University of the Philippines Visayas

Miagao 5023, Iloilo Philippines College of Arts and Sciences

Division of Social Sciences Political Science Cluster

Ethics 1 – Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life

Asynchronous Learning Materials
Prepared by: Elmer Jover

Module 3: Normative Ethics

We learned how the study of Ethics is crucial part of philosophy, the nature
of ethics and moral reasoning, and what are some of the Western disciplines
that are continuously contributing to or is influenced by the concepts in
ethics.

This Module discusses dominant frameworks in Normative Ethics defined,

as branch of ethics concerned with general criteria of what is morally right
and wrong. The first part introduces ideas on ultimate good. This came as a
reaction to the conceptual and logical flaws of ethical relativism, which
claims that moral values depend on the individual or culture. This includes
discussions on Egoism and Altruism, which later on will be integral
components of what is known as Virtue Ethics. The second part of this
module discusses other normative ethical frameworks ranging from
deontology to rights-based ethics and more.

The Objectives of the module:

1. Introduce ideas and theories on ultimate good

2. Discuss other normative theories in Ethics such as rights-
based/feminist care and supererogatory ethics
3. Value normative ethics as reference to approach practical
and later on applied ethical discussions
1
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 DIRECTIONS:

(1) Make sure that the your answers for the activities found in this material are
computerized and are highlighted in red.

(2) ☐Put a check or a mark on boxes once you have finished the reading parts.
You may leave a mark such as this example: X☐

(3) Once you are done with reading and answering the activities in this module,
make sure that you save the file as PDF using this file name: Module 5 Part 1
– Surname. Attach the file to an email to be sent to your instructor’s email
using this file name: SECTION (_), SURNAME, FIRSTNAME, MODULE _
Part _.

(4) Please note that this course pack is intended only for your use as a student
currently enrolled in Ethics 1. You are NOT ALLOWED to share, reproduce or
distribute it to anyone else. Should you need to use the course pack for any other
purpose than class, you should seek permission from the Author/Editor.

Week 6-7. Normative Ethical Frameworks

Normative Ethical Frameworks

April 5 1.Theories of Ultimate 1. Discuss and apply in principle
Good – Egoism, Altruism western theories on ultimate good
and Virtue Ethics
April 8 2.Utilitarianism 2. Expand appreciation on utility
3. Kantianism and imperatives in ethical decision
making

April 12 4. Contractualism 3. Introduce concepts of traditional

5.Feminist Care Ethics contract based and non traditional
feminist care ethics

2
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

As a student of the University of the Philippines, I pledge to act ethically and uphold the
value of honor and excellence.

I understand that suspected misconduct on given assignments/examinations will be

reported to the appropriate office and if established, will result in disciplinary action in
accordance with University rules, policies and procedures. I may work with others only
to the extent allowed by the Instructor.

3
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
COPYRIGHT

This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of

University of the Philippines pursuant to PART IV: The Law on Copyright of Republic
Act (RA) 8293 or the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”.

The University does not authorize you to reproduce or communicate this material. The
Material may contain works that are subject to copyright protection under RA 8293.
Any reproduction and/or communication of the material by you may be subject to
copyright infringement and the copyright owners have the right to take legal action
against such infringement

4
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 ◼3.1 Normative Ethics: Theories of Ultimate Good

The first part of this module discusses Western theories of ultimate good.
This came as a reaction to the conceptual and logical flaws of ethical
relativism which claims that moral values depend on the individual or culture.
The first part will focus on Egoism and Altruism, and the later part will be
about Virtue Ethics.

Egoism espouses the idea that good is whatever promotes our own personal
good, while Altruism holds that what is good and right is that which is done
solely for the benefit of others. But the question is, can good and right be
based on what promotes the self and benefits others at the same time?

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is that theory of morality based on virtue or moral

character. Virtue Ethics believe that attainment of a person’s excellence is
through the actualization of the person’s highest potential as a rational
human being via a life of virtue. It is interesting to note that this virtuous life
can only happen through morally virtuous acts (habituation) towards others.
Take note that the emphasis is not so much on the individual actions, but
rather on the forging of the disposition or character of the moral agent.

☐ What is Egoism (1/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Egoism as a normative theory requires that “Everyone ought to look out and
seek only for their own best interests. People ought to help others only when
and to the extent that it is also in their own best interest to do so.” (MacKinnon
2004, p. 35) Ethical egoism has been framed also as a principle which
requires that “One ought always to maximize one’s own personal good as an
end.” (Holmes, 1998) From this perspective, the highest moral value is one’s
own good. An egoist is oftentimes mistaken for an egotist. An egoist is
someone who embraces the ideals of Egoism while an egotist is a highly
self-opinionated, self-obsessed, boastful, arrogant person. An Egoist is not
necessarily an egotist.

5
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 Egoism really requires that our moral obligation is to pursue self-interest as
our priority. Does this mean that it is acceptable to lie, cheat, and kill if that
is what is necessary to gain our ends? If you have a Ring of Power and you
can get away with trampling on the interest of others to gain political power,
would you do it?

You may have noticed that one’s self-interest may not really be exclusive of
the interest of others. You may also end up considering others if doing so is
necessary to promote your self-interest

Ethical Egoism, ought not to be confused with Psychological Egoism, which

is the theory that attributes the way humans behave to their nature as selfish
or self-interested agents. That is, Psychological Egoism simply describes
human behavior as motivated by the pursuit of self-interest which is inborn,
while Ethical Egoism is a theory of what human beings ought to do.
Psychological Egoism is descriptive while Ethical Egoism is normative.

☐What is altruism?
(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Generally speaking, actions that promote self-sacrifice tend to be

immortalized and venerated in society.

“Happiness comes from making other people happy.”

“It is better to give than to receive.”
“Self-sacrifice entails offering oneself for the good of others.”
These age-old aphorisms are expressions of Altruism.

The term altruism derives from the Latin ‘alter’ which means “other”. Hence,
altruism in the normative sense entails that “Everyone ought to disregard his
or her own self-interests for the sake of others.” (Rosenstand, 2009 p. 189)
It requires that we perform actions to help others, even if doing so may
involve great loss to ourselves.

A pure altruist is therefore totally selfless. Such a person does not consider
his or her own welfare but only that of others. Levinas, a twentieth century
Lithuanian-French philosopher thought that the Other (another human being)
should always be more important than yourself, and that the needs of others
6
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 should be placed ahead of your own. Although this presupposes that you,
yourself will also be valued as more important than the Other, because you
are the Other, of your Other. The pure altruistic view is not really very popular
among ethicists because in the end people will always look for what’s in it for
them, according to Rosenstand.

Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher has discussed altruism in his book

The Expanding Circle in a different light. He claims that “human beings are
social animals and that we were social before we were human” (Singer,
1981, p.3) On this account, Singer theorizes that since human beings have
lived in groups (as what fossil records show of the Australopithecus africanus
who were still half-human, half-ape, and therefore were not yet fully rational),
they have learned to restrain their behavior towards their fellows even before
they became rational. Social ethics therefore, according to him, could have
begun in this pre-human pattern of behavior. “If we define altruistic behavior
as behavior which benefits others at some cost to oneself, altruism in non-
human animals is well-documented. Understanding the development of
altruism in animals will improve our understanding of the development of
ethics in human beings, for our present ethical systems have their roots in
the altruistic behavior of our early and pre-human ancestors.” (5) Singer in
this work, offers Reciprocal Altruism as another way of viewing altruism. It is
one that looks at the interests of others because in the end everyone benefits
from it. Although, philosophers are still in disagreement if Singer’s altruism
really deserves the name of altruism. It would be interesting if you can read
about this version of altruism.

☐What is Virtue ethics? (2/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he espoused the idea that everything has

a teleological basis or that everything has a purpose and that it aims at some
good or end. He highlighted the rule of rational nature and emphasized the
purposive nature of the universe (Albert and Denise 1984). The latter is
clearly illustrated in the following lines:

“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought
to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared
to be that at which all things aim.” (Aristotle, Book I.1. p.3)

☐What are special arenas of Virtue Ethics? (3/5)

7
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 (Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

To have a grasp of Aristotle’s ethical theory and what he meant by living well,
it is important to understand his conception of happiness, virtue, vice, and
doctrine of the mean, and how these are related to one another.

Man’s Telos and Happiness

“Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these
(e.g. wealth, flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something
else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently
something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we
are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be
what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit
more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else,
and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final
than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that
other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is
always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.” (Aristotle,
Book I.7, p10.)

Aristotle classified ends into three: instrumental, final and supreme.

Instrumental ends are not pursued for themselves or for their own sake;
rather, they are utilized as instruments to other ends that are regarded to be
of greater value. Final ends are perceived as inherently good but not
unconditionally final, contrary to the label. While they are pursued for their
own sake, there are some circumstances when final ends become
subservient to other ends. This happens when a “more comprehensive end”
has to be taken into account. Aristotle added that the decision as to which
final ends to pursue, especially in cases when not all of them can be chosen
at the same time, is determined by the “supreme end” or that which is
described as unconditionally final. Aristotle named this as happiness or
eudaimonia in Greek translation. This, he claimed, is the reason why some
final ends are embraced or abandoned.

Happiness is man’s supreme end; it should be understood in terms of

man’s distinctive function:

“Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is

peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and
growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to
be shared even to the horse, the ox, and every animal.
8
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 There remains, then, an active life of the element that has reason…”
(Aristotle, Book I.7, p. 11)

☐Virtue vs Vice: The Doctrine of the Mean

How do we make sense of Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean? (4/5)
(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Virtue is a key concept in Aristotle’s theory of morality. To get a better grasp

of his concept of happiness, we need to understand his notion of virtue. The
word “virtue” is from the Latin vir, which means “strength or manliness.” In
Aristotle’s ethics, its equivalent is the Greek term arête, which means
“excellences of various types” (MacKinnon 2004). It is a disposition to
effectively perform one’s proper function. For instance, in the case of a lyre-
player, Aristotle pointed out that his function is “to play the lyre;” but if he is
to be a good lyre-player, his function must be “to play it so well” (Aristotle,
Book I.7, p. 11). In the same light, if man’s function is tied up to activities of
the soul that implies a rational principle, it follows that the function of a good
man is to be good in the performance of these activities.

Central to Aristotle’s theory is the distinction he made between the two types
of virtues: moral virtue and intellectual virtue. Moral virtue is also known as
the virtue of the character (generosity and temperance) while intellectual
virtue is the virtue of thought (wisdom, comprehension, intelligence). Both of
these virtues were identified as activities not of the body but of the soul.

Aristotle provided a very comprehensive account of the virtue of the

character. Its central thesis revolves around the concept of moderation or
temperance. This was given a clearer explanation by elaborating on the
structure of man’s soul and discussing how moral virtue relates to it.
According to Aristotle, our soul is comprised of the rational component, which
directs us to what is right, and the irrational element, which is naturally
opposed to reason. The latter is further subdivided into two: the nutritive and
appetitive components. The nutritive component, which is concerned with
nutrition and growth, does not in any way share with the rational element.
Nutrition and growth are beyond the control of reason and have nothing to
do with man’s excellence. On the other hand, the appetitive component,
which includes the desiring elements, is in a sense subject to reason. As
Aristotle puts it, “It is reason that directs the desires and appetites to what is
best. That is, the mean between two extremes.” Only when man allows his
desires and appetites to be governed by the rational component of his soul
9
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 is he able to achieve moderation or temperance; otherwise, deficiencies and
excesses rule.

The above spells out Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean which follows from the
principle that excess and deficiency destroy perfection while the mean
preserves it. The mean is moral virtue while excess and deficiency are
regarded as vices.

Below are examples of examinations pertaining to the doctrine of the mean

taken from Aristotle, Books II.7-II.9, pp32-35:

DEFICIENCY MEAN EXCESS

(Vice) (Virtue) (Vice)

Cowardice Courage Rashness

Insensibility Temperance Self-indulgence

Stinginess Generosity Extravagance

Indecisiveness Self-control Impulsiveness

Secrecy Honesty Loquacity

Unirascibility Good temper Irascibility

Mock Modesty Truthfulness Boastfulness

Aristotle argued that there are actions that are automatically wrong in all
conceivable circumstances. Also, no one is by nature morally virtuous.
Moral virtues are developed through the repeated exercise of the acts.
Making it a habit to strike the “mean” should be the goal of any moral agent
aspiring to be virtuous in character. The performance of these rational
activities requires some time to completely develop the disposition that will
render one virtuous in character.

☐Life of REASON as the happiest (5/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

10
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 Aristotle also pointed out that it is important not only that man acts but
also that he should know. The latter refers to intellectual virtue. It
consists of wisdom, intelligence, and understanding. It is through
these virtues of thought that man is able to grasp, deliberate, and
discern the first principles and the truths concerning the particulars
and the universals. And this requires reason. Every excellent decision
presupposes an excellent reason. Decision is to the character while
deliberation and thought are to the intellect (White 1992).

Aristotle was clear in pointing out the important connection between

virtue and happiness. Anybody who aspires to live a happy life must
endeavor to live a virtuous life. The continued pursuit of their virtuous
person for the rational sovereign end is an expression of their
sovereign self. There is peace and self-respect gathered from living a
life of reason and virtue.

Aristotle enumerated some requisite characteristics that must

describe a morally virtuous agent when doing virtuous acts. Agents
who will find themselves lacking in these descriptions cannot be said
to be genuinely virtuous in character: (1) the agent must act in full
consciousness of what he is doing; (2) he must will his action and
pursue it for its own sake; and (3) the act must proceed from a fixed
and unchangeable disposition. Thus, you will not qualify as morally
virtuous if you only accidentally landed on the mean, if your choice
was forced on you, if you are unable to demonstrate consistency in
choosing the mean, or if you are only choosing to do good because
you see it is a way to attaining another end.

◼3.2 Normative Ethics: Theories of Conduct

11
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 In the previous part of the Module on Normative Ethics, we talked about
egoism, altruism and virtue-based ethics. Those are theories revolving
around the concept of what is good. Is good defined in terms of what is good
for the self? For others? Or, is it the case that one can be good to the self
when you do good to others? Egoism, altruism and virtue ethics can be
considered theories of value and focus on What do we value most?

In the second part of the Module on Normative Ethics, we will talk about
Theories of Conduct. Our decision on What is Right is conventionally divided
into Duty-based or Consequence-based notion. The former is called
Deontology and highlights the rightness of an action based on following a
rule. The latter is called Teleology and justifies that the act is right based on
the consequence of the action.

In recent development of philosophy, other areas of concerns have been

presented and these paved the way for more complex discussion on feminist
ethics, human (and animal) rights, and other acts which can be considered
unnecessary or heroic but are done by people nevertheless, the
supererogatory acts.

In Ethical concepts are, or purport to be, normative. Normativity means that

they command, oblige, recommend, or guide. Normative theories make
claim on us. But the question is, where does the authority over us come
from? We accept such claims simply because we consider them as part of
the real world, or that we voluntarily accept them being products of self-
reflections, or expression of our autonomy.

Moral philosophy aspires to understand the fact that human actions, unlike
the actions of the other animals, can be morally right or wrong. We already
have the idea that actions might be morally good or bad. The function of a
certain action must be determined in order to know what counts as a good
or bad action.

As rational beings, we are aware of, and therefore in control of, the principles
that govern our actions. A good action is one that constitutes its agent as the
autonomous and efficacious cause of her own movements. These properties
correspond, respectively, to Kant's two imperatives of practical reason.
Conformity to the categorical imperative renders us autonomous, and

12
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 conformity to the hypothetical imperative renders us efficacious. And in
determining what effects we will have in the world, we are at the same time
determining our own identities.

☐ 4.2.a Deontological/Duty Ethics (1/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Deontology comes from the Greek word deon which means “being
necessary” and refers to the study of duty (and obligation). Deontology
suggests that the ultimate standard of morality focuses on the right or wrong
of the action itself. In order words, the right or wrong is not affected by
external factors. The actions are not affected by the goodness or badness of
their consequences. To consider an action as moral is only because it
contains positive values in nature, and therefore we have the responsible to
do it.

For example, there are some old sayings like "to kill one as a warning
for a hundred" as what proponents of death penalty or supporters of
extrajudicial killing justify. Whether or not these methods can reduce the
number of crime, some innocent people will definitely be involved. Therefore,
these actions are immoral under any conditions.

One of the philosophers who strengthened deontology is Immanuel

Kant (1724-1804). He said that human beings have the faculty called rational
will. We act according to principles that we determine for ourselves. These
principles are not limited to our immediate surroundings but reflect on our
actions that affect the world and generations. We do not just act based on
natural animal instincts.

Our rational will triumphs over base impulse. We realize our capacity
to not mindlessly react to the environment and base impulse but to have
rational authority over things. This is agency, and with our agency we can
self-legislate or become autonomous authors of the law which we create as
basis for our action.

In life, we are often told which actions are right or wrong, but these are
based on what the authority figures say. Our parents, schools, government,
organizations have determined certain commands. What deontology does is
13
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 to show us our capacity for rational and moral reflection, whether to accept
those commands blindly or be enlightened with the reason behind them.
Should children be expected to comply and obey, or should they exercise
rational will to mature and survive in the complex world. With deontology,
we can validate the rules and laws and reject those that are irrational
because they are self-contradictory or self-destructive.

One of Several key points of the Kantian Theory

1.The importance of emphasising reason

Any moral behaviour must be based on a sense of goodwill. Our reason

enables us to differentiate right from wrong. Hence doing good in goodwill is
clearly the perfect scenario; but even if bad is done in goodwill after analysing
the action with reason is still morally acceptable.

2. Unconditionally taking up responsibility is of utmost importance

Everyone has the responsibility to comply with moral principles, but the
compliance of such principles is not merely done to achieve a certain
objective. One complies unconditionally since it is the moral thing to do. Kant
would consider this as moral. For example, doing good for other people’s
compliment is immoral It is only moral if we do good purely because we think
it is the right thing to do.

3. It is immoral to tell lies under any circumstance.

Kant believes that morals and ethics should be based on integrity. Without
integrity, there is no way to establish any ethical principles and values.

4. Treating people equally with no discrimination

If you agree that certain behaviour and the principles behind these behaviour
are moral, you may also accept that these behaviour be applied on yourself.
We cannot agree on one thing while behaving in another way.

14
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 ☐3.2.b. Teleological/ Utilitarianism/ Consequentialist Ethics (2/5)
(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

It seems that “bringing the greatest happiness to the majority” is a reasonable

principle to judge right and wrong. But what is “happiness” after all?
Is the happiness one gets from sex comparable to that from winning
the Nobel Peace Prize? How to measure the magnitude of happiness?
Regarding the definition of happiness, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and his
student John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) have distinctively different views.

What is happiness?

Bentham’s theory

Bentham thinks that all kinds of happiness in the world are the same
and have no difference in nature. The only difference lies in the magnitude
of different types of happiness. We can only say that one behaviour brings
relatively more happiness while another brings relatively less.

Mill’s theory

Mill is a student of Bentham. Regarding ‘what is happiness’, they both

have different views. He thinks that happiness is not only different in terms
of magnitude but also in terms of levels. Therefore, inferior happiness can
never be compared to superior happiness, no matter how much more there
are. Mill thinks that human beings have the ability to pursue superior
happiness, for example through the pursuance of the true, the good and the
beautiful. Superior happiness is often the happiness of the majority instead
of happiness of an individual.

☐3.2.c. Rights-based Ethics (3/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

Justice is the respect for rights of the society to pursue the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. According to J.S. Mill (1907):
15
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 “When we call anything a person’s right, we mean that he has a valid
claim on society to protect him in possession of it, either by force of
law, or by that of education and opinion. If he has what we consider a
sufficient claim, or whatever account, to have something guaranteed
to him be society, we say that he has a right to it.”

☐ 3.2.d. Feminist care ethics (4/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)
(Discussion (from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/)

Feminist ethics is not merely a branch of ethics but is instead “a way of doing
ethics” (Lindemann 2005, 4). Feminist Ethics believes that oppression
involves ignoring the marginalized and vulnerable sectors of the society.
Hence, it is committed to highlight the personal experience/s of the
oppressed people, especially in gendered ways.

It aims to understand, criticize, and correct:

(1) the binary view of gender,

(2) the privilege historically available to men, and/or
(3) the ways that views about gender maintain oppressive social
orders or practices that harm others, especially girls and women who
historically have been subordinated, along gendered dimensions
including sexuality and gender-identity.

Not all feminist ethicists are the same. Some operate on the binary and
criticize the privileging of men as the more morally worthy half of the binary.
They argue against the maintenance of such social order. Feminist ethicists
who are attentive to the intersections of multiple aspects of identity including
race, class, and disability, in addition to gender, focus more on criticizing and
correcting oppressive practices that harm and marginalize others who live at
these intersections.

In a broad sense, feminist ethics is fundamentally political (Tong 1993, 160).

This is not necessarily a feature of feminist ethics that distinguishes it from
“mainstream” ethics, however, since feminist analyses of ethical theory as
arising from material and nonideal contexts suggest that all ethics is political
whether its being so is recognized by the theorist or not.

16
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 The point of feminist ethics is, ideally, to change ethics for the better by
improving ethical theorizing and offering better approaches to issues.
Meaning to say, feminist ethics is not limited to gendered issues alone but to
analyses of moral experiences that share features with gendered issues or
that reflect the intersection of gender with other bases of oppression.

☐3.2.e. Supererogatory Actions (5/5)

(Put a mark on the box once you have finished this section)

When an act that is more than is necessary, that is supererogatory. It is good

but not morally required to be done. Meaning to say, even with a lesser
course of action is involved, it would still be an acceptable action. It differs
from a duty, which one is obliged to do. We can say that it is supererogatory
if we perform above and beyond a normative course of duty to further
benefits and functionality.

Whether an act is supererogatory or obligatory is, of course, debatable. For

instance, in many religion, donating money to charity is supererogatory.
Also, a nation state has no duty to protect the citizens of an adjacent nation
from crime committed to them, but some nation sends a peaceful intervention
into another country to help other people.

Erika Summers Effler (2010) undertook ethnographic fieldwork with anti–

death penalty activists STOP and the Catholic Workers who strive to alleviate
poverty. It was presented that in both of them, members face serious
problems that range from the broad to the intimately personal. These include
adverse political conditions, internal conflict, and financial difficulties and
daily frustration, etc. Effler (2010) finds that overcoming these obstacles,
recovering from failure, and maintaining the integrity of the group require a
constant process of emotional fine-tuning, and she demonstrates how
activists do this through thoughtful analysis and a lucid rendering of their
deeply affecting stories.

◼Conclusion of Module 3

☐ Summary

17
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 In this module, you have learned different normative ethical frameworks as
a reference guide to approach practicl and later on applied ethical
discussions. The frameworks discussed here include ideas and theories on
ultimate good, came as a reaction to the conceptual and logical flaws of
ethical relativism, which claims that moral values depend on the individual or
culture. This includes discussions on Egoism and Altruism, which later on
will be integral components of what is known as Virtue Ethics

The second part of this module discusses other normative ethical

frameworks ranging from deontology to rights-based ethics and more.
to approach practical and later on applied ethical discussions.

In the next module, you will learn that that different cultures are governed
by numerous value systems, and that they too have different standpoints on
the question of ethics and morality.

Guide Criteria for evaluating activities/responses and assesments

Rating Criteria
A = Excellent • Focused, Succinct Thesis
• Organized from the beginning to end to Support Thesis
• Effective, Germane Use of Textual Support
• Originality of Ideas
• Clear, Well Formulated Sentences
• Correct Citation Form, Well Documented
• Precise and Effective Language
• Fluid Transitions
B = Good • Focused, Succinct Thesis
• Adequately Organized to Support Thesis
• Some Originality of Ideas
• Textual Support not always Effective, Germane
• Mechanical Problems that do not Interfere with Readability
• Clear, Well Formulated Sentences
• Correct Citation Form, Well Documented
C = Fair • Unfocused, Weak Thesis
• Partially Organized to Support Thesis
• Paucity of Original Ideas
• Ineffective Textual Support
• Incomplete, Poorly Formulated Sentences
• Informal, inappropriate Language
• Careless Editing, Incorrect Citation Form
• Mechanical Errors that do not Interfere with Readability
D = Poor • No Thesis
• Lack of Organization
18
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.
 • No Original Ideas
• Little Textual Support, Irrelevant Appeal to Text
• Mechanical Errors that Interfere with Readability
• Lack of Editing, Incorrect/Missing Citation
• Inadequate Length, Underdevelopment of Ideas
U = Unacceptable • Plagiarism
• Inappropriateness
• Unintelligibility
• No Thesis
• No Organization/Structure
• Failure to Submit

19
Note that the course pack provided to you in any form is intended only for your use in connection with
the course that you are enrolled in. It is not for distribution or sale. Permission should be obtained from
your instructor for any use other than for what is intended.