another person may declare that Human life has a “There maybe acts that are not forbidden by law but are
Priceless dignity. Still Another may put forward the idea that unethical to us, like, a company pads its profits by refusing to
taking another’s life does not contribute to human happiness give its employees benefits may do so within the parameters
but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of the law. Ex. Endo (contractual hiring). Companies in the
of these claims? This is where We turn to theory. A moral Philippines are doing it all the time. People do not consider
(ethical) theory, is a systematic attempt to establish the this action as ethical or right, but it is not against the law or
validity of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a the law does not prohibit it. Being on the contractual basis,
theory is a system of thought or of ideas. It can also be the employees are deprived of benefits and of job security. In
referred to as framework. We can use this term, this case, no law is violated, but everyone questions - is the
“framework,” as a theory of interconnected ideas, and at the action right? Is it ethically right? If one can make a negative
same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our value judgment on an action but there is law violation, that is
reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgment. a point toward saying that the law is not a good basis for
ethics. Ethics exist beyond the law.
“There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on
the principles that we maintain and thus, the decisions and “To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler
judgment we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, who had been run over by a couple of vehicles. While there
clarify, modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, were many passers-by who witnessed what had happened,
thereby, informing better both our moral judgments and for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The child
moral decisions. later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige people to
help others in need, so none of these passers-by were guilty
Read this: “In the Apology of Socrates written by Plato,
of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to this
Socrates makes the claim that it is the greatest good for a
sad news report share a sense that those passers-by were
person to spend time thinking about and discussing with
somewhat ethically culpable in their negligence. In view of all
others these questions on goodness and virtue.” Socrates said
this, perhaps one should think of ethics in a way that does not
that studying and discussing about ethics is never a waste of
simply identify it with obedience to the law.
time, logistics, effort and saliva. It is imperative that we
discuss these topics for there are difficulties waiting ahead. It
is going to be a bumper ride.
RELIGION AS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY AS BASES charge: his statutes, decrees, and commandments.” Chapter
11 of Deuteronomy. It tells all Christian to obey God in all
“Several common ways of thinking about ethics are based on
things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as
the idea that the standards of valuation are imposed by a
the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah or
higher authority that commands our obedience: authority of
Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey his
the law, authority of one’s religion, and authority of one’s
Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes are
own culture.
linked to the Divine. One discovers how the Divine wants
him/her to act through these persons and texts. Sometimes,
someone will say that he talks to the Divine.
LAW AS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY
“Many of us, if not all, are brought up with our religious
“... (L)aw is one’s guide to ethical behavior. Laws from upbringing that is why we have a strong inclination to refer to
Philippine national level to barangay level constrained our religious background as the backup for our ethical values.
Filipinos to obey and follow. The term positive law refers to “Thou shall not kill.” thou shall not steal.” Thou shall not
the different rules and regulations that are posited or put commit adultery.” These are clear codes of prohibitions that
forward by an authority figure that require compliance. Many seem to coincide with our sense of what ethics should rightly
of the law coincide with what one considers as unethical, like, demand. This is better than law because religion is not only
murder, theft, etc. The advantage of law as basis of ethics is prohibitive, but also provides ideals to pursue, like, to forgive
the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is those who sinned against us or be charitable to those who
obligatory and applicable to all. It is therefore not surprising if have less. Notice that these are what man is ideally should
some consider law as a source of ethics. do, not only prohibition just like that of a law. Thus, someone
may say - Ethics is following your religion.
Generally speaking, we usually say obey the law. A question
is asked: Can we simply identify ethics with the law? Is the
Nota Bene: Ethics is following the law and also following Example 1: Nudity can be more taboo in one culture than in
your religion. Possible ba na merong conflict sa ganitong another.
klaseng statement?Give an example of conflict that exist if
Example 2: Relations between men and women can show a
one is to follow both law and religion.
wide variety across different cultures,

A) ranging from greater liberality and equality on one hand,

There are problems that exist if religion is the only basis of to greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus
ethics. One, on the practical level, there are multiple religions submission on the other.
and it is very possible that there exist conflicting code of what
From reality of diversity of culture, there are different ways of
is right or what is wrong or ethical standards. Example, food. I
valuations, meaning there is no single universal standard,
assume you know this example:
thus what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative
1. bawal ang merong blood pero merong dinuguan, to, or that is to say, dependent on one’s culture, this is called
2. Bawal ang shrimps, crabs, pero mahal kaayo kini as cultural relativism.
3. Bawal ang pig, na wala nay litson
Remember to Define Cultural Relativism
4. Ano pa ang bawal sa religion?
Cultural relativism is :

1) appealing for it conforms to our experience, which is the

If religion is the basis of ethics, and it is possible that there is
reality of the differences in how cultures make their ethical
a person who not adhere to a religion, does it imply that this
valuations.
particular person does not have ethical values or ethical
standard? Another question, if a person is not a devout, does 2) By taking one’s own culture as the standard, we are
it imply that he has no ethical values? Answer this question provided a basis for our valuations / judgment on what is
and you have to provide an argument to support your right or wrong action.
answer.
3) This teaches us to be tolerant of others from different
Two, on the conceptual level: Let us try to understand these cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge
questions: whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is
acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture’s moral
Is it the case that something is right only because God
code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they
commanded it, or is it the case that something is right in itself
would provide us the standards that are appropriate and
and that is why God commanded it? Is killing inherently
applicable to us.
wrong in itself or it is wrong because God commanded it?
Summary:
Tarzan and Jane lived in a forest with no government and no
religious affiliation, did it also imply that they did not have Ethics is not simply obedience to law, not simply being
ethical standards? Remember, they did not know any God. faithful to one’s religious affiliations, and be true to one’s
cultural background
And answer these questions.
BUT
“Let us clarify: our calling into question of the divine
command theory is not a calling into question of one’s belief Ethics exist beyond law, religion, and culture. Let us listen to
in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. James Rachels as he present what there may be difficulties
Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there may be between ethics and cultural relativism, three points:
more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the
connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the
equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be reality of difference.
commanded by God.
A) Because different cultures have different moral code, we
Remember: Ethics exists beyond law and religious cannot say that one moral code is the right one. Does it mean
orientations. that there is no right or wrong?

B) It is also a case or common experience to have

disagreement and have the conflict clarified later by
CULTURE AS A SOURCE OF AUTHORITY someone, an elder or someone respected by both parties, to
help solve the conflict, does it not show that sometimes what
Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes
is right or wrong is easily accessible to one’s judgment or it is
us aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are
not immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean
different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity of
that there is no correct resolution.
how different people believe it is proper to act.
Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no
Examples:
position to render any kind of Judgment on the practices of
There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art vs Indian art), another culture. This seems to be a generous and an open-
religious difference (Buddhism vs Christianity), Etiquette minded way of respecting others.
differences (conflicting behaviours regarding dining practices)
But what if the practice seems to call for comment?
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:
A) What if a particular African tribe thought it is imagine a clear-cut notion of what can be defined as my
advantageous and therefore right for them to wipe out a culture.
neighboring people through a terrible practice of genocide?
We can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by
B) What if some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive pointing out how it is a problem in our study of ethics
toward women reaching to the point of violence? because it tends to deprive us of our use of critical thought.
On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of
C) What about the traditional practice of head-hunting that is
humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own
still maintained by certain societies in the Cordilleras?
culture is superior to another. Such humility, however, should
Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical
we be satisfied with concluding that we cannot judge another discernment that is truly appreciative of human values.
culture? Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relativism is that it
basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values
we may wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept
whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us from exploring
But this is the implications of cultural relativism.
whether there are values that are shared between cultures; it
Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we keeps us from comparing and judging - either positively or
are in no position to render judgment on the practices of negatively - the valuations that are made by different
even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for cultures. As previously mentioned, this pressumes that we
determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that can determine culture in the first place, which becomes
something within our cultural practice was problematic, increasingly questionable in a transcultural world.
precisely because we take our culture to be the standard for
making such judgments. If we came from a particular society
wherein there is a tradition of arranged marriage, we would VIRTUE ETHICS
simply have to accept that this is how we do things. But what
if we are not satisfied by this conclusion? We may be proud Bilang isang anak, kaya mo bang isuplong ang iyong
and glad about identifying certain traits, values, and practices sariling ama na nagkasala sa batas? (As a son, are you willing
of our culture, but we may not necessarily laud or wish to to surrender your own father who transgressed the law? A
conform to all of them. It is possible that we may not be question asked in the Miss Q and A Intertalactik 2019 contest
satisfied with the thought of not being able to call our own aired last January 10, 2019 at Its Showtime. The answer given
culture into question. by the two finalists was “YES! I am willing.” Do they really
speak from their heart? I would understand if not. Given the
Fourth, perhaps the most evident contemporary constraint of time, the pressure coming from the audience
difficulty with cultural relativismis that we can maintain it and the points to be given by the judges, you would surely
only by following the presumption of culture as a single, answer it in a way that is acceptable to all. But if you were
clearly-defined substance or as something fixed and already confronted with this dilemma in real life, when one of the
determined. Now, it is always possible to find examples of a members of your family is involved, you will find it hard to
certain culture having a unique practice or way of life and to deal with. As the saying goes, “it is easier said than done.” No
distinguish it from other cultures’ practices, but it is also matter how you wanted to be just or do the right thing, there
becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly is this GUILT that is stopping you from doing it. Your love to
defines one’s culture. your family always prevails. Is this right? This is the case
where emotion overpower reason. When you follow your
Is my culture “Filipino”? What if I identify more with a
emotion over reason, will your action be morally justified?
smaller subset within this group, if, for
How would an ethicist confront this kind of
Example, I am Igorot? Is this then my culture? Why not go
dilemma? What is the right thing to do? This is the case
further and define my culture as being Kankana-ey rather
where you do not know what to do. You are confused on
than Ibaloi? Is this then my culture? The point here precisely
what rules to follow or what principles upon which to base
is the question: What am I supposed to tkae as “my culture”?
our actions maybe because whatever ethical theories you will
We can think of many other examples that reflect the same apply, still it is against you will. We find it hard to decide
problem. Let us say that my father is from Pampanga and my because we are afraid of the possible consequences of our
mother is from Leyte, and I was brought up in MetroManila: action. So, In denying rules and principles in determining
What is my culture? what course of action will we take, is that possible? The
answer is YES! Following Aristotle’s virtue ethics, we just have
How about you? What is your case? What is your culture? to be good.
It is becoming difficult to determine what exactly What is virtue?
defines one’s culture. How different is the Filipino culture
from Ibaloi culture to T’boli and to the settlers of Mindanao, A VIRTUE (arete, excellence) is a character trait,
to the Sangir-B’laan? What happens in a family of mixed acquired by practice, that disposes a person to adopt the
marriages – father is Ilocano, mother is Mamanwa and you right course of action in morally charged situations. Virtue are
are born and grow up in Manila? What is your culture? life skills that enable a person to realize their potential for
living the good life as a rational and social animal.
In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and
well-defined culture gives way to a greater flexibility and Unlike other ethical theories, virtue ethics does not
integration. One result of this is to call into question an idea rely with the consequences of the action, nor the intrinsic
like cultural relativism, which only makes sense if one could value of the action or motive or rules behind the action, but
on the kinds of virtue or moral character of the person from • The question of how to be happy therefore becomes a
which the action proceeds. question of which activities of the human soul represent
the highest excellence in using reason.
What is virtue ethics? And How can we become a
• Aristotle proposed that we could accept it when people
virtue ethicist? VIRTUE ETHICS is an ethical view originating
say that the soul can be divided into three parts: the
in ancient Greece which says that ethics is fundamentally
Nutritive Soul (plants, animals and humans), the
about learning to live well. According to Aristotle, the good
Perceptive Soul (animals and humans) and the Rational
life is when a man is living a virtuous life; a kind of life which
Soul (humans only)
is oriented toward our proper end, our purpose, our TELOS.
In doing so, we have to be a virtuous person. The question
now is how do we become a virtuous person? According to
MORAL VIRTUE defined
Aristotle, becoming virtuous is about reaching EUDAIMONIA
and reaching eudamonia is the ultimate goal not only for the • Moral virtue, or excellence of character, concerns what
individual but for the community. Thus, EUDAMONIA we do voluntarily, and not what we do because we are
depends on living a life led by reason as what Aristotle have forced to do so. The traditional word for the opposite of
said living well consists in “the activity of the soul in virtue is vice.
accordance with reason.” • Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue or positive
character trait can be described as a pleasant
In Aristotle’s ethical theory, a virtuous person
intermediate activity, between a painful excess and a
exhibits the joint excellence of reason and of character. The
painful deficiency. But seeing what is most pleasant and
virtuous person not only knows what the good thing to do is,
most painful in truth is not something everyone can
he is also emotionally attached to it. When a person acts
easily do, especially if they were poorly raised and
honestly it reflects his worldview and his basic attitude
inexperienced. Another way Aristotle describes each of
towards others. It shows that he is inclined to be with honest
the moral virtues is as a correct aiming at what is
person, expect others to be also honest, and consciously and
beautiful (kalos).
intentionally careful to always put himself in a situation
• Aristotle's described how people become virtuous by
where he can exercise his virtue. So, therefore we cannot
performing virtuous actions, which they might not have
judge virtue to a person by simply observing a single act or
chosen themselves when young. They must develop
even involving a series of acts without knowing the reason
proper habits during childhood and this usually requires
behind that acts because virtue is not a singular unconnected
help from teachers, parents, and law-makers. A good
thing.
community is normally required for the development of
Going back to the question “are you willing to good people.
surrender your own father who transgressed the law?” If a • Virtue in the highest sense, in an adult who has been
virtue ethicist will choose to do the right thing which is brought up well, will not just involve good personal
surrendering his own father to the authorities, here, all habits such as courage and temperance, but also
aspects of the virtuous person works harmoniously since friendship and justice and intellectual virtue.
virtue includes the whole person. He will not find it hard to
make the decision because this time his will and reason work
together as one. His action is not only grounded by reason WHAT IS VIRTUE?
but even with emotion. A fully virtuous person will not
struggle to do a righteous act. He will have no problem with • Virtues are states of character conducive to happiness,
his desires violently reacting to his reason. He will have no i.e. to flourishing ("the state of character which makes a
problem controlling his desires because it is in synch with his man good and which makes him do his own work well" -
reason. §II.6
• There are two main categories of virtues: intellectual
Aristotelian Ethics all explicitly aim to begin with virtues concern only what Aristotle calls the rational part
approximate but uncontroversial starting points. Aristotle's of the soul, while moral virtues involve both the rational
starting point is that everything humans do is aimed at some and the appetitive (or desiring) part of the soul: moral
good, with some good higher than others. The highest human virtue involves having the passions under rational
good that people aim at, he said, is generally referred to as control.
happiness (Gk. eudaimonia - sometimes translated as "living • In particular, the virtues involve having the right amount
well"). of a particular passion, or engaging in a particular kind of
action to the right extent. So they have just as much to
• Aristotle asserted that popular accounts about what life
do with feeling as with doing: feel sympathy and pity
would be happy divide into three most common types: a
where appropriate, e.g.; feel anger when appropriate
life dedicated to vulgar pleasure; a life dedicated to fame
and not otherwise; and so on
and honor; or a life dedicated to contemplation. To judge
• If virtue involves acting or feeling in a certain way to the
these, Aristotle uses his method of trying to define the
right extent, what is the right extent? Aristotle says that
natural function of a human in action. A human's
it is a mean between extremes, but not a mechanically
function must include the ability to use reason or logos,
determinable mean: "to feel them at the right times,
because this is an essential attribute of being human. A
with reference to the right objects, towards the right
person that does this is the happiest because he is
people, with the right motive, and in the right way" (§II.6,
fulfilling his purpose or nature as found in the rational
427)
soul.
• The virtues are acquired through habituation, not
through instruction (end of §II.4: listening attentively
won’t make you good): through practice, roughly.
 number of people”. Unlike egoism in which morality is agent
oriented, utilitarianism is community oriented. In egoism the
JUSTICE
ground for morality is the individual doing the action; in
Aristotle also wrote about his thoughts on the utilitarianism it is the community affected. We consider
concept of justice in the Nicomachean Ethics. In these others in making our choices because they are also ultimately
chapters, Aristotle defined justice in two parts, general justice affected by the consequences. The problem of an
and particular justice. General justice is Aristotle’s form of overcrowded boat can easily be solved using utilitarian
universal justice that can only exist in a perfect society. principle by drawing lots to determine who will jump to the
Particular justice is where punishment is given out for a sea because it benefits the majority. This is not so with ethical
particular crime or act of injustice. This is where Aristotle says egoism because it will not serve the self-interest of the
an educated judge is needed to apply just decisions regarding person chosen to jump to the sea. In utilitarianism the chosen
any particular case. This is where we get the concept of the course of action can easily be justified because of the
scales of justice, the blindfolded judge symbolizing blind consideration of the interest of the community or the
justice, balancing the scales, weighing all the evidence and majority.
deliberating each particular case individually. Homonymy is
Bentham’s utilitarianism is hedonistic in the sense that the
an important theme in Aristotle’s justice because one form of
goal or the consequence which is the consideration of the
justice can apply to one, while another would be best suited
action is equated with pleasure or happiness. Pleasure or
for a different person/case. Aristotle says that developing
happiness is good. Bentham invented the calculus by which
good habits can make a good human being and that
we test our actions for the value or quantity of pleasure it
practicing the use of The Golden Mean when applicable to
gives us. The following are the criteria of his utilitarian
virtues will allow a human being to live a healthy, happy life.
principle called felicific calculus.

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?

THE HIGHEST GOOD 2. Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3. Certainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure
• In his ethical works, Aristotle describes several will occur?
apparently different kinds of virtuous person as 4. Propinquity: How soon will the pleasure occur?
necessarily having all the moral virtues, excellences of 5. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be
character. followed by sensations of the same kind.
• Being of "great soul" (magnanimity), the virtue where 6. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by
someone would be truly deserving of the highest praise sensations of the opposite kind.
and have a correct attitude towards the honor this may 7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
involve. This is the first such case mentioned in the
Nicomachean Ethics.
• Being just in the true sense. This is the type of justice or
When deciding what action to take in a particular situation
fairness of a good ruler in a good community. • Phronesis
out from several alternatives we simply have to go over these
or practical wisdom, as shown by good leaders.
criteria one by one and assign values to each alternative
• The virtue of being a truly good friend.
action. The alternative that has the biggest value is then the
• Having the nobility kalokagathia of a gentleman.
right action to take.
• Aristotle also says, for example in NE Book VI, that such a
complete virtue requires intellectual virtue, not only Suppose you needed money because your brother is in a
practical virtue, but also theoretical wisdom. Such a critical condition in a hospital and your only way to get
virtuous person, if they can come into being, will choose immediate money is to sell shabu. Now you are
the most pleasant and happy life of all, which is the contemplating whether to sell shabu or not. What you need
philosophical life of contemplation and speculation. In to do is assign numerical values to each criterion of the
other words, the thinker is not only the 'best' person, but felicific calculus for each alternative. The alternative that has
is also most like God the bigger value is the right action to take. Obviously in this
case the choice not to sell drugs has the greater value.

UTILITARIANISM
John Stuart Mill
Jeremy Bentham
Mill wrote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than
One of the early utilitarians was Jeremy Bentham. He said:
a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion,
sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to it is because they only know their own side of the question."
point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what
Why is it better for a human being dissatisfied than a pig
we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and
satisfied? Why is it better for Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are
satisfied? What satisfies a pig and a fool? A pig can be
fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we
satisfied even with a spoiled food, but not a human being.
say, in all we think.”
Socrates willingly chose to drink poison rather than escape
On the basis of this observation about human nature, prison and death - that is for him a satisfactory choice; a fool
Bentham formulated a principle of conduct called the or most human beings would choose otherwise. Why? When
greatest happiness principle. according to which the “right we chose to do an act, we do not only consider the
act is that which promotes the greatest good for the greatest magnitude of pleasure derived from the act but also the
propriety of the pleasure with regards to our status in the of Morals, but it’s his first short work of ethics, Groundwork
society or our status as dignified human beings. The of the Metaphysics of Morals that is his most important
satisfaction of Socrates is not the same as the satisfaction of a because it provides a succinct and relatively readable account
fool or a pig. This difference is not only a matter of degree but of his ethics.
of ‘kind’.
Some of the main questions that Kant’s ethics focuses on are
Mill accepted Bentham’s idea of the greatest happiness for questions of right and wrong: What makes an action right or
the greatest number of people. But while for Bentham wrong? Which actions are we required by morality to
pleasures are only quantitatively different, for Mill there perform? Do consequences matter? Is it ever permissible to
pleasures can be qualitatively different. do something morally wrong in order to achieve good
consequences? Is it important to do actions with good
intentions? And what are good intentions? Some of Kant’s
An important addition of J.S. Mill to utilitarianism is the answers to some of these questions are complex, but as we
introduction of this distinction between two kinds of will see, he doesn’t think that consequences matter and thus
happiness: the lower kind of happiness which refers to bodily good consequences cannot justify wrong actions. He also
pleasures, and the higher kind of happiness which refers to thinks that intentions are important to the ethical evaluation
the mental, aesthetic and moral pleasures. J.S. Mill said that of actions.
only those who have experienced these two kinds of
This lecture is about ethical framework of Kant’s Ethics.
pleasures are the only ones who can judge which is better.
J.S. Mill, therefore, promotes legislation for the education of Guide questions to ponder:
the masses to elevate their taste to enable them to
(i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to
appreciate and experience higher kinds of pleasures. The
act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform
higher forms of happiness are to be preferred not because
the action.
they are in a higher scale in the felicific calculus but because
(ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings
they are better ‘in kind’ rather than in degree.
rather than merely using them for my own
Mill concedes that we cannot at all devote our energies to purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must
computation of the effects of our action just like what not perform the action. (Kant believed that these
Bentham wanted us to do in his felicific calculus. That is why questions were equivalent).
we have to be guided by moral rules which passed the utility
test. Most of the laws or rules our society today are founded
KANTIAN DUTY-BASED ETHICS
upon utilitarian principles. Learning and following these rules
may not automatically bring bodily pleasure but are Kant thought that it was possible to develop a consistent
ultimately good because they prepare us intellectually and moral system by using reason.
put us in a better situation where we can prevent pain and
have higher chances of experiencing pleasure. This idea of If people were to think about this seriously and in a
Mill presaged the later distinction between act utilitarianism philosophically rigorous manner, Kant taught, they would
and rule utilitarianism. realize that there were some moral laws that all rational
beings had to obey simply because they were rational beings,
According to act utilitarianism an act is good if the action and this would apply to any rational beings in any universe
produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of that might ever exist:
people.
The supreme principle of morality would have an extremely
On the other hand, according to rule utilitarianism an act is wide scope: one that extended not only to all rational human
good if the rule behind the action produces the greatest beings but to any other rational beings who might exist - for
happiness for the greatest number of people. The emphasis example, God, angels, and intelligent extraterrestrials.
in act utilitarianism is the single act; while in rule
utilitarianism is the rule behind the act. The idea in rule Kant taught (rather optimistically) that every rational human
utilitarianism is that the constant or the consistent being could work this out for themselves and so did not need
performance of the act will produce the greatest good for the to depend on God or their community or anything else to
greatest number of people. discover what was right and what was wrong. Nor did they
need to look at the consequences of an act, or who was doing
the action. Although he expressed himself in a philosophical
and quite difficult way, Kant believed that he was putting
DEONTOLOGICAL-CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
forward something that would help people deal with the
Who is kant? moral dilemmas of everyday life, and provide all of us with a
useful guide to acting rightly.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an
opponent of utilitarianism. Leading 20th century proponent What is good?
of Kantianism: Professor Elizabeth Anscombe (1920-2001).
Although Kantian ethics are usually spoken of in terms of duty
Relative to most other philosophers, Immanuel Kant (1724- and doing the right thing, Kant himself thought that what was
1804) was a late bloomer, publishing his first significant work, good was an essential part of ethics.
The Critique of Pure Reason, in 1781 at age 57. But this didn’t
Kant asked if there was anything that everybody could
slow him down, as through his 50s, 60s, and 70s, he published
rationally agree was always good. The only thing that he
numerous large and influential works in many areas of
thought satisfied this test was a good will:
philosophy, including ethics. He published two large works on
ethics, The Critique of Practical Reason and The Metaphysics
 It is impossible to conceive anything in the world, or even out That is why morality should be founded upon the source of
of it, which can be taken as good without limitation, save only the action rather than the outcome. This source of the action
a good will. is called the will. We cannot control the outcome of our
actions but we can control the will behind the action.
Meaning we can decide which principle our actions should be
IMMANUEL KANT, GROUNDWORK OF THE METAPHYSICS OF based upon.
MORALS
For Kant the only thing that is good without qualification is
All Kant means is that a good will alone must be good in the good will. A good will cannot be the basis of evil
whatever context it may be found. purposes, but other things which we consider to be
intrinsically good can be instruments for evil. Wealth, health,
• It is not good in one context and bad in another. etc. are intrinsically good but they can be used for evil
• It is not good as a means to one end and bad as a means to purposes.
another.
• It is not good if somebody happens to want it and bad if he For Kant goodness cannot come from impulse or natural
doesn't. inclination, but only from a determined intention to conform
• Its goodness is not conditioned by its relation to a context or to an to the law for the sake of the law. There’s a difference
end or to a desire. between being honest because of the fear of getting caught
and being honest for the sake of honesty.
Other things that we might think of as good are not always
good, as it's possible to imagine a context in which they might To be motivated to do something out of the desire to make
seem to be morally undesirable. others happy is less a motive for Kant because that is still
dependent of the outcome. But doing something out of a
Kant then pondered what this meant for human conduct. He good motive no matter what the outcome is the right action.
concluded that only an action done for 'a good will' was a
right action, regardless of the consequences. That is why Kant formulated the categorical imperative; “Act
only according to that maxim which you can at the same time
But what sort of action would this be? Kant taught that an will to become a universal law.” In trying to decide whether
action could only count as the action of a good will if it or not to perform a particular action, I must undergo through
satisfied the test of the Categorical Imperative. the following steps.

a. formulate the maxim of the action

b. universalize the maxim
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
c. determine whether the universalized maxim could
You were in an isolated place where ten of your comrades be a universal law.
were wounded. This is the choice whether to save them or let d. determine whether we could will the maxim to
them die. You can save them by opening up the slightly become a universal law.
wounded soldier remove the organs and transplant them to
Suppose you are taking an exam. The exam spells life and
each soldier accordingly. So, the decision to save them entails
death for you. But you are not prepared. You know you can
that the slightly wounded soldier would also die. What would
pass only if you cheat. Now you are in a quandary whether to
you do? What if the fatally wounded patients are generals
cheat or not to cheat. Now according to the first step, the
and the slightly wounded one is a private, would your answer
maxim of my action will be: If I am taking an exam that I have
be the same? What if there is a command from your superior
not studied, I am justified to cheat. To universalize that “If
that you have to save the generals though it entails the death
any is to take an exam and he has not studied, he is justified
of the private, would your answer still be the same?
to cheat. Now we have to ask can the universalized maxim
If you would not sacrifice the life of that one man to save the become a universal law? Can we allow everybody to cheat?
lives of five men notwithstanding the conditions because the What happens if we allow cheating universally? Could we
life of a person has an intrinsic worth and that his life should allow cheating in board and bar exams? So, cheating cannot
nor be made as a means for others, then you adhere to pass the categorical imperative test.
Kantian imperative.
The first formulation of categorical imperative defines a
As a rationalist, Kant created an ethical system also based on perfect duty. Our perfect duty is not to do acts based upon a
reason. Since man is a rational being, it is unavoidable that he maxim that results to contradiction when such maxim is
attributes freedom to himself. It is impossible to assign moral universalized.
responsibility without also ascribing freedom to man. The fact
The second formulation of categorical imperative is: "Act in
that we can attribute causes to our actions puts us outside
such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own
the system of determinism of our actions. This is because if
person or in the person of any other, always at the same time
we are conscious of the causes and effects of our actions and
as an end and never merely as a means to an end." Obviously,
the principle by which we based those actions, we could
slavery or prostitution is prohibited under this formulation.
always think of other possibilities of our actions. That is in
Same as bribery or hiring a killer to silence our enemies.
itself the initiation of freedom.
Kant in his work Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
One main problem with the consequentialist is that we
provides illustration for the application of Categorical
cannot always be certain of the outcomes of our actions. One
Imperative.
kind of action does not always bring the same result even
given the same conditions. Hence, the moral value of the Laziness. If the person has everything he needs, is he justified
action may differ depending upon the consequences. to be lazy? The answer is no because if we universalize
laziness we cannot have wealth which is the condition for lazy
people to survive.

Theft. Is taking a thing without knowledge and consent by the

owner justified? Obviously not. But what if we know
beforehand that the owner will agree to the taking had he
been notified? Taking without consent cannot be
universalized because consent is the condition for the taking
to be not considered as theft.

Suicide. If a person is sick of life after a series of misfortunes,

he is not justified to end his life. The maxim of the act of self-
killing is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten
my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than
it promises satisfaction. It is easy to see the contradiction
here because the reason we continue to live is that we love
ourselves, that same love cannot also be the cause for the
extinction of the self.

To universal principle not to help others in need? We know

that there will always come a time that we need the help of
others. Is it acceptable for us that they will not also help us in
times we need their help?