SOUTHERN LUZON TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION,INC.

Ramon Santos St., Peñaranda, Legazpi City

College of Teacher-Education

Learning Modules in

Mary Joy A. Alzaga, LPT

Instructor

1
 Preface:
Descriptions:
These modules deal with principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the
level of the person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared
resources.

Morality pertains to the standards of right and wrong that an individual originally
picks up from the community. The modules discuss the context and principles of ethical
behavior in modern society at the level of individual, society, and in interaction with the
environment and other shared resources. The modules also teach students to make
moral decisions by using dominant moral frameworks and by applying a seven-step
moral reasoning model to analyze and solve moral dilemmas.

The modules are organized according to the three main elements of moral
experiences:
(a)agent, including context – cultural, communal;
(b)the act; and
(c)reason or framework (for the act)

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the modules, the students must be able to:

1. differentiate between moral and non-moral problems;

2. describe what a moral experience is as it happens in the different levels of
human existence;
3. explain the influence of Filipino culture on the way students look at moral
experiences and solve moral dilemmas;
4. describe the elements of moral development and moral experience; 5. use
ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences; 6. make sound
ethical judgement based on principles, facts, and stakeholders affected;
7. develop sensitivity to the common good;
8. understand and internalize the principles of ethical behavior in modern society
at the level of the person, society, and in interaction with the environment and
other shared resources.

Number of Unit Credits: 3 units

2
Table of Contents
Preface i

Table of Contents ii

Module 1: Basic Concepts

Module 2: Culture in Moral Behavior

Module 3: The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue and Habit

Module 4: Feelings and Moral Decision-Making

Module 5: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality

Module 6: Moral Courage

Module 7: Virtue Ethics

Module 8: Kant and Rights Theorists

Module 9: Utilitarianism

Module 10: Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Goods

Module 11: The Challenges of Pluralism and Fundamentalism: The Search for Universal
Values

3
Module 1:
Basic Concepts
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. differentiate moral standards and non-moral standards;
2. give the meaning of dilemma and its examples;
3. enumerate the 3 levels of moral dilemmas;
4. define morality as freedom; and
5. use the 7-step guide to ethical decision-making

Discussions:

Moral Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards

Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right and wrong,
or good and evil. Accordingly, moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human
behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad (or right and wrong) behavior.

Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are
morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe
are morally good and morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral values
and moral principles.

Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either
these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic
examples of non-moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games,
and various house rules.

Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances) are
non moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and
contexts.

The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from non-moral
standards:

a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that is, injure or benefit human
beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following or violating
some basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one’s life
or wellbeing.

b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If a moral standard state
that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do that

4
even if it conflicts with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.

c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.

Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by authoritative bodies or persons such
as nations’ legislative bodies. Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the process
of making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor nullified by the
decisions of particular authoritative body. One thing about these standards, nonetheless, is that
its validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the reasons that are considered to support and
justify them.

d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.

Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral standards. To be more accurate,
however, it entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly similar
situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person P, then it is morally right for
anybody relevantly similar to P.

e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.

Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of a certain person or
group, but one that goes beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each
person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.

f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary. Prescriptivist indicates
the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards. These moral standards are generally
put forth as injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary harm,’ and
‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for use, to advise, and to influence to
action. Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame,
and to produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt.

If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a special purpose, it is not
surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or being ashamed of his behavior afterwards. On the
contrary, no much guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g. refusing to wear
tattered jeans).

What is Dilemma?

Do you remember a time when you had to make a choice and each option was equally
unpleasant? Perhaps you lied, and something terrible happened, or you were faced with the
task of divulging the truth and being punished for lying. This mess is called a dilemma: a situation
that challenges an agreeable solution. In literature, dilemmas form the central conflict many
protagonists encounter. Many people face all kinds of dilemmas in life, and the choice they
make can have long-lasting impacts. Sometimes these dilemmas have even caused changes
in society and history! Common dilemmas include: classic, ethical, and moral.

Dilemma Examples

Classic Dilemma
A classic dilemma is a choice between two or more alternatives, in which the outcomes are
equally undesirable, or equally favorable. The dilemma does not typically involve a moral or

5
ethical crisis, but the person or character’s life may change as a result of their decision. Some
examples of classic dilemmas include:
• Deciding where to go for dinner on a first date
• Uncertainty about which job offer to take
• Wondering whether or not to make the move to a new city

Classic dilemmas are more than simple choices, because they usually prompt the person to
think about the outcomes of the choices. As a result, a character in a story may find themselves
on an adventure, in fear for their lives, or instituting change because of the choice they made
in their dilemma.

Ethical Dilemma
An ethical dilemma arises when a person is forced to decide between two morally sound
options, but they may conflict with the established boundaries of a business, a governmental
agency, or the law. Some ethical dilemmas may involve following the truth versus being loyal to
a friend; following the laws or rules versus having compassion for an individual’s plight; and
concerns about an individual person versus the larger impact on a community. An ethical
dilemma differs from a moral dilemma because it very much involves following rules rather than
one’s conscience, although one’s conscience can certainly move an individual to consider
breaking the rules.

Ethical dilemmas are especially important in the medical and criminal justice fields, and in
careers such as social work and psychology. In addition, most public servants have to undergo
ethics training to address common dilemmas they may come across while working with the
public. Recent advancements in science have also brought forward interesting and uncharted
ethical dilemmas. Some examples of ethical dilemmas include:
• A secretary discovers her boss has been laundering money, and she must decide
whether or not to turn him in.
• A doctor refuses to give a terminal patient morphine, but the nurse can see the patient
is in agony.
• A teacher, who is also the volleyball coach, asks her athletes to give her their cell phone
numbers so she can get in touch with them quickly; however, according to district policy,
teachers are not supposed to have contact with students on their phones. • While
responding to a domestic violence call, a police officer finds out that the assailant is the
brother of the police chief, and the police chief tells the officer to “make it go away”. • A
government contractor discovers that intelligence agencies have been spying on its
citizens illegally, but is bound by contract and legalities to keep his confidentiality about
the discovery.

Moral Dilemma
A moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is torn between right and wrong. A moral
dilemma involves a conflict with the very core of a person’s principles and values. The choice
the person makes may leave them feeling burdened, guilty, relieved, or questioning their values.
A moral dilemma often forces the individual to decide which option he or she can live with, but
any outcomes are extremely unpleasant no matter what. Moral dilemmas are often used to help
people think through the reasoning for their beliefs and actions, and are common in psychology
and philosophy classes. Some examples of moral dilemmas include: • The classic “lifeboat
dilemma”, where there are only 10 spaces in the lifeboat, but there are 11 passengers on the

6
sinking ship. A decision must be made as to who will stay behind. • A train with broken brakes is
speeding towards a fork in the tracks. On the left, there is a woman crossing with her two
children; on the right, there is a man doing routine maintenance on the tracks. The engineer
must decide which side to aim the speeding train towards.
• A husband learns he has a terminal illness and he decides to ask his wife for assistance
in ending the pain before it gets too bad.
• A friend discovers her best friend’s boyfriend is cheating. She must decide whether to
tell her friend or keep it a secret.
Moral dilemmas also provide interesting social topics for students to examine in position and
research papers. Common topics for such assignments often include:
1. The Death Penalty
2. Doctor-Assisted Suicide
3. Ending the Drug War
4. The Draft
5. Abortion
6. Government Spying
7. Prison Reform
8. Legalizing (or decriminalizing) Marijuana
9. Fossil Fuels vs. Renewable Energy

Three levels of Moral Dilemmas

Donaldson and Dunfee have argued that either adopting host countries’ ethical standards or
exporting the values from the home countries to the host countries is equally problematic—
photocopying values shows disrespect for local cultures. Therefore, they proposed a
classification system to show different categories of global norms:

• Hypernorms: Norms which are accepted by all cultures and organizations. • Consistent
norms: Norms which are culturally specific, but consistent with hypernorms and other
legitimate norms, such as organizational cultures.
• Moral free space: Norms which could be in tension with hypernorms, but are unique
cultural beliefs.
• Illegitimate norms: Norms which are incompatible with hypernorms.

While public relations is commonly known for its unethical conduct, unethical behaviors should
be understood at three levels: individual, organizational and national. “The question of ethical
behavior, from the level of the individual, through the totality of organizational manifestations to
the level of national and international bodies, has become the number one issue on the global
agenda.”

At the same time, the model of ethical responsibility should also be understood at three levels:

1. The causation of negative effects through human or organizational actions

2. The presence of subjective factors held by individuals, and
3. The set of values attributed to society.

While what society expects of organizations could affect the ethical norms that organizations
impose on individual employees, organizational structures could also prevent individuals from
7
taking responsibility for unethical actions. This is especially the case when individuals’ actions are
not attributed to their conscience but their perceptions of what is societally, professionally and
organizationally accepted. As public relations practices transform to adapt to changes in
economic, social, business and cultural conditions, the ethical values of the practice could also
change that the work it does could change the complexity of the dynamics of interrelationships
in the global context.

Tsetsura and Valentini produced a model which incorporated the significance of personal,
professional and environmental values in affecting ethical judgements. They proposed a similar
model of ethical judgement based on three levels:

• Micro-level: At the personal level,

human
values, including their preferable
modes
of behaviors and outcomes, would
affect
their views on how and what should
be
achieved through his or her behaviors.
• Meso-level: At the professional level,
judgements could be affected by
what
guides their values in terms of what is
seen
as being accepted by the
organizations
and the professions they are in.
• Macro-level: At the
societal/environmental level, one’s
personal networks, including family,
friends and community would affect the
extent to which practices are considered
ethical or unethical. And such
predispositions could be reinforced over
time. In particular, country-specific

8
 factors, including changing political,
economic and socio-cultural conditions,
could influence the way public relations
is practiced.

Based on these assumptions, a model is

proposed to show that an individual’s
value system is made up of personal
values, professional values and
environmental values. At the same time,
personal factors, including education,
experiences, gender and background,
and country-specific factors, including
political system, economic system, and
social-cultural system, are the external
factors which could affect the values. There could be variations from one individual to another
as individuals emphasize values from one level more than another.

Morality as Freedom

… elevating though man's privilege is, of being capable of such an idea as

freedom of choice - [those who are accustomed only to physiological
explanations] are stirred up by the proud claims of speculative reason, which feels
its power so strongly in other fields. They are stirred up just as if they were allies,
leagued in defense of the omnipotence of theoretical reason and roused by a
general call to arms to resist the idea of freedom of choice and thus at present,
and perhaps for a long time to come (though ultimately in vain), to attack the
moral concept of freedom and, if possible, render it suspect. - Immanuel Kant

Kantian ethical philosophy has often been criticized for its dependence on an untenable
conception of the freedom of the will. Kant is supposed to have asserted that we are morally
responsible for all of our actions because we have free will, and that we have free will because
we exist in a noumenal world in which we are uninfluenced by the temptations of desire and
inclination. If we existed only in the noumenal world, we would invariably act as the categorical
imperative requires, but because we are also phenomenal beings we sometimes go wrong. The
view so understood gives rise to several problems. First, the claim that purely noumenal persons
would act as the categorical imperative requires may be questioned. It is not obvious why
persons uninfluenced by causality should act morally rather than any other way. Second, if it
can be established that insofar as we are noumena we obey the moral law, then the account
of moral imputability becomes unintelligible. If we are only responsible because we are
noumena and if insofar as we are noumena we only do what is right, then we cannot be
responsible for our evil actions. Or, if we are responsible, it is so radically that no room is left for
excuses. For how can we take into account the terrible temptations to which the wrongdoer
was subjected, when the choosing noumenon was uninfluenced by those temptations? Finally,
the view seems to require an unappealing ontological commitment to the existence of "two
worlds," and to give rise to a variety of puzzles about how what occurs in the one can influence
the other. Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance
or restraint.

9
Different types of Freedom

• Freedom to be alive
• Freedom of association
• Freedom of belief
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of express oneself
• Freedom to press
• Freedom to choose one’s state in life
• Freedom to talking each other
• Freedom of religion
• Freedom from bondage and slavery

Law as Freedom
Freedom enters Kant's moral philosophy as the solution to a problem. The categorical imperative
is not analytic, and disregarding its claims is therefore not inconsistent. Yet it is supposed to
present us with a rational necessity. In order to show that morality is not a "mere phantom of the
mind", Kant seeks to provide a deduction of (or a credential forbid) the moral law: he must link
being rational to acting on the moral law. The third idea through which rationality and morality
are linked is the positive conception of freedom. By showing, first, that a free person as such
follows the moral law, and, second, that a rational person has grounds for regarding herself as
free, Kant tries to show that insofar as we are rational, we will obey the moral law.

It was making the second of these two connections that troubled Kant - the connection
between rationality and freedom. The arguments intended to demonstrate this connection in
the Foundations and in the Critique of Practical Reason are obscure and appear to be different
from one another. In Foundations III, Kant calls his argument a "deduction" of the moral law, and
connects freedom and reason through the capacity of reason for pure spontaneous activity
which is exhibited in its production of ideas. This spontaneous activity shows we are members of
the intelligible world and therefore free. In the Critique of Practical Reason, we are instead
offered what Kant calls a "credential" for morality and told that "the objective reality of the moral
law can be proved through no deduction…". The credential is provided by the fact that
freedom can be deduced from morality. Kant does not comment on the difference between
these two arguments, and his readers do not agree about whether they come to the same
thing, are different arguments serving different purposes, or are incompatible arguments
resulting from a change of mind.

But Kant was not in doubt about his success in making the first connection, between morality
and freedom. Kant was confident that "if freedom of the will is presupposed, morality together
with its principle follows from it by the mere analysis of its concept."

Virtue as Freedom

At this point a natural objection arises. The proposed solution to the free will problem depends
on our being able to act according to the moral law for the sake of our freedom. I have claimed
that what interests us in our freedom is the higher vocation of contributing to the Highest Good.
But if this interest determines our moral actions, how can we be free? To answer this question,
we must turn to Kant's theory of virtue, or "internal freedom."

10
It is Kant's view that all human action is purposive. A human being always acts for the sake of an
end. Kant speaks of this as being the result of our finite and sensible nature. All men could have
sufficient incentive if (as they should) they adhered solely to the dictation of pure reason in the
law. What need have they to know the outcome of their moral actions and abstentions…? Yet
it is one of the inescapable limitations of man and of his faculty of practical reason (a limitation,
perhaps, of all other worldly beings as well) to have regard, in every action, to the consequence
thereof - which consequence, though last in practice … is yet first in representation and intention
… . In this end, if directly presented to him by reason alone, man seeks something that he can
love; therefore the law, which merely arouses his respect, even though it does not acknowledge
this object of love as a necessity does yet extend itself on its behalf by including the moral goal
of reason among its determining grounds.
Reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As a quality, it refers to the
capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; for consciously making sense of things,
establishing and verifying facts, applying common sense and logic, and justifying, and if
necessary, changing practices, institutions, and beliefs based on existing or new existing
information. It also spells the difference of moral judgements from mere expressions of personal
preference. In the case of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. Thus, reason
commends what it commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires.

Impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are equally
important. Itis 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. Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or
adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties. The principle of impartiality
assumes that every person, generally speaking, is equally important; that is, no one is seen
intrinsically more significant than anyone else.

A 7-STep Guide to Ethical Decision-Making

The following is a summary of: Seven-step guide to ethical decision-making (Davis, M. (1999)
Ethics and the university, New York: Routledge, p. 166-167.

1. State the problem.

o For example, "there's something about this decision that makes me
uncomfortable" or "do I have a conflict of interest?".
2. Check the facts.
o Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others
change radically.
o For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, other practical
constraints
3. Identify relevant factors (internal and external).
4. Develop a list of options.
o Be imaginative, try to avoid "dilemma"; not "yes" or" no" but whom to go to, what
to say.
5. Test the options. Use some of the following tests:
o harm test: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?
o publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option published in the newspaper?
o defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this option before a congressional
committee or committee of peers?
11
 o reversibility test: Would I still think this option was a good choice if I were adversely
affected by it?
o colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I describe my problem and
suggest this option as my solution?
o professional test: What might my profession's governing body for ethics say about
this option?
o organization test: What does my company's ethics officer or legal counsel say
about this?
6. Make a choice based on steps 1-5.
7. Review steps 1-6. How can you reduce the likelihood that you will need to make a
similar decision again?
o Are there any cautions you can take as an individual (and announce your policy
on question, job change, etc.)?
o Is there any way to have more support next time?
o Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest policy change
at next departmental meeting)?

Activity 1.1:
Using the Venn diagram below, differentiate Moral Standards from non-moral standards.

Activity 1.2:
Below are pictures that shows dilemma. Label each picture with its specific classification.

12
Below are situations that shows dilemma. Identify the specific classification of this dilemma. 1.
Great Expectations: Mr. Jagger takes Abel Magwitch on as a client, even though he knows
he is an exited convict. When he finds out that Magwitch has returned, he has an ethical
obligation to report him. Instead, he makes Pip have a very careful hypothetical
conversation about Magwitch.
2. Inherit the wind: Despite the fact that it is illegal to teach evolution in school, Bert Cates
disobeys the law and reads to his students form Darwin’s “The Origin of Slpecies”. 3.
Contents of the dead man’s pocket: When Tom Benecker’s paper with all of his work flies
out of the window, he must decide whether to let months of work disappear into the night,
or to go out after it.
4. The Scarlet letter: Hester Prynne has recently given birth to a child, despite the fact that no
one has seen her husband alive in two year. The Governor want her to give up the father’s
name so he can be punished, too.
5. Shooting an elephant: The narrator finds the elephant that killed the Dravidian coolie, but
the elephant has already calmed down. The crowd behind him, however, wants him to
kill the elephant anyway. The narrator doesn’t want to look like a fool, but he also doesn’t
see the need to shoot.

Activity 1.4:
Define the following terms. Give example in each term:
1. Dilemma
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 2.
Ethical Dilemma
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.
Classical Dilemma
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 4.
Moral Dilemma
________________________________________________________________________________________

13
 Activity 1.5:
Research and article or video that best describe unlimited freedom and lock of freedom.
Make a reflection on the article or video you choose.

Activity 1.6:
Using the 7 -step guide to ethical decision-making. Cite at least 2 situation you have
experience before that you need to use the ethic decision-making. Elaborate your answer.

Self-Check 1:
Identification: Identify the correct word that best describe the statement/sentence below.
Write your answer on the blank provided.

___________________________ 1. The central conflict many protagonists encounter.

___________________________ 2. Refers to the standards that a person or a group has about what
is right and wrong, or good or evil.
___________________________ 3. This involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions
they believe are morally right and wrong, as well as the
values they
place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good
and morally bad.
___________________________ 4. This refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical
considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily
linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense.
___________________________ 5. This arises when a person is forced to decide between two
morally sound options, but they may conflict with the
established boundaries of a business, a governmental
agency, or the law.
___________________________ 6. This is a situation in which a person is torn between right and
wrong. A moral dilemma involves a conflict with the very
core
of a person’s principles and values.
___________________________ 7. This is a choice between two or more alternatives, in which
the outcomes are equally undesirable, or equally
favorable.
___________________________ 8. They argued that either adopting host countries’ ethical
standards or exporting the values from the home countries to
the host countries is equally problematic—photocopying
values shows disrespect for local cultures.
___________________________ 9. The proposed solution to the free will problem depends on our
being able to act according to the moral law for the sake of
our _________________.
___________________________ 10. This is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

14
Module 2:
Culture in Moral Behavior
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. explain how culture shape moral behavior; and
2. define cultural relativism;

Discussions:

How does culture shape moral behavior?

Culture undeniably does play a significant pseudo role within shaping moral behavior and
extends even further to social norms. Arguably, rather than defining our moral behavior per se,
it influences and changes our definitions of what ought to be deemed morally acceptable by
consistent exposure to it.

The main determining question is whether moral behavior/actions are independent in

comparison with the case in question. Saying yes would be implicitly stating we have inherent
morality/moral norms that are in not necessarily attributable to exposure to external factors -
e.g. culture.

Culture, itself, is an individualistic, man-made concept of collective identity that is open to

complete subjectivity. The fact so many ‘cultures’ exist is evidence of this - solely due to the
differentiation of societal norms from place to place.

The subjectivity argument for culture can be stretched further and applied to morality. Where
culture does form the basis of some of our morality is in the fact that, whilst we might share
certain moral views, what is deemed morally acceptable/repugnant differs from person to
person.

E.g. Western foreign culture *generally* promotes a more laissez-faire mentality towards
personal freedoms and, by extension, morality. This is typically defined by the regularity or the
social defined practices.

By way of example, take the issue of arranged/forced marriage.

From a Western culture standpoint, it would be generally widely agreed that forced marriage
is a morally reprehensible concept and not acceptable under any circumstances. By way of
contrast, the regularity of the same concept within south-Asian society, would be seen much
more favorably due to the level of habitual exposure individuals within that society have to it.

Essentially, the cultural bias by which we form our moral opinions is shaped by social
acceptance within our own individual societies. Whilst there are some obvious exceptions, this

15
rationale can be applied to most moral concepts, where there is a distinct difference
between the way in which they are viewed in one culture vs another.

Cultural relativism

There is a popular saying that goes like this: "What is unacceptable and bad in a group of people
may be good and acceptable in another group of people." Oftentimes, we are quick in judging
certain aspects of the culture of other people as "immoral" or "uncivilized" without being aware
of the fact that others may judge us also in a similar vein. This is because there is always a
tendency on our part to look at the ways and manners of other groups from our own perspective
or point of view, making our own ways as the measuring stick.

It is really difficult to understand and accept what the actions of the members of other societies
mean if we try to see them in the light of our own values, habits, and attitude, or on the basis of
our legal system and of our religion. However, we must bear in mind that a similar behavior has
different meanings and values in different cultures. What is desired, therefore, is to understand
the behavior in relation to the culture prevailing in that society where it takes place. This simply
means that we must not judge other people's behavior on the basis of our own culture but
understand it based on that group's culture. For, indeed, it is possible that the said behavior in
question may be entirely accepted or even desirable in another society. This is what cultural
relativism is all about.

Many examples can be given of traits or behaviors that have different meanings and values in
different cultures. Even, in the Philippines, although generally, we speak of a Filipino culture
brought about by a greater degree of uniformity throughout the country but yet, there are still
sub-cultural differences that certainly affect the meaning of the behavior. The fact is, there are
Filipino sub-cultures, usually identified with ethno-linguistics groups. Thus, we speak Ilocano,
Tagalog, Bicolano, Waray, Cebuano, Ilonggo, Maranao, Maguindanao, Yakan, Tausog,
Badjao, etc. subcultures. And, within these major ethnic groupings, there are still cultural
variations in the different aspects of the behavior of people.

One cultural component that can be cited here is the case of the relation of clothes to modesty.
Among the lumads or the mountain dwellers of the Philippines, one can sometimes see bare
breasted women going about their tasks without embarrassment or no thought of sexual
suggestion. The male population, on their part, do not even bother to look and seem not to care
at all. The same behavior when done in a Christian lowland community may elicit an entirely
different reaction. Or, what about the practice of young people, both male and female, among
the Bontocs to sleep in separate dwellings as a normal part of their behavior? Furthermore, the
differences in values attach to behavior also affect marriage relationships and divorce practices
in the Philippines. Some Filipino Muslims and some of the animistic mountain groups practice
polygamy and divorce which in the Filipino Christian standpoint is immoral. Yet, there
is nothing immoral in the Muslim practice of polygamy because it is even allowed by the Koran
and the Islamic religious leaders. Also, other ethnic groups of people in the country disdain the
eating of dog's meat, but it is a favorite dish in so far as the people of the Cordilleras are
concerned (incidentally, the slaughtering of dogs for their meat has been banned by the
government in more recent times).
These differences in culture become even more magnified once we talk about the peoples of
different nationalities, races and religions. Here, again, the natural tendency is to judge the

16
behaviors of those peoples on the basis of our own cultural standards. For example, the gesture
of extending one's hand to shake the hand of another person as a way of greeting is a Western
influence and is considered proper by the Filipinos. But, this act may be considered
unacceptable and unethical in other societies in Asia and Africa where the forms greeting is not
through the handshake but rather through bowing, putting both hands on one's own breast,
touching the palm of the forehead, kissing both cheeks, or slapping at the back of each other.
Even the interactions of Filipinos with their more familiar American associates manifest the
importance of interpreting and understanding behavior in the light of different cultural
backgrounds. Americans prefer frankness or openness, where criticism is even freely voiced out
as a sign of acceptance and trust, whereas Filipinos may take this kind of approach as vulgar
and insulting, and may result to a loss of face or, worst, rejection.

The central message of cultural relativism is that in every society, certain behaviors or norms that
may not conform with our own are considered right because they function properly in that
setting and, therefore, are compatible with the culture of that people. In other words, in such a
setting, the various components or elements of culture are able to respond to the needs,
interests and aspirations of the people who possess that culture.

Activity 2.1:
Make a short literary piece that shows how culture shape moral behavior. Your literary piece
could either poem, short story or a speech. Write it on a clean sheet of short size paper with nor
less than 100 words.

Activity 2.2:
Research an article that explain how culture shape moral behavior. Make a reaction paper in
article you have red. Give personal insights or opinion and at least 1 example to support your
idea.

Activity 2.3:
Make a 11’’ by 8.5’’ size poster that illustrate cultural relativism. To make it artistic, put a good
color combination and different thickness of lines.

Self-Check 2:
Give what is ask. Your answer should not less than 150 words:
I. Explain how culture shape moral behavior.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
II.Define cultural relativism in your own words.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

17
Module 3:
The moral agent: Developing Virtue and Habit
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define moral character; and
2. enumerate the theory of moral development.

Discussions:

Moral Character

At the heart of one major approach to ethics—an approach counting among its proponents
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas—is the conviction that ethics is fundamentally related to
what kind of persons we are. Many of Plato’s dialogues, for example, focus on what kind of
persons we ought to be and begin with examinations of particular virtues:

What is the nature of justice? (Republic)

What is the nature of piety? (Euthyphro)
What is the nature of temperance? (Charmides)
What is the nature of courage? (Laches)

On the assumption that what kind of person one is constituted by one’s character, the link
between moral character and virtue is clear. We can think of one’s moral character as primarily
a function of whether she has or lacks various moral virtues and vices.

The virtues and vices that comprise one’s moral character are typically understood as
dispositions to behave in certain ways in certain sorts of circumstances. For instance, an honest
person is disposed to telling the truth when asked. These dispositions are typically understood as
relatively stable and long-term. Further, they are also typically understood to be robust, that is,
consistent across a wide-spectrum of conditions. We are unlikely, for example, to think that an
individual who tells the truth to her friends but consistently lies to her parents and teachers
possesses the virtue of honesty.

Moral character, like most issues in moral psychology, stands at the intersection of issues in both
normative ethics and empirical psychology. This suggests that there are conceivably two
general approaches one could take when elucidating the nature of moral character. One
could approach moral character primarily by focusing on standards set by normative ethics;
whether people can or do live up to these standards is irrelevant. Alternatively, one could
approach moral character under the guideline that normative ethics ought to be constrained
by psychology. On this second approach, it’s not that the normative/descriptive distinction
disappears; instead, it is just that a theory of moral character ought to be appropriately
constrained by what social psychology tells us moral agents are in fact like. Moreover, precisely
because virtue approaches make character and its components central to ethical theorizing,

18
it seems appropriate that such approaches take the psychological data on character and its
components seriously. This desire for a psychologically sensitive ethics partly explains the recent
resurgence of virtue ethics, but it also leads to numerous challenges to the idea that agents
possess robust moral characters.

Moral development

Moral development is the process through which children develop proper attitudes and
behaviors toward other people in society, based on social and cultural norms, rules, and laws.
Moral development is a concern for every parent. Teaching a child to distinguish right from
wrong and to behave accordingly is a goal of parenting.

Moral development is a complex issue that—since the beginning of human civilization—has

been a topic of discussion among some of the world's most distinguished psychologists,
theologians, and culture theorists. It was not studied scientifically until the late 1950s.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development

Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, extended Piaget's work in cognitive reasoning

into adolescence and adulthood. He felt that moral development was a slow process and
evolved over time. Still, his six stages of moral development, drafted in 1958, mirrors Piaget's early
model. Kohlberg believed that individuals made progress by mastering each stage, one at a
time. A person could not skip stages. He also felt that the only way to encourage growth through
these stages was by discussion of moral dilemmas and by participation in consensus democracy
within small groups. Consensus democracy was rule by agreement of the group, not majority
rule. This would stimulate and broaden the thinking of children and adults, allowing them to
progress from one stage to another.

PRECONVENTIONAL LEVEL The child at the first and most basic level, the preconventional level,
is concerned with avoiding punishment and getting needs met. This level has two stages and
applies to children up to 10 years of age.

Stage one is the Punishment-Obedience stage. Children obey rules because they are told to do
so by an authority figure (parent or teacher), and they fear punishment if they do not follow
rules. Children at this stage are not able to see someone else's side.

Stage two is the Individual, Instrumentation, and Exchange stage. Here, the behavior is
governed by moral reciprocity. The child will follow rules if there is a known benefit to him or her.
Children at this stage also mete out justice in an eye-for-an-eye manner or according to Golden
Rule logic. In other words, if one child hits another, the injured child will hit back. This is considered
equitable justice. Children in this stage are very concerned with what is fair.

Children will also make deals with each other and even adults. They will agree to behave in a
certain way for a payoff. "I'll do this, if you will do that." Sometimes, the payoff is in the knowledge
that behaving correctly is in the child's own best interest. They receive approval from authority
figures or admiration from peers, avoid blame, or behave in accordance with their concept of
self. They are just beginning to understand that others have their own needs and drives.
CONVENTIONAL LEVEL This level broadens the scope of human wants and needs. Children in this

19
level are concerned about being accepted by others and living up to their expectations. This
stage begins around age 10 but lasts well into adulthood, and is the stage most adults remain
at throughout their lives.

Stage three, Interpersonal Conformity, is often called the "good boy/good girl" stage. Here,
children do the right thing because it is good for the family, peer group, team, school, or church.
They understand the concepts of trust, loyalty, and gratitude. They abide by the Golden Rule as
it applies to people around them every day. Morality is acting in accordance to what the social
group says is right and moral.

Stage four is the Law and Order, or Social System and Conscience stage. Children and adults
at this stage abide by the rules of the society in which they live. These laws and rules become
the backbone for all right and wrong actions. Children and adults feel compelled to do their
duty and show respect for authority. This is still moral behavior based on authority, but reflects a
shift from the social group to society at large.

POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL Some teenagers and adults move beyond conventional morality
and enter morality based on reason, examining the relative values and opinions of the groups
with which they interact. Few adults reach this stage.

Correct behavior is governed by the sixth stage, the Social Contract and Individual Rights stage.
Individuals in this stage understand that codes of conduct are relative to their social group. This
varies from culture to culture and subgroup to subgroup. With that in mind, the individual enters
into a contract with fellow human beings to treat them fairly and kindly and to respect authority
when it is equally moral and deserved. They also agree to obey laws and social rules of conduct
that promote respect for individuals and value the few universal moral values that they
recognize. Moral behavior and moral decisions are based on the greatest good for the greatest
number.

Stage six is the Principled Conscience or the Universal/Ethical Principles stage. Here, individuals
examine the validity of society's laws and govern themselves by what they consider to be
universal moral principles, usually involving equal rights and respect. They obey laws and social
rules that fall in line with these universal principles, but not others they deem as aberrant. Adults
here are motivated by individual conscience that transcends cultural, religious, or social
convention rules. Kohlberg recognized this last stage but found so few people who lived by this
concept of moral behavior that he could not study it in detail.

How do we get to the highest level, conscience-based moral decisions?

In and of ourselves, we cannot attain to the highest level; nor could we bring our own will under
the purest moral decision that we might make. That has always been man's dilemma! We have
always been hampered by our selfishness, our laziness, and our appetite for all the wrong things!
We need help.

When one finally turns around and faces God and makes peace with Him; surrendering to the
love and will of the Father… he receives the Spirit of God. It is a spiritual birth, actually. We begin
to learn to walk in the Spirit, denying our natural impulses and selfish desires, in order to keep the
commandments of the Lord; as revealed in His Word. Those commandments of God are the

20
highest order of moral decisions. As we grow in grace and the knowledge of God, our ability to
respond correctly increases.

Jesus further instructed us on an even better way to reign in our immoral impulses and better
keep the commandments. He says that we must love one another and we must love God. He
said that love is the fulfilling of the law! And so it is. Think: if I love you, I will not steal your things,
lie about you, or try to sully your reputation. Instead, I will be kind to you and try to protect you
from all harm.

No one ever reaches perfection in this life. Try as we will to walk in the Holy Spirit, we are often
overcome by our own tempers… we fall to temptation; we fall short of the righteousness that we
are trying to attain! But we do have the supernatural help that we need available to us… if we
choose to avail ourselves of it! Our choice.

Activity 3.1:
Define the following terms:
1. Moral: ______________________________________________________________________________
2. Character: _________________________________________________________________________
3. Justice: _____________________________________________________________________________
4. Virtue: ______________________________________________________________________________
5. Courage: ___________________________________________________________________________

Activity 3.2:
Explain the following statement:
1. Moral development is a complex issue.
2. Why moral character is one of the major approaches in ethics?

Activity 3.3:
Give one example in each stage in Kohlberg’s Theory of moral

development. Self-Check 3:
Identification: Identify the correct word that best describe the statement/sentence below.
Write your answer on the blank provided.
________________ 1. This stage concerned with avoiding punishment and getting needs met.
________________ 2. In this stage, enter morality based on reason, examining the relative values
and opinions of the groups with which they interact.
________________ 3. Children in this level are concerned about being accepted by others and
living up to their expectations.
________________ 4. This is the process through which children develop proper attitudes and
behaviors toward other people in society, based on social and cultural norms, rules, and laws.
________________ 5. The virtues and vices that comprise one’s ________ are typically understood
as dispositions to behave in certain ways in certain sorts of circumstances.

21
Module 4:
Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. explain how feelings affects moral decision-making;
2. show how emotional intelligence help in making better decisions.

Discussions:

Emotions Are Rationale for Some Moral Dilemmas

Sometimes people say it's okay to sacrifice one life to save five others. Other times, people say
it's wrong. Philosophers have debated for decades why hypothetical moral dilemmas that are
logically identical can elicit different answers. Now a brain imaging study suggests that people's
emotional responses to certain dilemmas guide their reasoning.

Suppose, in a classical moral dilemma, you see a runaway trolley with five frightened people in
it headed for a cliff. They can be saved if you hit a switch and send the trolley onto another
track where, tragically, another person is standing who would be killed by the trolley. What to
do? Most people say that it's worth sacrificing one life to save five others.

But suppose the doomed trolley can only be saved if you push a bulky person onto the tracks,
where his body would stop the trolley but, alas, he would be crushed to death. Although faced
with the same trade-off of five lives for one, most people say it would be wrong to stop the trolley
this way.

Intrigued by the dilemma of the moral dilemmas, a team led by Joshua Greene, a philosophy
grad student at Princeton University in New Jersey, used functional magnetic resonance
imaging to spy on people's brains while they read and reasoned their way through a number of
scenarios. Some resembled the "switch tracks" dilemma, others the "push body," and some had
no apparent moral component, such as deciding whether to take a bus or train to some
destination. While deliberating the body-pushing set of moral dilemmas--but not the other
scenarios--emotion areas of the brain lit up, the team reports in the 14 September issue of
Science.

"From a utilitarian point of view, these situations are identical," says psychologist Jon Haidt of the
University of Virginia in Charlottesville; "they differ only in that one of them feels wrong." Greene
points out that the study doesn't resolve whether it's right or wrong to push someone into the
path of a trolley, but it does begin to answer a related question: how people decide what's right
and wrong.
How do our emotions effect decision-making?
Emotions are created when the brain interprets what’s going on around us through our
memories, thoughts, and beliefs. This triggers how we feel, and behave. All our decisions are

22
influenced by this process in some way.

For example, if you’re feeling happy, you might decide to walk home via a sunny park. But if
you’d been chased by a dog as a child, that same sunny park might trigger feelings of fear,
and you’d take the bus instead. There may be logical arguments to be made either way, but
in the moment, the decision is driven by your emotional state.

Different emotions effect decisions in different ways. If you’re feeling sad, you might be more
willing to settle for things that aren’t in your favor, such as not putting yourself forward for
promotion, or remaining in an unhealthy relationship. But sadness can also make you more
generous — research shows that unhappy people are more likely to be in favor of increasing
benefits to welfare recipients than angry people, who are lacking in empathy.

Emotions can affect not just the nature of the decision, but the speed at which you make it.
Anger can lead to impatience, and rash decision-making. If you’re excited, you might make
quick decisions without considering the implications, as you surf the wave of confidence, and
optimism about the future. While if you feel afraid, your decisions may be clouded by
uncertainty, and caution, and it might take you longer to choose.

What this means is that your gut feeling plays a huge part in our decision-making process, but
at times may be steering you wrong — it might lead to poor judgment, unconscious bias and
recklessness, or risk-aversion. But are there ever occasions when we should pay attention to our
gut instinct?

Should we always ignore our intuition?

A visceral response to a situation could actually be a survival mechanism – the flash of fear felt
by early humans who came face to face with a dangerous animal motivated them to RUN
NOW! They wouldn’t have survived if they stopped to think.

Similarly, if you get a ‘bad feeling’ in the pit of your stomach because of a particular situation or
person, it could be your body’s way of telling you it senses danger, based on your past
experiences, and beliefs.

Of course, this reaction might be completely unfounded, but it might also serve to protect you
from danger, or prevent you repeating past mistakes.

This points to one of the big advantages of instinctive decision-making – it’s quick. If you’re in a
life, or death situation, you don’t want to waste time working through the pros and cons.

This is true at the other end of the spectrum too, when faced with a choice about something
completely insignificant. No one should spend hours considering the relative advantages of tea
over coffee!
Decisions led by emotion can also be more compassionate, particularly if they effect other
people. We see this at play in stories of people putting their own lives at risk to save someone
else, or when we choose how to break difficult news to a friend.

So sometimes paying attention to our emotions can be a good thing. If you have a regular

23
mindfulness, or journaling practice, you probably know yourself well, and enjoy a high level of
self-awareness. You might be better off listening to your intuition when it comes to considering
whether a romantic partner is right for you, or whether you should change careers.

Being in emotional balance, and knowing yourself at this deeper level means you can trust
your instincts.

How can emotional intelligence help us make better decisions?

Both emotion, and logic have a role to play in helping us make positive decisions. If we
understand where our emotions come from, and start to notice how they effect our thinking
and behavior, we can practice managing our response, and learn to make better choices.

You can find out more about how to develop your emotional awareness in our guide to
emotional intelligence. You’ll soon feel confident in knowing when to listen to your emotions,
and when to tune them out.

Activity 4.1:
Write 2 own experience that feelings affect your decision-making, and explain the result of
your decision, whether good or bad.

Activity 4.2:
Answer the following:
1. How does feelings affect moral decision-making?
2. Does it give a positive result? Why or why not?
3. Would you always follow your feelings rather than your reason?
4. When did you use your feelings in the decision-making?

Activity 4.3:
Research 3 situations that feeling dominates your decision-making. Express your opinion in
each situation and tell how you relate on the situation.

Self-Check 4:
Write a constructive essay that compose of not less than 150 words in each of the
following: 1. Moral decision vs. Feelings.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Emotional intelligence help in making better decisions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

24
Module 5:
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements
for Morality
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define ethical reasoning and impartiality;
2. explain the effects of feelings in reasoning.

Discussions:

What counts as ethical reasoning?

The current description of this key capability is that ethical reasoning is “The ability to reflect on
moral issues in the abstract and in historical narratives within particular traditions. Ethical
reasoning is the ability to identify, assess, and develop ethical arguments from a variety of
ethical positions.” For the purposes of this application, it may be useful to think of an ethical
reasoning course as one that integrates ethical questions into the intellectual work required in
the course. Ethical questions concern judgments of right and wrong, good and bad, as well as
matters of justice, fairness, virtue, and social responsibility. Generally, at least one-third of the
course should be devoted to exploring the range of normative issues associated with the central
topic of the course. It should be part of the plan of the course to move students beyond the
standard "that's a matter of opinion" response to normative questions and a discussion of various
frameworks for thinking systematically about ethical issues.

Courses emphasizing ethical reasoning will foster the ability to reflect rigorously on ethical issues
and to apply ethical reasoning to choices in private and public life. Courses in ethical reasoning
will not require that students adopt any particular ethical position, but will encourage students
to begin to develop a defensible ethical position of their own. This may be achieved by:

• giving serious consideration to more than one side of personal or policy dilemmas; •
teaching students how to distinguish ethical claims from descriptive and other sorts of claims,
how to evaluate the evidence used in support of such claims, and how to test the consistency
of a position and its coherence with other moral commitments;
• helping students to identify various conflicting values in order to assess and employ various
strategies for resolving value conflicts;
• identifying good, compelling reasons from personal, arbitrary or prejudicial reasons;
• exploring ethical reasoning in a historical or cross-cultural perspective.

The concept of impartiality

It is all too easy to assume that the word impartiality must denote a positive, unitary concept –
presumably a concept closely linked with, if not identical to, morality. This, however, is simply

25
not the case. Rather, there are various sorts of behavior that may be described as ‘impartial,’
and some of these obviously have little or nothing to do with morality. A person who chooses
an accountant on the basis of her friends’ recommendations may be entirely impartial
between the various candidates (members of the pool of local accountants) with respect to
their gender, their age, or where they went to school. Yet if her choice is motivated solely by
rational self
interested considerations then it is clear that the impartiality, she manifests is in no way a form of
moral impartiality. To take a more extreme case, consider an insane serial killer who chooses his
victims on the basis of their resemblance to that some celebrity. The killer may be impartial with
respect to his victims’ occupations, religious beliefs, and so forth, but it would be absurd to
regard this as a form of moral impartiality.

It is also worth noting that some types of impartiality may in themselves be immoral or morally
questionable. Suppose that I decide to pass along a treasured family heirloom to one of my two
sons, Bill and Phil. Flipping a coin would constitute one type of impartial procedure for choosing
between the two. But suppose that I have already promised the heirloom to Phil on several
occasions. In this case it would be quite wrong to allow a coin toss to determine whether he
gets it. Deciding by means of a coin toss would be an impartial procedure, but it would be the
wrong sort of impartiality here, for it would ignore the moral obligation created by my previous
promises.

The word ‘impartiality’, then, picks out a broad concept that need not have anything to do with
morality. In this broad sense, impartiality is probably best characterized in a negative rather than
positive manner: an impartial choice is simply one in which a certain sort of consideration (i.e.
some property of the individuals being chosen between) has no influence. An analysis along
these lines has been proposed by Bernard Gert, who holds that “A is impartial in respect R with
regard to group G if and only if A’s actions in respect R are not influenced at all by which
member(s) of G benefit or are harmed by these actions” (Gert 1995, p.104). Thus, for Gert,
impartiality is a property of a set of decisions made by a particular agent, directed toward a
particular group.

Gert’s analysis captures the important fact that one cannot simply ask of a given agent whether
or not she is impartial. Rather, we must also specify with regard to whom she is impartial, and in
what respect. Gert’s analysis, then, permits and indeed requires that we make fairly fine-grained
distinctions between various sorts of impartiality. This is necessary, since one and the same agent
might manifest various sorts of partiality and impartiality towards various groups of persons.
Consider, for instance, a university professor who is also a mother of five children, and who is
currently acting as a member of a hiring committee. Such an agent might be impartial between
her children with respect to the care they receive (while preferring her own children over others
in this respect), and also impartial between the various job candidates; but it is clear that these
two uses of the word ‘impartial’ denote very different practices. In particular, the idea of merit
applies in one case but not the other: to be impartial between job candidates is presumably to
select between them on the basis of merit, whereas to be impartial between one’s children is
not to think of merit at all, but rather to provide equal protection and care to all.

Many attempts to characterize impartiality fail to respect the distinction between the broadest,
most formalistic sense of the notion, and a more specifically moral impartiality. To say, for
instance, that an impartial choice is one that is free of bias or prejudice is to presuppose that we

26
are dealing with a certain sort of impartiality, that which is required or recommended by morality,
or at least worthy of moral approbation. ‘Bias’ and ‘prejudice’ are loaded terms, suggesting not
only that some consideration is being excluded, but also that the exclusion is appropriate and
warranted. Similarly, the idea that impartiality requires that we give equal and/or adequate
consideration to the interests of all concerned parties goes well beyond the requirements of the
merely formal notion. (In the coin toss case, it is quite clear that Phil’s claims to the heirloom are
not being given equal or adequate consideration.) As a characterization of moral impartiality,
however, this suggestion is perhaps more promising, at least in some contexts.

Reason and feelings

Broadly stated, ethics is “concerned with making sense of intuitions” about what is right and
good. We do this by reasoning about our feelings. Biologists verify that: “Emotion is never truly
divorced from decision making, even when it is channeled aside by an effort of will.” Physicists
now confirm that seeing the world with complete objectivity is not possible, as our observations
affect what we perceive.

Moral philosopher Mary Midgley writes: “Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it, and vice
versa. There is no siding onto which emotions can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought.”
We rely on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of
inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt
conviction that passes the test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to move
us to act morally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane.

Scientific evidence supports this approach to ethics. As children, we manifest empathy before
developing our rational abilities, and there is evidence for the same order of development in
the evolution of the human brain. “Empathy is a unique form of intentionality in which we are
directed toward the other’s experience.” This involves feeling, at least to some extent, what
another person is feeling. “[I]n empathy we experience another human being directly as a
person―that is, as an intentional being whose bodily gestures and actions are expressive of his
or her experiences or states of mind.”

Empathy enables us to identify with others, and may generate a “perception of the other as a
being who deserves concern and respect.” This does not guarantee ethical conduct, but it
makes morality possible. “Aid to others in need would never be internalized as a duty without
the fellow-feeling that drives people to take an interest in one another. Moral sentiments came
first; moral principles second.”

Conscience, at its best, reflects our integration of moral sentiments and principles. We should
test our conscience, however, by explaining to others the reasons for our moral presumptions,
and we should listen carefully to concerns they may have. This is especially important when
dealing with ethical issues among family members or friends, but applies as well to concerns
about the environment.

Moreover, both our feelings and our reason reflect our participation in a moral community, or
more likely several moral communities. As children, our moral community is our family, which
soon broadens to include our friends and then is defined by the rules of our school. As adults,
our moral community extends from our family to our friends (at work, in our neighborhood or a

27
support group, and perhaps in our religious community), to our city, our country, the people of
the world whose moral and legal rights are defined by international law, and perhaps also to a
moral community that includes non-human organisms and ecosystems.

Activity 5.1:
Define the following:
1. Ethical reasoning
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 2.
Impartiality
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Activity 5.2:
Cite two (2) examples of the following:
1. Ethical Reasoning
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 2.
Impartiality
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Activity 5.3:
Explain the following:
1. Reason over Feelings
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 2.
Effects of feelings in reasoning
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

28
Self-Check 5:
I. Illustrate the following words:
a. Ethical reasoning:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
b. Impartiality:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
II. Give an example of situation that shows the effect of feelings in reasoning. Explain
your example.

29
Module 6:
Moral Courage
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define free will in moral responsibility;
2. explain the means of good will to a person;
3. show the development of will and moral courage;

Discussions:

Free Will describes our capacity to make choices that are genuinely our own. With free will
comes moral responsibility – our ownership of our good and bad deeds.

That ownership indicates that if we make a choice that is good, we deserve the resulting
rewards. If in turn we make a choice that is bad, we probably deserve those consequences as
well. In the case of a really bad choice, such as committing murder, we may have to accept
severe punishment.

The link between free will and responsibility has both theological and philosophical roots.

Within theology, for example, the claim that humans are ‘made in the image of God’ (a central
tenet of major religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is not that they are the physical
image of their creator.

Rather, the claim is made that humans are made in the ‘moral image’ of God – which is to say
that they are endowed with the ‘divine’ capacity to exercise free will.

Of course, the experience of free will is not limited to those who hold a religious belief.
Philosophers also argue that it would be unjust to blame someone for a choice over which they
have no control.

Determinism is the belief that all choices are determined by an unbroken chain of cause and
effect. Those who believe in ‘determinism’ oppose free will, arguing that that the belief that we
are the authors of our own actions is a delusion.

While scientific evidence has found that there is brain activity prior to the sensation of having
made a choice, is unable to the resolve the question of which account is correct.

Should that gap close – and free will be proven to be an illusion, then the basis for ascribing
guilt to those who act unethically (including criminals) will also be destroyed.

How could we justify punishing a person who claims that they had no choice but to do evil?
What Does it Mean to be a Person of "Good Will?"

30
A Basic Duty to Yourself and Others

An important part of Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics is the Categorical Imperative. The
Categorical Imperative determines the moral validity for a particular action: “Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.” The “maxim” of our acts can be thought of as the reason behind our acts. This
version of the Categorical Imperative establishes that our reasons need to be universal. In other
words, they need to be those we would want others to have in similar situations for similar
reasons.

The question becomes how is one’s reasons for acting determined. One aspect I find very
important and often ignored in today’s discussions of ethics is the concept of “good will.”

Kant’s seminal work in The Metaphysics of Morals begins by saying: “Nothing can possibly be
conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification,
except a good will.” In order for something to be good “without qualification” it must not be
merely “good” as a means to an end but “bad” as a means to some other end. Kant’s point is
that to be universally and absolutely good, something must be good in every instance of its
occurrence.

To act of a “good will” means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or “duty.” In other words,
the moral agent does a particular action not because of what it produces (its consequences)
in terms of human experience, but because the agent recognizes by reasoning that it is the
morally right thing to do and, consequently, there is a moral duty or obligation to do that action.

In today’s society, the notion that people consider moral duty as a reason for acting is a lost
cause. The motivating factor for decisions is self-expression, self-indulgence and unmitigated
self-interest. Notice the emphasis on the self. That means we have a narcissistic society. The
mantra is: What’s in it for me?” This is true as a motivating force for Internet behavior and social
media posts as well as greedy, self-serving behaviors.

Perhaps you disagree. Well, I would ask you to consider the following explanation of “Narcissistic
Personality Disorder” in the DSM manual. I’ve selected the behaviors that I believe support my
point of view.

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance.

2. Has a sense of entitlement.
3. Lacks empathy: is unwilling [or unable] to recognize or identify with the feelings and
needs of others.
4. Shows arrogant, haughty [rude and abusive] behaviors or attitudes.

We might say that rather than “good will,” the motivating factor of all too many people today
is “bad will.” How else can we explain the increasingly irritating behavior of “trolls?” Trolls exhibit
highly dysfunctional behavior (i.e., narcissistic) by targeting others using cyber harassment,
internet defamation, online deception, and the like. Trolls hide behind their electronic devices,
screen names and avatars when they go out trolling for trouble, and after their all done the
target of their offensive behavior is left to pick up the pieces.

31
Developing Will and Moral Courage

The following are some tips or suggestions on how to develop will and moral courage
(Mañebog, 2013):

1. Develop and practice self-discipline.

One way to develop moral courage and will is to develop and practice self-discipline. The
concept self-discipline involves the rejection of instant gratification in favor of something better.
Ethically applied, it may refer to the giving up of instant pleasure and satisfaction for a higher
and better goal such as executing a good rational moral decision.

Developing will and moral courage involves developing self-control. It includes nurturing the
ability to stick to actions, thoughts, and behavior, which lead to moral improvement and
success. It encompasses endowing the inner strength to focus all the energy on a moral goal
and persevere until it is accomplished.

2. Do mental strength training.

This method is never reserved for a few special people. One of the most simple and effective
methods under this mental strength training involves declining to satisfy unimportant and
unnecessary desires.

Everybody is normally confronted and tempted by an endless stream of cravings and

temptations, many of which are not actually important or desirable. By practicing to refuse to
gratify every one of them, a person gets courageous and stronger.

Saying no to useless, harmful or unnecessary desires and deeds, and behaving contrary to one’s
(bad) habits, fortify and refine a person’s mindset. By persistent practice, one’s inner power
grows, in the same way working out one’s muscles at a gym increases one’s physical strength.
In both cases, when a person needs inner power or physical strength, they are available at
his/her disposal.

The following are some examples. Some of them are not necessarily ethically related:

- Don’t open the internet for a day or two.

- Drink water or juice, in spite of your desire to have a beer or liquor.
- Avoid chatting with your gossipy friend.
- For a week, go to sleep one hour earlier than usual.
- Resist the desire to gamble.

Trainings like these add to the storehouse of one’s inner strength. By following a methodical
method of training, a person can reach far, have more control over oneself and one’s life,
realize ethical goals, improve his/her life, and achieve satisfaction and peace of mind.

3. Draw inspiration from people of great courage.

People usually admire and respect courageous persons who have won great success by
manifesting self-discipline and will power. These include people in all walks of life, who with sheer
will power and moral courage, overcame difficulties and hardships, have improved their moral
life, advanced on the spiritual or moral path, and became worthy of imitation.

32
 History is filled with outstanding examples of moral courage whom we rightly celebrate: Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and especially Jesus Christ and His
apostles. When we see individuals put their comfort, safety, security, reputation, or even life on
the line for a cause they believe in, or for an ideal that matters more than personal wellbeing,
we witness moral courage and will in action.

4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will.

Practice makes perfect. If one wishes to nurture the moral courage and will in him, he must strive
doing the acts that manifest them whenever opportunity allows it. The following are some
examples (“Moral Courage,” n.d.):

1. helping someone push a car (e.g. out of a snow bank), even if it means being late
2. standing up to a bully on the playground
3. picking up litter
4. doing homework or chores without being reminded
5. refusing to listen to or repeat gossip
6. practicing what you preach, even when no-one is looking or knows
7. turning in a toy or a wallet to the Lost and Found
8. (for teens) calling home for a ride from a party where alcohol is being served 9. (for
teachers) giving all students an equal voice regardless of race, socioeconomic status,
religion, gender or sexual orientation
10. becoming company whistle blower risking job loss, financial cost, and or legal
repercussion
11. reporting a crime
12. participating in a peaceful protest

5. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will.

This involves evading acts that show irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy, rashness, imprudence,
ill will, and wickedness. Here are some examples (“Moral Courage,” n.d.):

1. walking away from someone in need

2. taking more than your fair share
3. laughing at someone's misfortune or accident
4. grabbing the spotlight from someone who has earned it
5. placing too much reliance on the letter rather than the spirit of the law
6. remaining silent in the face of wrong-doing or injustice
7. rationalizations or justifications for action/lack of action
8. being inconsistent or capricious with rules and standards for one’s children
9. choosing sides after seeing which way the wind is blowing
10. breaking a promise
11. lying or cheating

Activity 6.1:
33
Define the following:
1. Free will
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Moral responsibility
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Moral courage
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Good will
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Responsibility
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Activity 6.2:
Explain “Person of Good Will” with not less than 150 words.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Activity 6.3:
Explain the tips or suggestions on how to develop will and moral courage. Give situation in
every suggestion.

Self-Check 6:
I. Explain the link between free will and responsibility:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
II. Give example that define Man with a Good Will:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
III. Illustrate how will and moral courage develop.
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

34
Module 7:
Virtue Ethics
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define the character-based ethics;
2. explain the theorist of Aristotle in the virtue of ethics;
3. describe the natural law of St. Tams.

Discussions:

Character-based ethics

A right act is the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances. Virtue ethics is
person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person
carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of
particular actions.

Virtue ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it provides
guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviors a good person will seek to achieve.

In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a person’s life, rather than particular
episodes or actions.

A good person is someone who lives virtuously – who possesses and lives the virtues. It’s a useful
theory since human beings are often more interested in assessing the character of another
person than they are in assessing the goodness or badness of a particular action.

This suggests that the way to build a good society is to help its members to be good people,
rather than to use laws and punishments to prevent or deter bad actions.

But it wouldn’t be helpful if a person had to be a saint to count as virtuous. For virtue theory to
be really useful it needs to suggest only a minimum set of characteristics that a person needs to
possess in order to be regarded as virtuous.

Principles

Virtue ethics teaches:

• An action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous person would carry out in the same
circumstances.
• A virtuous person is a person who acts virtuously
• A person acts virtuously if they “possess and live the virtues”
• A virtue is a moral characteristic that a person needs to live well.
35
Most virtue theorists would also insist that the virtuous person is one who acts in a virtuous way
as the result of rational thought (rather than, say, instinct).

The three questions

The modern philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre proposed three questions as being at the heart of
moral thinking:

• Who am I?
• Who ought I to become?
• How ought I to get there?

Lists of the virtues

Most virtue theorists say that there is a common set of virtues that all human beings would benefit
from, rather than different sets for different sorts of people, and that these virtues are natural to
mature human beings - even if they are hard to acquire.

This poses a problem, since lists of virtues from different times in history and different societies
show significant differences.

The traditional list of cardinal virtues was:

• Prudence
• Justice
• Fortitude / Bravery
• Temperance

The modern theologian James F Keenan suggests:

• Justice
➢ Justice requires us to treat all human beings equally and impartially.
• Fidelity
➢ Fidelity requires that we treat people closer to us with special care.
• Self-care
➢ We each have a unique responsibility to care for ourselves, affectively, mentally,
physically, and spiritually.
• Prudence
➢ The prudent person must always consider Justice, Fidelity and Self-care. ➢ The
prudent person must always look for opportunities to acquire more of the other three
virtues

Good points of virtue ethics

• It centres ethics on the person and what it means to be human
• It includes the whole of a person's life
Bad points of virtue ethics
• it doesn't provide clear guidance on what to do in moral dilemmas

36
 ➢ although it does provide general guidance on how to be a good person ➢
presumably a totally virtuous person would know what to do and we could consider
them a suitable role model to guide us
• there is no general agreement on what the virtues are
and it may be that any list of virtues will be relative to the culture in which it is being drawn

up.

Aristotle

Telos in Ancient Greek simply means “goal”, “purpose” or “end”. In Aristotle it has the special
meaning of “the state in which something’s nature is fulfilled”, or where something is fully “in
act”, i.e. meaning fully doing what it intends or is supposed to be doing. In Aristotle, “nature”
(“physis”) is the inner essence of something that makes it behave and be as it it does.

So, Aristotle, in Physics II.9, where his theory of telos is most fully worked out, is said to be talking
“teleologically” because he asserts that everything that moves, is moved in part by a type of
cause called the telos, i.e. that towards which the thing moves, as being the fulfillment of its
nature, or because it has been violently (i.e. non-autonomously) moved in that direction. So you
might say that in this sense telos is where something is supposed to be.

Aristotle’s ethics is also strongly teleological, and hints at the idea that the proper destiny or telos
for the human being is happiness, “eudaimonia” (literally good-spiritedness), and therefore his
ethics are called “eudaimonist”, because it evaluates the ethical worth of actions in terms of
how they contribute to a person’s overall happiness. Aristotle also hints that the telos of the
human being is “self-contemplation” (auto-theorein), which is precisely what God does, i.e.
constantly think himself and nothing else. Aristotle does not fully develop this idea, but it is present
in his philosophy.

There is also a special use of telos in metaphysics, i.e. the study of the word “is” (or usually stated
as “being”). And Aristotle uses the word “entelecheia” in order to refer to the condition when a
thing or person is in its full realization, i.e. it is fully doing what it is supposed to (or intends) to do.
This word looks odd, but it simply means “being in one’s state of perfection”, or, as he also states,
“energeia” (in act, also related to today’s notion of energy).

Is Virtue a Habit?

Aristotle believed that virtue as a habit requires an intentional choice when you begin. The habit
of virtue is not yet developed, but over time one becomes used to behaving virtuously and after
a while one acts virtuously without needing to use volition. You have become virtuous—it’s now
part of you and how you act.

Aristotle’s theory leaves a lot of questions unanswered (some of those questions he addresses in
other places). It doesn’t tell you which acts are virtuous or why, for example. As a guide to
practical action, however, conceiving of virtue as a habit is useful.

Life can be complicated, and the more parts of it that you handle without needing to think
about them, then the easier it gets. Much of my life is governed by habits, and that’s often the
37
part of life that works the best. I get up when the alarm rings; brush my teeth; turn on the coffee;
bring in the paper; and let the dog out.

Happiness as the Ultimate Purpose of Human Existence

One of Aristotle's most influential works is the Nicomachean Ethics, where he presents a theory
of happiness that is still relevant today, over 2,300 years later. The key question Aristotle seeks to
answer in these lectures is "What is the ultimate purpose of human existence?" What is that end
or goal for which we should direct all of our activities? Everywhere we see people seeking
pleasure, wealth, and a good reputation. But while each of these has some value, none of them
can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end,
an act must be self-sufficient and final, "that which is always desirable in itself and never for the
sake of something else" (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097a30-34), and it must be attainable by man.
Aristotle claims that nearly everyone would agree that happiness is the end which meets all
these requirements. It is easy enough to see that we desire money, pleasure, and honor only
because we believe that these goods will make us happy. It seems that all other goods are a
means towards obtaining happiness, while happiness is always an end in itself.

The Greek word that usually gets translated as "happiness" is eudaimonia, and like most
translations from ancient languages, this can be misleading. The main trouble is that happiness
(especially in modern America) is often conceived of as a subjective state of mind, as when one
says one is happy when one is enjoying a cool beer on a hot day, or is out "having fun" with one's
friends. For Aristotle, however, happiness is a final end or goal that encompasses the totality of
one's life. It is not something that can be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations.
It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to this moment, measuring how well you
have lived up to your full potential as a human being. For this reason, one cannot really make
any pronouncements about whether one has lived a happy life until it is over, just as we would
not say of a football game that it was a "great game" at halftime (indeed we know of many
such games that turn out to be blowouts or duds). For the same reason we cannot say that
children are happy, any more than we can say that an acorn is a tree, for the potential for a
flourishing human life has not yet been realized. As Aristotle says, "for as it is not one swallow or
one fine day that makes a spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed
and happy." (Nicomachean Ethics, 1098a18)

St. Tomas: Natural Law

Thomas Aquinas, much like Aristotle, wrote that nature is organized for good purposes. Unlike
Aristotle, however, Aquinas went on to say that God created nature and rules the world by
"divine reason."

Aquinas described four kinds of law. Eternal law was God’s perfect plan, not fully knowable to
humans. It determined the way things such as animals and planets behaved and how people
should behave. Divine law, primarily from the Bible, guided individuals beyond the world to
"eternal happiness" in what St. Augustine had called the "City of God."

Aquinas wrote most extensively about natural law. He stated, "the light of reason is placed by
nature [and thus by God] in every man to guide him in his acts." Therefore, human beings, alone
among God’s creatures, use reason to lead their lives. This is natural law.

38
The master principle of natural law, wrote Aquinas, was that "good is to be done and pursued
and evil avoided." Aquinas stated that reason reveals particular natural laws that are good for

humans such as self-preservation, marriage and family, and the desire to know God. Reason,
he taught, also enables humans to understand things that are evil such as adultery, suicide, and
lying.

While natural law applied to all humans and was unchanging, human law could vary with time,
place, and circumstance. Aquinas defined this last type of law as "an ordinance of reason for
the common good" made and enforced by a ruler or government. He warned, however, that
people were not bound to obey laws made by humans that conflicted with natural law.

Morality of Happiness

The morality of happiness should be connected to our virtues in doing what is right and
good. Morality of Happiness and The Four Cardinal Values

FOUR PRINCIPAL CARDINAL VIRTUES

PRUDENCE
Concerned with intellect
• Guides the judgement of our conscience in discerning our true good and in applying
moral principles to particular circumstances
• "RIGHT REASON IN AN ACTION"
• The guide and measure for all the moral virtues
JUSTICE
Concerned with the will
• Virtue that consists in giving to God and neighbor what is due to each, •
"GIVING TO THEM WHAT IS RIGHTLY BELONG TO THEM"
• To establish the peace and harmony that bring together people and allow the to prosper
while living in community
Fortitude
• "GIVE US STRENGTH TO DO IT"
• Allow us to remain strong and constant in our pursuit of what is good and give us the
strength to resist temptation that would pull us in the wrong direction Prudence and
Justice

Temperance
• "MODERATION IN ALL THINGS"
• Involves the balanced use of the many goods given us so that their use remains ordered
and at the service of the development of the good, well-rounded and complete person

39
Activity 7.1:
Illustrate the Natural Law using a concept map below.

NATURAL LAW

Activity 7.2:
Answer the following:
1. Virtue of Ethics
2. Character-based ethics
3. Natural law
4. Habit
5. Morality of Happiness

Activity 7.3:
Enumerate the four cardinal values of happiness and explain each.

Self-Check 7:
Fill in the Blank: Fill the blank(s) with the precise word or group of words to make every
statement correct.
1. __________________ Guides the judgement of our conscience in discerning our true good
and in applying moral principles to particular circumstances.
2. _________________ Involves the balanced use of the many goods given us so that their use
remains ordered and at the service of the development of the good, well-rounded and
complete person.
3. _________________ wrote that nature is organized for good purposes.
4. The Greek word that usually gets translated as "happiness" is _______________. 5.
_________________ believed that virtue as a habit requires an intentional choice when you
begin.
6. _________________ in Ancient Greek simply means “goal”, “purpose” or “end”. 7. Virtue
ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it provides
guidance as to the sort of ______________ and _____________ a good person will seek to
achieve.
8. _________________ requires us to treat all human beings equally and impartially. 9.
The __________________ person must always consider Justice, Fidelity and Self-care.
10. _________________ requires that we treat people closer to us with special care.
40
Module 8:
Kant and Rights Theorists
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define Good will as right;
2. enumerate the types of rights.

Discussions:

Good Will

Consequentialist theories base moral right and wrong solely upon effects; deontological
theories reject consequences as the basis of right and wrong and focus instead on our duty to
act or not act in certain sorts of ways. Deontological theories also usually emphasize the morality
of our motives and intentions.

W. D. Ross offers an intuitionist theory that includes seven basic moral duties. It resembles a
deontological theory in that these duties prescribe general kinds of acts, and they do not rest
on their possible consequences. Ross initially considers all of these duties to be conditional duties;
when two or more duties conflict, one of them then will override the other, and the overriding
duty becomes our actual duty in that situation. Ross’s theory is objectivist but not absolutist. The
main problem with Ross’s theory is its intuitionism, which fails to explain these duties and which
can be of no help when sincere people have conflicting moral intuitions.

Probably the most influential deontological theory is that of Kant. Kant’s theory is a version of
rationalism—it depends on reason. Kant argues that no consequence can have fundamental
moral worth; the only thing that is good in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely
chooses to do its moral duty. That duty, in turn, is dictated solely by reason. The Good Will thus
consists of a person’s free will motivated purely by reason. Because the dictates of reason allow
for no exceptions, moral duty is absolute.

The Good Will alone doesn’t give us an ethical theory. According to Kant, the overarching
principle of all morality is what everyone simply calls the “categorical imperative.” A categorical
imperative holds without exception, unlike a hypothetical imperative (which applies only to
those situations that fulfill the hypothetical imperative’s condition. One of Kant’s formulations of
the categorical imperative—the principle of ends—requires that we treat persons as ends (as
things of worth in themselves) but never simply as means (as valuable only as ways of obtaining
something else that we value). It is morally OK to treat a person as a means and an end both—
indeed, we often do. But to use a person solely as a means to achieving our own goals is morally
wrong.

The most basic formulation of the categorical imperative is Kant’s principle of universal law—
which states that only a maxim that can be consistently universalized can qualify as a moral

41
law. Whereas the golden rule also employs a requirement of universalizability, Kant’s approach
is different in that his formula does not appeal to what people want but rather requires rational
consistency. To determine whether or not a given act is morally right, we must (1) formulate the
maxim that the act falls under, (2) universalize that maxim, and (3) determine if the universalized
maxim generates inconsistency. If there is no inconsistency, then the universalized maxim
violates no moral law; if there is inconsistency, then the act is morally wrong. For instance,
because a universalized practice of lying undermines the intent of lying, it generates an
inconsistency, so lying is morally wrong.

**For Kant, the notion of autonomy has a special meaning. The autonomous person is not only
able to exercise free will and to employ reason but also is able to “make” or legislate the moral
law for herself. The autonomous person is thus not under any external moral authority but is under
the authority of her own reason alone. As an autonomous person, such an individual ought to
act in accordance with the duties of the moral law as required by reason.**

Kant’s theory inevitably runs into some problems: (a) Kant’s deontological basis for morality
neglects consequences. While we can’t control the consequences of our actions with certainty,
however, it seems that, morally speaking, consequences have some relevance to determining
how we should act. (b) Kant’s theory, as absolutist, allows no exceptions and so does not appear
able to resolve moral dilemmas. (c) It seems possible to characterize the same act by different
maxims. Because some of these maxims may be rationally universalizable whereas others may
not, we are left with uncertainty as to whether the act itself should be judged right or wrong. (d)
Finally, because of Kant’s emphasis upon persons—rational free agents—his theory seems
unable to accord sufficient respect for human infants, children, and others who lack autonomy.

Categorical Imperative

Morality applies to all rational beings, and a moral action is defined as one that is determined
by reason, not by our sensual impulses. Because an action is moral on account of its being
reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive, or the reason behind the
action, not by its consequences. We can determine the worth of the motive behind any given
moral action by asking whether we could turn that motive into a universally applicable maxim.
Reason is the same at all times and for all people, so morality too should be universal. Therefore,
an action is moral only if it embodies a maxim that we could will to be a universal law.

Kant calls it a “categorical imperative” that we must act in such a way that we could will the
maxim according to which we act to be a universal law. He contrasts this with the “hypothetical
imperative,” which would demand that we act to achieve certain ends. The maxim of a
hypothetical imperative would assert, “do such-and-such if you want to achieve such-and-such
result.” There are no ifs in moral action, according to Kant. Morality works according to a
categorical imperative because we must act in a given way simply because the motive is
admirable, not because we have calculated that we can achieve certain ends as a result.

Once we recognize the universality of moral law, we must also recognize that it applies equally
to all people. Acting morally, then, requires that we recognize other people as moral agents
and always treat them as ends in themselves, not as means by which we can achieve our own
ends. We must also ensure that our actions do not prevent other people from acting in
accordance with moral law. Kant envisions an ideal society as a “kingdom of ends,” in which

42
people are at once both the authors and the subjects of the laws they obey.

Morality is based in the concept of freedom, or autonomy. Someone with a free, or autonomous,
will does not simply act but is able to reflect and decide whether to act in a given way. This act
of deliberation distinguishes an autonomous will from a heteronomous will. In deliberating, we
act according to a law we ourselves dictate, not according to the dictates of passion or impulse.
We can claim to have an autonomous will even if we act always according to universal moral
laws or maxims because we submit to these laws upon rational reflection.

Kant answers the tricky question of free will and determinism—how can we at once assert that
we have a free will and that we live in a world that functions according to necessary physical
laws?—by drawing on his distinction from the Critique of Pure Reason between the phenomenal
world of appearances and the noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Physical laws apply only
to appearances, whereas the will is a thing-in-itself about which we have no direct knowledge.
Whether the will is actually free we can never know, but we still act in accordance with the idea
of freedom.

Types of Rights:

1. Natural Rights:

Faith in natural rights is strongly expressed by several scholars. They hold that people inherit
several rights from nature. Before they came to live in society and state, they used to live in a
state of nature. In it, they enjoyed certain natural rights, like the right to life, right to liberty and
right to property. Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason.

However, several other scholars regard the concept of natural rights as imaginary. Rights are
the products of social living. These can be used only in a society. Rights have behind them the
recognition of society as common claims for development, and that is why the state protects
these rights.

2. Moral Rights:

Moral Rights are those rights which are based on human consciousness. They are backed by
moral force of human mind. These are based on human sense of goodness and justice. These
are not backed by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public opinion are the sanctions
behind moral rights.

If any person violates any moral right, no legal action can be taken against him. The state does
not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral Rights include rules of
good conduct, courtesy and of moral behaviour. These stand for moral perfection of the people
Legal Rights.

Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state. Any violation of
any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These rights can
be enforced against individuals and also against the government. In this way, legal rights are
different from moral rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens enjoy
legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts for getting their legal rights

43
enforced.

Legal Rights are of three types:

1. Civil Rights:

Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized social
life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and equality are civil
rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.

2. Political Rights:

Political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in the political process. These
enable them to take an active part in the political process. These rights include right to vote,
right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticise and oppose the government.
Political rights are really available to the people in a democratic state.

3. Economic Rights:

Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These enable
all citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of every person
are related to his food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment etc. Without the fulfillment of these
no person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is therefore essential, that every person
must get the right to work, right to adequate wages, right to leisure and rest, and right to social
security in case of illness, physical disability and old age.

Activity 8.1:
Define the following words and give example:
1. Good will
2. Categorical Imperative
3. Rights

Activity 8.2:
Distinguish between Natural and Moral right through Venn Diagram below:
Activity 8.3:
Enumerate the following and give example:
1. Types of Rights
2. Three type Legal Rights

44
Self-Check 8:
I. Fill in the Blank: Fill the blank(s) with the precise word or group of words to make every
statement correct.
1. ___________________ enable all citizens to make proper use of their civil and
political rights.
2. ___________________ are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to
lead a civilized social life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society. 3.
___________________ include right to vote, right to get elected, right to hold public
office and right to criticize and oppose the government.
4. ___________________ rights are parts of human nature and reason.
5. ___________________ rights are those rights which are based on human
consciousness.
III. Define the following:
1. Categorical Imperative
2. Good Wil1

45
Module 9:
Utilitarianism
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define utilitarianism;
2. enumerate the types of Utilitarianism;
3. apply utilitarianism in the business world.

Discussions:

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution
to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is, then, the
total utility of individuals which is important here, the greatest happiness for the greatest number
of people. Utility, after which the doctrine is named, is a measure in economics of the relative
satisfaction from, or desirability of, the consumption of goods. Utilitarianism can thus be
described as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to Ethics.

Utilitarianism starts from the basis that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically valuable, that
pain and suffering are intrinsically invaluable, and that anything else has value only in its
causing happiness or preventing suffering (i.e. "instrumental", or as means to an end). This
focus on happiness or pleasure as the ultimate end of moral decisions, makes it a type of
Hedonism (and it is sometimes known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism).

Utilitarian support equality by the equal consideration of interests, and they reject any arbitrary
distinctions as to who is worthy of concern and who is not, and any discrimination between
individuals. However, it does accept the idea of declining marginal utility, which recognizes that
the same thing furthers the interests of a well-off individual to a lesser degree than it would the
interests of a less well-off individual.

It is a form of Consequentialism (in that the moral worth of an action is determined by its
outcome or consequence - the ends justify the means), as opposed to Deontology (which
disregards the consequences of performing an act, when determining its moral worth), and to
Virtue Ethics (which focuses on character, rather than rules or consequences).

History of Utilitarianism
The origins of Utilitarianism are often traced back to the Epicureanism of the followers of the
Greek philosopher Epicurus. It can be argued that David Hume and Edmund Burke were proto
Utilitarian.

But as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to the English philosopher Jeremy
Bentham. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world, and this
he derived the rule of utility: that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the
greatest number of people. Bentham himself, however, attributed the origins of the theory to

46
Joseph Priestley (1733 - 1804), the English scientist, theologian and founder of Unitarianism in
England.

Bentham's foremost proponent was James Mill (1773 - 1836) and his son John Stuart Mill, who
was educated from a young age according to Bentham's principles. In his famous 1861 short
work, "Utilitarianism", John Stuart Mill both named the movement and refined Bentham's original
principles. Mill argued that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than
mere physical pleasure as valued by a competent judge (which, according to Mill, is anyone
who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher).

In his essay "On Liberty" and other works, Mill argued that Utilitarianism requires that any political
arrangements satisfy the liberty principle (or harm principle), according to which the only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community
against his will, is to prevent harm to others, a cornerstone of the principles of Liberalism and
Libertarianism. Some Marxist philosophers have also used these principles as arguments for
Socialism.

The classic Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill influenced many other moral philosophers and
the development of many different types of Consequentialism.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism
It has been argued that measuring and comparing happiness among different people is
impossible, not only in practice, but even in principle. Defenders argue that the same problem
is successfully overcome in everyday life, and that rough estimates are usually sufficient.

Another dilemma of Utilitarianism is that the pleasure of a sadist should have the same
importance as the pleasure of an altruist, although proponents have countered that sadists are
relatively few and so their effective influence would be minimal, and that the hurt suffered by
others would counterbalance any pleasure registered by the sadist. Furthermore, the sadist's
pleasure is superficial and temporary, thus it is detrimental to the sadist's long term well-being.

Another argument is that sometimes a long time is needed to weigh all the evidence and reach
a definite conclusion on the relative costs and benefits of an action. Utilitarians admit that
certain knowledge of consequences is sometimes impossible, but argue that best estimates of
the consequences or predictions based on the past are usually sufficient.

A very specific argument against Utilitarianism has been put forward on the grounds that
Determinism is either true or false: if it is true, then we have no real choice over our actions; if it is
false, then the consequences of our actions are unpredictable, not least because they will
depend on the actions of others whom we cannot predict.

Utilitarianism has been criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or
intentions which motivate them, which many people also consider important. Thus, an action
intended to cause harm but that inadvertently causes good results would be judged equal to
the result of an action done with good intentions.

Utilitarians may argue that justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require
unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to the victims, as well

47
as taking into consideration of the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies
(e.g. general anxiety and fear might increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored).

Other critics have made objections to the following: the right and wrong dichotomy implicit in
Utilitarianism, whereby a "good" act (e.g. a charitable donation) may be branded as a wrong
action (e.g. if there is an alternative donation to a more efficient charity); Utilitarianism does not
take account of the fact that human nature is dynamic and changing, so the concept of a
single utility for all humans is one-dimensional and not useful; Utilitarians have no ultimate
justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than the tautological on that "this is the way it
should be".

Some Consequentialists consider that, although happiness an important consequence, other

consequences such as justice or equality should also be valued and taken into consideration,
regardless of whether they increase happiness or not.

Types of Utilitarianism
11. Act Utilitarianism (or Case Utilitarianism) states that, when faced with a choice, we must
first consider the likely consequences of potential actions in that particular case and, from
that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most overall happiness. Act
Utilitarians may follow certain rules of thumb (heuristics) to save time or cost although, if
the consequences can be calculated relatively clearly, exactly and easily, then such
rules of thumb can be ignored, and the choice treated on a case by case basis.

12. Rule Utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must look at potential rules
of action to determine whether the generalized rule produces more happiness than
otherwise, if it were to be constantly followed. Thus, an action should only be carried out
if it follows a rule that morally should be followed at all times. Rule Utilitarians may agree
that there are some general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if this
increases happiness (e.g. the exception of self-defense to overcome the general rule
never to kill a human), although critics argue that this logically just reduces to Act
Utilitarianism.

13. Two-Level Utilitarianism states that normally we should use "intuitive" moral thinking, in the
form of Rule Utilitarianism, because it usually maximizes happiness. However, there are
some times when we must ascend to a higher "critical" level of reflection in order to
decide what to do, and must think as an Act Utilitarian would. This method is based on
the view that, although Act Utilitarianism may be preferable in theory, usually it is too
difficult to perfectly predict consequences, and so we require moral guidelines or rules in
day to day life.

14. Motive Utilitarianism states that our initial moral task is to inculcate motives within ourselves
(by means of teaching and repetition) that will be generally useful across the spectrum
of the actual situations we are likely to encounter, rather than hypothetical examples
which are unlikely to occur. It can be thought of as a hybrid between Act and Rule
Utilitarianism, but it also attempts to take into account how human beings actually
function psychologically.
15. Total Utilitarianism advocates measuring the utility of a population based on the total
utility of its members. However, it has been argued that this leads to a "repugnant

48
 conclusion", in which an enormous population whose individual lives are barely worth
living is considered preferable to a smaller population with good lives.

16. Average Utilitarianism advocates measuring the utility of a population based on the
average utility of that population. The drawback here is known as the "mere addition
paradox", where bringing a moderately happy person in a very happy world would be
seen as an immoral act, or the logical implication that it would be a moral good to
eliminate all people whose happiness is below average, as this would raise the average
happiness.

17. Negative Utilitarianism requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to
prevent the greatest amount of suffering, for the greatest number (as opposed to the
general, or positive, Utilitiarian rule of the greatest amount of good for the greatest
number). The justification for Negative Utilitarianism is that the greatest harms are more
consequential than the greatest goods, and so should have more influence on moral
decision-making. Critics have argued that the ultimate aim of Negative Utilitarianism
would therefore logically be to engender the quickest and least painful method of killing
the entirety of humanity, as this would effectively minimize suffering, although more
moderate proponents would obviously not propose that.

18. Sentient Utilitarianism states that the well-being of all sentient beings (i.e. conscious beings
who feel pain, including therefore some non-human animals) deserve equal
consideration with that given to human beings, when making moral decisions in a
Utilitarian context.

Applying Utilitarianism in Business

Utilitarianism is a moral theory, which works as a form of consequentialism helps individuals to

assess whether an action is good or bad. Some of the moral philosophers associated with this
theory include Jeremy Bentham, David Hume, Henry Sidgwick and many others. People who
ascribe to the classical utilitarians’ school of thought consider actions right if it maximizes the
overall wellbeing of society and wrong if it does not maximize the overall wellness of the society.
According to the theory, an action is good if it is for the good of the greatest number of people.
It characteristically encourages individuals to act in whatever ways they want as long as their
actions lead them to the greatest levels of wellness. The theory associate’s wellbeing with
happiness. Therefore, an action is considered good if it brings joy to the most significant number
of people in society and vice versa.

The theory of utilitarianism can be applied in business in many ways. To begin with, business
persons who wish to use this theory must first understand its four components. The application of
this theory can either be positive or negative. The first element is consequentialism, which is the
understanding that the wrongness or rightness of actions is entirely determined by their actions
(Mack 64; Suikkanen 1). Businesses can apply the concept of consequentialism in their
operations even though it may contradict the moral and ethical systems that are in place. For
instance, businesses that commit themselves to the principle of consequentialism may
encourage their employees to act as they wish as long as the essential outcome will be to the
benefit of the organization.

49
The second element that businesses require to apply utilitarianism is welfarism. According to
Eggleston (453), welfarism is the understanding that the wrongness or rightness of operations
depends on society’s conceptions of welfare or wellbeing. This aspect of utilitarianism suggests
that actions are good for the greatest wellbeing of the society or many people.

The third element that businesses need to understand as to how the principle of utility applies to
their operations is individualism. The principle of individualism in utilitarianism holds that every
individual, as it is human nature, pursues happiness, thus, will engage in actions that maximize
utility.

The fourth element required to apply utilitarianism in business is aggregation, which is the notion
that the wrongness or rightness of actions depends on their ability to average the benefits
brought to all individuals.

Back to the concepts of pain and suffering; the ethical position of utilitarianism is that human
beings should be happier and have less suffering. However, this does not mean that everyone is
a utilitarian because as a fundamental rule, there basic moral standards that one should not
break. Such rules guide individuals on what will bring out the best consequences. However, the
challenge that utilitarianism poses to other views is whether the effects of disobeying and
breaking these moral rules would be worse or not. However, it should be stressed that since
utilitarianism changes people’s lives in many ways, the same can be replicated in the businesses
or companies that these people do or work for. It makes people have the urge to be as effective
as possible to change the world and make it a better place. This concept is referred to as
effective altruism whose supporters claim to want to do the most good they can do. Most
businesses consider this while making their hiring decisions, hoping that their new employees
would live to the expectations by doing the best they can for the greater good of the business.

Activity 9.1:
Define the Utilitarianism using a concept map below.

UTILITARIANISM
Activity 9.2:
Enumerate the types of utilitarianism and give example in each type:
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

50
Activity 9.3:
Explain how Unitarianism applied in the business word. Have you experience Utilitarianism?
Explain how.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Self-Check 9:
I. Define utilitarianism:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
II. Enumerate at least 2 types of Utilitarianism, explain and give example.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ III.
Explain how Utilitarianism affects human life.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

51
Module 10:
Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Goods
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define justice and fairness;
2. explain the principles of justice;
3. enumerate the kinds of justice;
4. describe the theories of just distribution.

Discussions:

Justice and Fairness

Many public policy arguments focus on fairness. Is affirmative action fair? Are congressional
districts drawn to be fair? Is our tax policy fair? Is our method for funding schools fair?

Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea
in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of
justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice,
written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that
justice is part of the central core of morality.

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving
each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today
used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two
terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often
has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests;
fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general
but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated
as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness.

When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made
about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of
justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be
no point of talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are
created when goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what.
When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as
reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve.

But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far.
How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use
to determine what is due to this or that person?
Principles of Justice

52
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first
defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be
treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes
expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are
relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the
same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing,
then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply
because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of
discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people
differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more
attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when
the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just
when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent
citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not
meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert
more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the
project than others. These criteria—need, desert, contribution, and effort—we acknowledge as
justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving
people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust
to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences.
If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another
offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of
Public Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course
despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when
a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated
for a harm he or she suffered.

Different Kinds of Justice

There are different kinds of justice. Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's
institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways
that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust
ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the
American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it
was a glaring case of treating people differently on the basis of race.

A second important kind of justice is retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to
the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments are held to be just to
the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and
the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be barbarously
unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death
penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured another party. Studies
have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to receive
death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies suggest
that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.

53
Yet a third important kind of justice is compensatory justice. Compensatory justice refers to the
extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them;
just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of
justice that is at stake in debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines. Some argue
that mine owners should compensate the workers whose health has been ruined. Others argue
that workers voluntarily took on this risk when they chose employment in the mines.

The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and
equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society—or any group,
for that matter—depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they
are being treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to
unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife.
The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their
social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher
Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all
have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals.
Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and
irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated.

Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives.
In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If
not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are
using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making
ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other
kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of
our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are
to live together in an interdependent community, we must treat each other as equals.

Distributive Justice:

One of the things that can be evaluated as just of unjust is the distribution of the benefits and
burdens of a society. Contrast this notion of “Justice” with two other notions:

Retributive Justice: (Lex Talionis). That principle of justice which requires that we “give back (re
tribute) to the giver what he initially gave.” Alternatively, it is the motivation behind the idea of
“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
Most often this principle of justice is invoked to justify the punishment of crimes. This is the
concern (arguably) of criminal courts. Also contrast with:

Compensatory Justice: That principle of justice which requires that individuals be compensated
for effort they have expended or harms they have suffered. Here the aim is not punishment for
a crime or sin or moral infraction, but rather compensation.

This is the concern of civil courts when plaintiffs seek compensatory (not punitive) damages. It
is also the concern of arbiters seeking “just wages.”
Distributive Justice is concerned with the just distribution of societal burdens and benefits. Any
given society with limited resources has only a certain amount of assorted benefits which it can
bestow in a number of different ways on its members. Likewise, it has certain number of burdens

54
which must be bared for the continuation of the society.

Various Answers: Theories of Just Distribution

Egalitarianism

Egalitarian usually contend that there are no relevant differences among the members of
society to justify unequal treatment. Therefore, a just distribution according to an egalitarian is
one in which every member of society is given exactly equal shares of society's benefits and
burdens. The argument for this view depends on the notion that all human beings are equal (in
some fundamen-tal respect) and that in recognition of this they ought to be accorded equal
shares of society's burdens and benefits.

Socialism (Distribution Based on Needs and Abilities)

Burdens and benefits should be distributed on the basis of abilities and needs. Or more
specifically, the position claims that work burdens should be distributed on the basis of abilities
and benefits should be distributed on the basis of need.

On this view, the just way of distributing the benefits and burdens of society is bases on the
needs and the abilities of the members of that society. As Marx put it, "From each according to
his abilities; to each according to his need.

Further, the benefits produced by such an arrangement should be distributed so as to

maximize the welfare of the society, aimed first at meeting the “basic biologi­cal needs” of
the members of society, then other “non-basic needs” on until meeting the “luxury wants.”

Notice how this contrasts with Egalitarianism. Rather than claiming that there are NO relevant
differences that would justify a difference in distribution of burdens and benefits, they claim that
there ARE relevant differences (needs and abilities) and to overlook these differences would be
unjust (treating unequals and equals)

Capitalism

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital

goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and
the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism in better thought of as a system of distribution rather than a theory of distribution. I

mean by that that Capitalism is a system where burdens and benefits are distributed more or
less according to market forces. When individuals argue in favor of capitalism as the best or the
preferred system of distribution they usually do so on the basis of other moral theories of
distributive justice.

55
Activity 10.1:
Using the template below, answer the following:
Terms Definition Example

1. Justice

2. Fairness

3. Egalitarianism

4. Socialism

5. Capitalism

Activity 10.2:
Using the Venn diagram below, differentiate Justice from Fairness and its similarity.

Activity 10.3:
Explain the Principles of Justice, and give example if possible.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

56
Self-Check 10:
Identification: Identify the correct word that best describe the statement/sentence below.
Write your answer on the blank provided.

___________________________ 1. This means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in
more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due.
Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often
today used interchangeably.
___________________________ 2. This refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly
general but that are concrete and specific to a particular
case.
___________________________ 3. This evaluates as just of unjust is the distribution of the benefits
and burdens of a society.
___________________________ 4. That principle of justice which requires that individuals be
compensated for effort they have expended or harms they
have suffered.
___________________________ 5. there are no relevant differences among the members of
society to justify unequal treatment.

57
Module 11:
The Challenges of Pluralism and Fundamentalism:
The Search for Universal Values
Specific Learning Outcomes:

At the of this module, the learner should be able to:

1. define globalization and pluralism as new challenges to ethics;
2. enumerate the challenges that Filinnials faced;
3. explain the role of ethics in religion.

Discussions:

Globalization and Pluralism: New Challenges to Ethics

Globalization has renovated the globe from a collection of separate communities interacting
infrequently into a virtually one multi-faceted community. Politically, economically, and
culturally therefore, communities across the world now function in what is fundamentally a
shared space although divided into artificial political condominiums called nation-states. The
transnational relations made possible by globalizing forces and processes have opened up new
forms of social bonds and responsibilities.

In a globalized era, peoples and communities across the world have become culturally
connected, the distinction between the global and the local has become progressively blurred
and actions and events in one locality carry with it the potential to breed transnational and
transgenerational impacts. It is precisely for these reasons that moral reflection about our
responsibilities and obligations in a globalized age has become an imperative.

Pluralism
Pluralism. As a philosophical doctrine, Pluralism is a concept used in many diverse ways, but, in
general terms, it is the philosophical theory that there is more than one basic substance or
principle, whether it be the constitution of the universe, of the mind and body, the sources of
truth, or the basis of morality. In this discussion, we are more concerned with moral pluralism.

Moral Pluralism
Also known as ethical pluralism and value pluralism, moral pluralism is the idea that there can
be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect. It thus implies that there are some
values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other.
Moreover, moral pluralism proposes that in many cases, such incompatible values may be
incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of
importance.

Against Moral Pluralism

Although moral pluralism, at first glance, seems to be flawless and attractive, it is definitely not

58
immune to valid criticisms when philosophically analyzed. For one thing, moral pluralism fails to
stipulate what to do when two or more of its values or theories indicate inconsistent practical
imperatives.

Basically, not only is moral pluralism ethically irresponsible, it is also morally impotent. It gives us
no moral standard, and offers us no moral power. Moral pluralism leaves us either concluding
that (a) there is no real solution to ethical dilemmas or (b) all possible answers are acceptable
as long as they have underlying fundamental values. The second implied conclusion is very
much like moral relativism.

Globalization
Globalization may be defined as the world-wide integration of government policies, cultures,
social movements, and financial markets through trade and the exchange of ideas. British
sociologist Anthony Giddens (born 1938) defines it as “intensification of worldwide relationships
which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring
many miles away and vice versa” (as quoted in “Globalization,” n.d.).

Various interrelated definitions are given for the concept globalization. However, the common
theme that runs through the definitions is the stress on the trans-nationalization of the
connections taking place in the world today.

Some Problems with Globalization

Globalization uses up finite resources more quickly. As an example, China joined the World Trade
Organization in December 2001. In 2002, its coal use began rising rapidly. In fact, there is also a
huge increase in world coal consumption. India’s consumption is increasing as well, but from a
smaller base.

Globalization increases world carbon dioxide emissions. If the world burns its coal more quickly,
and does not cut back on other fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions increase.

Globalization makes it virtually impossible for regulators in one country to foresee the worldwide
implications of their actions. Actions which would seem to reduce emissions for an individual
country may indirectly encourage world trade, ramp up manufacturing in coal-producing
areas, and increase emissions over all.

Globalization acts to increase world oil prices. Oil supply is not growing very much, due to limits
we are reaching, and partly because demand is exploding due to globalization. If we look at
world oil supply, it is virtually flat. Part of our problem now is that with globalization, world oil
demand is rising very rapidly. Chinese buyers purchased more cars in 2012 than did European
buyers. Rapidly rising world demand, together with oil supply which is barely rising, pushes world
prices upward. The East has sufficient pent-up demand that it will make use of any oil that is
made available to the market.

Globalization transfers consumption of limitedoilsupplyfrom developed countries to developing

countries. If world oil supply isn’t growing by very much, and demand is growing rapidly in
developing countries, oil to meet this rising demand must come from somewhere. The way this
transfer takes place is through the mechanism of high oil prices. High oil prices are particularly a

59
problem for major oil importing countries, such as the United States, many European countries,
and Japan. Because oil is used in growing food and for commuting, a rise in oil price tends to
lead to a cutback in discretionary spending, recession, and lower oil use in these countries.

Ethical Challenges of Globalization

Global environmental considerations form the need for international environmental ethics
which is an aspect of global ethics. The use of the global commons or environment ought to be
controlled by international regulations. Sensibly, the regulation of the global commons should
be based on sound ethical principles. One of the ethical and sound ideologies concerning
environmental protection is the so-called “Human-Environment Systems.“ For one thing, this
approach categorically affirms the significant relation between humans and their natural
environment and other broad implications of this connection.

Globalization and Business Ethics

Globalization as a new challenge to ethics thus requires incorporating ethics (such as business
ethics and environmental ethics) as part of companies’ strategic business programs and
alliances. Moreover, it mandates top managements to establish clear policies that encourage
ethical behavior. For instance, all employees who observe or become aware of criminal
practices or corrupt conduct must be encouraged to report the incident to their supervisors.
Furthermore, management training seminars and orientation meetings that involve discussion of
actual situations can alert employees to potential ethical conflicts.

With the involvement of business ethics as a part of business strategic decision-making

companies are even expected to gain a competitive advantage, good will, and recognition in
the global business world. They may attract a good workforce and cater to a healthy
organization climate. All these are anticipated to ultimately lead to good profits and a healthy
competition in the international globalized business world.

Search for Universal Values

Evidently, there are quite a number of moral questions and problems arising from globalization,
that is, from global interdependence and interconnection. To address these ethical problems,
social scientists and philosophers suggest that the time has come for the world to develop a
global ethic, that is, a set of universally accepted principles that could provide the foundation
for regulating global interactions.

Indeed, a set of shared ethical values and standards is central for the cohesion of society and
for global justice and peace. A shared set of moral values and principles will make for peace
and harmony at the global level. The philosophical challenge, however. is that it seems
improbable to ascertain normative principles that will be persuasive across cultures.
Notwithstanding, in spite of these ethical variations across various cultures, it is still very much
possible that basic and fundamental values hold for every society. Developing universally
acceptable principles, i.e., global ethics for administering transnational interactions, is possible,
for instance, through the process of intercultural dialogue.
In a globalizing world, it is prudent, for example, to advocate universal cultural values such as
truth, justice, and love. Situations today also ideally call for working in favor of a universal spirit of

60
fraternity, a solidary altruistic spirit, a decided and generous will, and the universal will to live in
peace. In a situation of disequilibrium and disharmony, the reawakening of the human spirit of
love and compassion may save us from our own worst extremes. Indeed, material wealth ought
to go hand in hand with moral and spiritual wealth.

The Role of Ethics in Religion

Can we be Ethical without being Religious?

A longstanding debate has been whether ethics plays a role in religion. Most religions have an
ethical component. Ethics, which is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct
and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and
wrong. Ethics deals with ideas such as Right, Good and Duty and these concepts were discussed
in ancient Greece by Plato and Aristotle in the 3rd & 4th Century BCE.

A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying,
which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral codes. The
ancient Greeks called it eudaimonia or happiness. The ancient Greeks believed happiness was
brought about by living one’s life in accordance with virtue – positive traits of character. Virtue
in the highest sense, in an adult who has been brought up well, will not just involve good personal
habits such as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual virtue.
The essence of virtue is in the wholeness of the person brought about by integrity.

The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a basic requirement of
ethics. We ought to be virtuous and do our duty, he said. Kant believed virtue should be
rewarded by happiness, and it would be intolerable if it were not so. Since it's clear that virtue
often does go unrewarded in the present life, Kant argued that the soul must be immortal. Virtue
must receive its due recompense in a future life, and there must be a God guaranteeing that it
is so rewarded. The existence of God and the immortality of the soul were what Kant called the
postulates of practical reason - the assumptions without which, so he claimed, ethics and a
moral life would not be possible.

Revealed religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam do prescribe some clear
and unambiguous rules to follow. If their scriptures were authored or dictated by God, then the
commands in them are God's own commands. They cannot be changed if human
circumstances change or ethical ideas progress.

If religion has a role in moral decision-making, then what should be that role? In America, for
many individuals, their religion is a centrally defining characteristic of who they are, such that
they would be nearly incapable of making ethical decisions independently of their religious
beliefs.

Further, some of our most basic moral sentiments are directly connected to religious ideology.
For example, most people agree that things like murder and adultery are always wrong,
regardless of circumstances. Most major world religions echo these sentiments, and it can be
argued that the ancient codes of conduct these traditions embody are actually the original
source of our social intuitions. At a minimum, we do seem to regard religion as a good source of
basic moral guidance, making it unwise to argue that there ought to be no connection

61
between religion and ethics.

The link between religion and morality is best illustrated by the Golden Rule. Virtually all of the
world’s great religions contain in their religious texts some version of the Golden Rule: “Do unto
others as you would wish them do unto you”. In other words, we should treat others the way we
would want to be treated. This is the basic ethic that guides all religions. If we do so, happiness
will ensue.

Some people, especially religious people, say that there can be no morality without religion.
They say that without God, ethics is impossible. In my religion, Judaism, a revealed religion, ethics
or morality is the attempt to arrive at a view of the nature of human values, of how we ought to
live and of what constitutes right conduct. In order to arrive at a view, it sets goals and assesses
actions by the extent to which they further these goals, e.g. if happiness is a goal then the action
which produces most happiness to all affected is the right one.

Revelation too, through the written and oral law, directs people to an understanding of the
nature of human values, of how they ought to live and of what constitutes right conduct; such
teachings and examples are scattered amongst various verses and sources. Examples of such
moral teachings are:-

You shall do right and good (beyond the call of duty)

Love your neighbor
Correct behavior between man and man
Discipline or training of character under the law
Piety beyond the law
The need to be respectful, earn a living; engage in learning and culture and so forth.
The role of philosophers is to accurately try to define and promote ethical concepts based upon
logic and reason. A religious person on the other hand, follows his or her code of conduct
because he believes that it is proper behavior and reaction to the varying challenges and
circumstances which arise during the course of life.

I end with two quotes. The first is from Kant: “In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of
others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.”

The second one sums up, I believe, the moral challenges of our time. Archie Carroll, a noted
ethicist said: “As religion and faith are being driven out of the public square, the Judeo-Christian
ethical foundations that have sustained our country since its beginning, are being lost and are
being replaced with a humanistic amorality, a self-centered, pragmatic indifference that will
ensure that our moral compasses will fail to point us in the right direction in the future.

Activity 11.1:
Enumerate 5 challenges that Filinials (Filipino Millennials) faced in the pluralism. Give tips on
how to overcome this challenges.

62
Activity 11.2:
Using the concept map, define Globalization and Pluralism as the new challenges to ethics

GLOBALIZATION &
PLURALISM

Activity 11.3:
Explain the role of Religion in Ethics. Your explanation is restricted with not less than 50 words.
Better to give examples and situation to support your ideas.

Self-Check 11:
I. Definition: Define the following:
1. Globalization
2. Pluralism
3. Universal Value
4. Ethics
5. Religion
II. Explain the following:
a. In the modern world, as part of millennial, how did you cope up the issue in the
development of your morality.
b. Compare the differences of todays modern world to the old generation.
c. Explain the impact of Religions in molding one’s moral.

63
Now, you successfully finished the
course
ETHICS.

YOU MADE IT! CONGRATULATIONS

-Ma’am Joy-

64