PRELIMINARY TERM ACTIVITIES

THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF ETHICS

At the end of this module, students are expected to:
1. Understand the Definition of Ethics
2. Morality and other phases of Human Life
3. To learn about Human Acts

A deeper understanding of Ethics

Ethics is a branch of Philosophy that studies human acts and human conduct. Although
there are subjects that study human conduct such as psychology and Sociology. Ethics has a
deeper meaning in its standpoint by further delving into the aspect of human acts. They are
more concerned with the morality of human acts.

Noted definition of Ethics

1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human actions
2. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of morality
3. Ethics is the study of human conduct from the standpoint of morality
4. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference of right and wrong.

Relation of Ethics with Other Sciences

1. Ethics and Logic- Logic is the science of right thinking and while ethics is the science of
right living. Thinking and doing things go hand-in-hand, we cannot move without
thinking right the same way every action is guided by reason.
2. Ethics and Psychology- The two subjects dealt with the study of man, human nature
and human behaviour but that is all their similarity ends. Psychology only tell us the
causes of man’s actions that may by psychology or physiological but ethics tell us how
man should react. Ethics is interested in moral obligation while Psychology ends there.
3. Ethics and Sociology- as we all know, Sociology deals with the study of society as well
as the social order that regulates the society as a whole. But then what is the foundation
of their social order if there is no basis of right and wrong which is Ethics. Any society
is doomed to fail if devoid of correct basis of thinking.
4. Ethics and Economics- Napoleon once said that an army marches on its stomach, in
relation to economics mas has to fulfil is economic needs. The need for material wealth
is inherent in man has to fulfil is economic needs. The need for material wealth is
inherent in man that there are instances that economic topics needed ethical principles
such as capital-labor relations, profit interests, money et al. The need to settle these
conflicts must have ethical basis to incur equitable results.

Morality and Other Phases of Human Life

1. Ethics and Education- Education whether formal or informal is a never-ending process
and is the foundation of man’s moral, intellectual and physical capacities. But then
again education is illicit if it is not supported by ethics, they say ethics is life the same
way education is intertwined with life. Learning is good but learning supported by ethics
is better inasmuch as ethics is living right.
2. Ethics and Law- as mentioned in the previous module, not everything moral is legal and
not everything legal is moral. Meaning there are good things that do not need legislation
and immoral acts that the State may approve. But to further differentiate those laws
only used external acts while ethics cover man’s “acts” that play in his mind that will
not incriminate him in any statute. For example, a plan for a robbery if discovered is
not criminally liable in any court of law but ethics said it is a fault for such “act” is
intrinsically evil.
3. Ethics and Politics- Man in his constant search for happiness be it temporal or eternal
is never ending. They say politics and ethics are poles apart – in a certain point that is
correct it is the very reason why politics become dirty for they deviate from ethics. Man’s

ETHICS 1
 insatiable greed for wealth and power thru politics means absence of ethics. An ideal
state should be ethical state.
4. Ethics and Art- Ethics is about positive morality while art is beauty. Any work of art
that is beautiful, will give a positive outlook to the looker that will be greatly appreciated.
The purpose of art is for appreciation that ts contributory to man’s ethics.
5. Religion and Ethics- Religion is ethics and ethics is religion, they are interchangeable
for the any religious belief tends to ethical standards in relation to his most fundamental
tenet. What unities them all boiled down to three things namely: a) belief in the
Supernatural, b) man’s beginning and end, and c) right living.

Morality and Human Acts

Morality is the quality of goodness or badness in a human act. In this case, we base
judgement on any human act based on its ethically. The quality of an act may be justified
according to its gravity. An evil human act maybe considered “right” just as lob as it can be
justified which lead us to its norm of morality. By that term, we mean that the basis for
determining its correctness are the standard of the judging party and the reason why an act is
morally wrong or right.

Human Acts just like the word itself means actions of men that are done wilfully and
willingly. Keep in mind that scenarios beyond human control are not human acts such as
rainfall, sunset, earthquake even the beating of the heart or blood circulation are beyond
human act for these are actions man cannot control. In this case of assassinations where the
culprit pulled the trigger, the gun is not to blame but the doer of the action that caused taking
the life of another man. Once questioned he has the right to justify his action as either morally
right or wrong.

When do we say that an act is moral or immoral?

Give example of what we called morally evil.

ETHICS 2
 MORAL STANDARS AND HUMAN FREEDOM

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand moral standards in relation to human life
2. To learn the issue of voluntaries in human acts

Moral Standards
Morality must be noted, is present only in humanity. Meaning man can only be moral if
he is fully aware of his actions. Brutes have no morality for they are not guided by reason
hence they are not responsible for their actions and are not classified as human acts. Let us
be guided based on these principles:

1. Man is the only Moral being- due to three things: a) a man is capable of action, b) man
has intellect and c) mas has free will. Being capable of action man can employ his bodily
activities to perform actions. With man’s intellect he can discern the good or evilness of
his actions and at the same time equate the repercussions of his actions once asked to
justify them. Free will is present and inherent in men unless they are idiots and with
that they have the freedom of choice whether to perform or not the action at hand/
2. Man is a the highest form of Animal- endowed with intellect, man can decide what’s best
for him although their desires are the same with brutes such as hunger, thirst, pain
and sensual needs; man moves based on reason while their lower counterparts have
only instinct. Sentient beings like animals rely on instinct which are natural biological
drives, while men can decide whether an act is moral or not.
3. Man is a rational animal- Ratio is the Latin term for reason that means man has the
power to discern things based on his previous knowledge of things. Unlike brutes, man
has the power of abstraction - this is his ability to correlate ideas previously based on
his mind as well as his understanding of the situation at hand, thereby giving him a
logical or correct decision.
4. The intellect and will- they are correlative with each other because the intellect is the
agent of knowing while the will is the agent of choice. From intellect – knowledge is
stored this will then guide the will to decide which is basically “good”. They co-exist and
from their partnership “virtue” is born.

Voluntariness of Human Acts

A voluntary act is under the control of the intellect and the will and must be answerable
for their actions. As mentioned in the previous module, only human acts are valid in ethics
and at the same time possess moral significance. There are four types of voluntary acts and
they are:

1. Perfect voluntariness- when a person acts with the full knowledge and complete freedom
– we are fully aware of what we are doing.
2. Imperfect voluntariness- it is the disposition of a person doing the activity regardless to
his liking or not – this may be positive or negative. The former is by making him to do
something while the other is to prevent or stop him from doing things.
3. Conditional voluntariness- it is the situation when the person was forced by
circumstances or under duress which he would not do under normal circumstances.
Example is being extorted money by a neighbourhood toughie in exchange for his
“protection”.

But what modifiers may cloud the intellect and the will that may either reduce or increase
accountability:

Modifiers of Human Acts:

1. Ignorance- this simply means absence of knowledge. A doer’s responsibility for his
actions may be increased or decreased due to this. A person may have committed an
act for he is unaware of it. There are three types of ignorance and they are: Vincible
ignorance that can easily be corrected such as calling a person with a wrong name or
entering the wrong classroom. On the other hand Invincible ignorance – cannot be
rectified an example is a waiter who gave the wrong food to the customer or a killer that

ETHICS 3
 claimed the life of a wrong victim. The third is Affected ignorance - is the doer’s attempt
to escape responsibility such as a suspect denying his complicity in a crime he has done.
2. Passion- Psychic responses that may adhere or abhor them to either desirable or
undesirable tendencies. Positive emotions such as love, desire or hope are
manifestations of the first while hatred, horror and despair are example of negative
emotions. There are also two passions such as antecedent and consequent passions
wherein the former are passions that occur before the stimulus such as accidentally
meeting a special someone; while the other came after a stimuli we ourselves caused for
example meeting a special someone that we are already aware of his arrival.
3. Fear- it is the disturbance of the mind when confronted by danger to himself or a loved
one. Actions whether done with fear or out of fear may affect one’s action. If one moves
with fear this means he has to decide and yet is afraid he might err an example is an
amateur singer performing in front of a large crowd or driving a vehicle with limited
know-how in driving. Actions out of fear are situations that needed immediate decisions
such as jumping out of a plane about to crash land or run away from a violent situation.
4. Violence- it is physical force given to a free person coerce him to do or not to do
something. Physical threats such as torture, starvation or mutilation are examples pf
violence but was free will impaired? No, the free will is still a choice.
5. Habits- readiness to perform habitual acts. Habits are done mechanicaly that thinking
is no longer necessary may either be good or bad. It is second-nature to the doer and
doing instinct.

Does the presence of law hinders voluntariness of human act? Explain the legal maxim
Ignorance of the law excuses no one. Are there human acts that calls no law? Give
example.

ETHICS 4
 MORALITY

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1. To know the Two Fundamental Questions
2. To understand the Norms of Morality
3. To learn what are the Defective Moralities

The Two Fundamental Questions

Two important questions are raised one is “What Is Morality” and “What is the meaning
of life?”. The first question pertains to the rightness or wrongfulness of an act and what is the
basis of the judge concerned. These are ethical questions that up to this time, baffled sages
and peons alike and remain unanswered. The second is about the summon bonum (ultimate
good) of human existence, what is the very reason why man exist on this world?

In a nutshell, those two questions are related – Ethics is about morality which is the
bases of good, every time we decide on dilemmas using morality men experienced happiness
and that is “good”. The mere we attain happiness by doing good – closer we are to the Ultimate
Good. To sum it up, both questions boil down to two words “goodness” and “purpose”, a thing
that is of use is good for it has served its purpose. For example, a politician is good if he has
fulfilled his promise to the people after serving his term of office in doing so by being useful to
his constituent, he felt that he lived a worthy life. This will then be a step to reaching his
ultimate goal – the ultimate good. A good life will ultimately lead to ultimate happiness.

The Norms of Morality

Rationally speaking man acts in accordance to his nature, that human nature quantify
as justification as to why an act be it good or bad is performed. In doing so it conflicts with the
higher intelligence endowed to men. Is man basically good? We can say yes but of what context
of goodness is man supposed to follow? The morality of man follows a proximate norm and an
ultimate norm so where does human nature come in? As mentioned earlier man has baser
tendencies that is human nature equivalent to brutes that may come in the form of stimuli.
The proximate norm there is to follow human nature which is the low end of a human being.
On the other hand, the ultimate norm is to follow divine nature which are decisions that are
based on morality. For example the stimulus of hunger based on proximate norm simply means
to eat the food regardless as to whether it is for somebody else, spoilt or poisonous. Human
nature dictates that man has to satiate his hunger no matter what and may be considered
moral if we are to consider human nature. If man decides to study the situation by not initially
grabbing the “opportunity”, the he acted in relation to the ultimate norm.

However, we are not discarding human nature as a basis of human existence, man is a
social animal which is the nature of man’s need for association. In truth we can never reach
divine status but we must keep in mind that there is no conflict with the Natural Law and the
Eternal law (the Law of God). The Natural is patterned after the Eternal Law, man must adhere
to his nature of man which is using his intellect unlike human nature that is only to follow his
passions.

Defective Norms of Morality

Human Nature is a simple foundation of man but there are philosophies and they are:

1. Hedonism- this is also known as Philosophy of Pleasure that pleasure alone is the
primary purpose of man’s existence. It is true that man desires for happiness but a
happy life needed not be composed of pleasure alone. True happiness is seeking good
but wallowing in pleasure made man’s life baser than brutes.
2. Utilitarianism- is simply the ends of an action must be good, if it is not then the action
is unjustified. From the word “utility” it means that anything that is of use to the agent
is moral. There are two types of utilitarianism and they are individual utilitarianism and
social utilitarianism – the first known as egoism which is the definition given – the agent
is the one who will gain. Altruism is the other term for social utilitarianism but the
receiving factor is the society where the agent belongs.

ETHICS 5
 3. Moral Rationalism- simply states that human reason is the only foundation of morality
as postulated by German Philosopher Immanuel Kant which he dubbed as “Categorical
Imperative”. However as Kant further explained we have to do good because we ought
to be good in doing so he is implying blind obedience. In his philosophy “autonomy of
reason”, inasmuch as reason creates the law, it is “reasonable” for men to obey it without
question nor ambiguity. The general rule is that everyone thinks the same for men are
reasonable so conflict is a remote possibility.
4. Moral Positivism- states that morality is adherence to State Laws as philosophizes by
the English sage Thomas Hobbes. The State is the foundation of morality since laws are
geared for the common good apparently, an act is moral if he obeys the law and evil if
he disobeys it. Comparing to Moral Rationalism where reason is the law, Moral
Positivism only has the State Law as its source of morality.
5. Moral Evolutionism- in relation to Sociologist Herbert Spencer, morality just like
evolution is ever-changing until it reached its perfect form. Friedrich Nietsche added
that man was born with hardly any basis for right and wrong and their collective lives
is a never-ending struggle for change until they reach perfection.
6. Moral Sensism- Contrary to Moral Evolutionism men are born with a special moral sense
(not reason) that is comparable to the five senses. For example, man can easily
differentiate noise from music, salty from sweet as well as pleasant and unpleasant that
may also serve as means to moral judgment.
7. Communism- Although this is more of an economic theory its implication cannot be
denied and is geared for a classless society. They believed in the philosophy of material
dialectics that means two material things are the only ingredients necessary for change.
They deny the existence of God, the free will and immortality for they do not matter
being immaterial. Ergo, anything that will lead to a classless society is good and moral
and anything otherwise is evil and immoral.

WHEN DO YOU SAY THAT AN ACT IS USEFUL OR BAD? Elaborate your answer
according to the principle of Utilitarianism. How do they differ in the Hedonist point of
view?

ETHICS 6
 Dilemma

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand the importance of dilemma to human reasoning

2. To help the learner gauge his level of thinking
3. To discern one’s level of maturity

What is Dilemma?
A dilemma is an action situation in which an individual must decide on his own even if
it is against the society-accepted norms. It is the situation that measures one’s maturity. Below
is the scale used by Lawrence Kohlbeg in human reasoning.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s sequence of moral reasoning

Situation: You are a loving husband/wife whose spouse was suffering from terminal cancer.
At present, you are unemployed and cannot provide medicine for your suffering partner. One
morning, your beloved was screaming in pain and you are forced to find ways to ease the pain
or better yet eradicate it. You went to a drugstore that has opened, and the guard was out at
that moment and solitary sales agent was busy preparing herself. The medicine was there but
you are penniless to buy it, that is just within your reach and the chance was ripe to steal it.
Will you take the opportunity for your partner or back track to avoid committing? EXPLAIN
YOUR CHOICES OF ACTION IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATION .

Level 1: Pre Conventional Level- The concrete interests of an individual is merely rewards and
punishment. This is childish mentality that are only encouraged or discouraged based on what
they can get from the situation at hand.

Stage 1: “Obedience and Punishment Orientation”. People stick to the rules to avoid
punishment

Favor: If partner dies there will be trouble for you since you are a spouse and must make a
move instead of being idle.

Against: If you steal you might get caught if not your conscience will bother you, this means
that you have to make a move otherwise you will be punished by your conscience by not doing
so.

Stage 2:”Reward Orientation” – Rules are followed only for its benefits. Obedience occurred
because of the rewards. It means that the doer is only after what can he gain from the actions
he perform or did not perform.

Favor: If you steal and got caught just return the drug and forget everything. Somehow you
might end up in jail but the wife is still alive just the same

Against: The sin is committed is not the serious so a life term is impossible but it will still be a
lose-lose situation for this will temporarily save her life but may end up dead sooner or later.

Level 2: Convention Morality – People approach problems as members of society and would
like to be a role model.

Stage 3: “Good Boy Morality” – individuals show an interest in maintain the respect of others
and is doing what is expected of them.

Favor: To be a good father is to do everything for his family that if you do not steal the people
will label you as an “irresponsible father”

Against: If you steal the drug the people will tag you as a criminal” and will bring dishonour to
your family.

Stage 4: “Authority and Social Order maintaining Morality” – People conform to what is right
in a society.

ETHICS 7
Favor: If you have a sense of honor, you wouldn’t let your wife die by denying the only means
of saving her life. You will feel guilty and this will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Against: You are aware that stealing is evil but the effect of that shall be more painful once you
are sent to jail. You will feel guilty and will haunt you for the rest of your life. You are no longer
honourable.

Level 3: Post Conventional Morality: People use moral principles which is seen as broader than
any particular society.

Stage 5: “Morality of Rights and Laws” – People do what is right as a sense of obligation to law
and society, however they can be modified.

Favor: If you don’t steal you’ll lose the people’s respect for your avoided the act because of fear
and not reason

Against: If you steal you’ll lose your social standing for violating the law, don’t get carried away
by emotions

Stage 6: “Morality of an Individual Principle and Conscience” – a person follows laws based on
ethical principles. Laws that run counter to principles are violated.

Favor: If you don’t steal and wife dies, you won’t be condemned by society for you lived up to
your own expectations but did not live to your own standard of conscience

Against: If you steal the drug you will not be blamed by others but you’ll condemn yourself for
not living within your own conscience and your virtue of honesty.

ETHICS 8
 Culture in Moral Behavior

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand the role of culture in human behaviour
2. To give examples of cultural diversity between oriental and occidental societies

Culture in Moral Behavior Explained

Dr. Emma Butchel in her work, “Challenging the concept of Morality”, explained a
comparison of morality between Chinese and Western cultures. Both cultures have their
respective sense of morality that even conflicts the other. Her study also focused on the moral
and social concepts these two societies abide. One factor that polarized these civilizations is
their behavior that helped mold their people to what they are now, as they say tradition outlasts
a lifetime so they can no longer alter moralities that they are already used to. Both civilizations
once immersed with their own, classify “odd” behavior reprehensible that they branded them
as either major offense, minor offense or at least tolerable however there are behavior that may
be integrated to their civilization. One example was during the time of Maoist China, western
culture was considered a taboo that fashion for them is non-entity but with the transition of
Communist.

China to a capitalism – the very reason why the Chinese society adhered to Marxist
ideology, western culture made China into one of the richest country in the world. Cultural
blas made people fail to see the moral principle of their counterpart. Many societies even in the
past adhere to ethnocentrism, an idea that their culture alone is the only thing that matters
and at the same time dismissed others as either “uncouth” or “barbaric”. So why waste time
with societies below their situation? In this case, western morality is “blind” to Asian values
and as mentioned cultural bias clouded their judgment that they can’t seem to understand the
morality of another person’s culture is the foundation of their morality.

The Hindus and some Asian countries used arrange marriages to ensure a good future
for their children that western countries find overlapping with their freedom of choice. Another
example was raised and it was the educational system that divided the occidental and from
the oriental thought. Oriental schools believed in the “infallibility” of teachers that they are the
only source of knowledge and should not be questioned whereas the occidentals rely on the
idea that students have every right to debate with their teachers that even the philosopher
Socrates subscribed to. Flexibility and broadmindedness are the two things that can help
bridge the gap between the two opposing cultures. By opening our minds and removing
whatever bias we have can have room to put ourselves in the shoes of others and will help
usher global unity.

Man by nature tends to do good so the culture of other people especially those we held
with contempt or mirth also have goodness in them. There is nothing wrong to understand
another person’s morality devoid of cultural bias/

What is Culture?
According to David Brinkenhoff and Lynn White culture is the whole idea that provides
a blueprint for living. It is a powerful force that lived in all peoples that tells us what is right
from wrong. Eating dogs for example is tolerated in the Philippines but is totally banned in the
United States and other Western countries. That is because not everything we do is acceptable
to others.

According to Alan Johnson culture is the sum of symbols, ideas, forms, expressions and
material products associated with a social system. Edward Taylor defined culture as the
complex whole which includes beliefs, arts, laws, morals, customs and habits acquired by
people as members of society.
Symbols are manifestations of culture and are anything that represents more than itself
an example is a cross that to some it is just an object or figure formed by two short intersecting
lines or pieces but has several meanings. There are four kinds of symbols namely 1) Symbolic
objectives – they may mean a flag to represent a nation a currency to mean a nation’s medium
of exchange. 2) Symbolic characteristics of object – purple for royalty, yellow for cowardice and

ETHICS 9
red for war. 3) Gestures – actions that can give cultural control. 4) Spoken and written words
– the most important set of symbols in every culture for it is the building block used to
construct ideas.
Culture Defined as that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief art, morals,
law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.
Leslie A. White referred to culture as an organization of Phenomena that is dependent upon
symbols, phenomena which include acts{pattern of Behavior}; objects {tools and things made
by tools}; ideas {beliefs Knowledge}; and sentiments {attitude, values}. In this sense culture
means the entire way of life followed by a people and everything learned and shared by people
in society. It include all socially standardize ways of seeing and thinking about the world, ways
of establishing preferences and goals, and rules which generate and guide behaviour. More
specifically, the culture of a particular people of any society is everything that one must learn
to behave in ways that are recognizable to those people.
Another ways of expressing this is to speak of differing perceptions. Persons from varied
cultural backgrounds see the same objects and situations differently. To manileño or
manileña, for example, a tree maybe a natural resource which provides lumber in the o, shade,
or natural beauty. To a Tiruray in the mountains of Cotabato or to a Negrito in the hinterlands
of Negros Oriental or Zambales, a tree maybe viewed as a living thing with a spirit of its own
and with needs, wishes, perceptions and desires. The differences in the perception of things
define reality for the people and often that which governs our actions is not what we actually
see but what we believe. When a group of people believe in the reality of omens and spirits,
the omen and spirits are real to them and this perception will govern their actions. The poet
T.S. Eliot describe culture as simply the way of life of a particular people living in one place.
Culture also includes people’s material inventions and accomplishments such as tools
weapons, instruments, and the like. Bolos missiles, atomic bombs, and cars, for example, are
part of a person’s culture and form much of his/her social heritage. These material aspects of
culture, called artifacts, tell must about the things a people value and the processes with which
those people provide solutions to their biology l and cultural needs, In fact, an Anthropologist,
who specializes in archaeology, can reconstruct the social and cultural life of prehistoric people
by carefully examining the material objects unearthed from archaeological sites. For instance
on the basis of archaeological findings, Professor Jocano estimates that a fairly complex human
society existed in the Philippines 25,000 years ago.
The cultural element of human existence, however, are not primarily physical, but
mental or ideational. The things that really count are ideas and meanings. A piece of metal
maybe a material artefact, but the important thing about it is its meaning within a given
cultural setting. It may be used as a setting. It may be used as a weapon in one culture; in
another it maybe hang around a person’s neck as an amulet to ward off hostile
environmental spirits. Scholars generally agree that the key to culture lies in the minds of
individuals and a people’s menti-facts or ideas are the foundation of culture.
IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE
Culture is what distinguishes human beings from the lower animal forms, making them
unique. For, whereas the social system sustained by some insect communities are shaped
exclusively by biologically genetic forces, the social systems of people are shaped by culture.
Only men produced culture and, in turn, culture producdesmen; I,e., culture shapes a man
in terms of its own design, image, and style and has enabled him to become preeminent in the
animal kingdom. The importance of culture becomes apparent when we consider the
limitations of a person’s natural state. By nature, humans are tropical creatures. Without
culture they cannot survive cold. They do not possess sharp teeth, claws, or great speed of
defense. They have no natural tools for digging, climbing,, or killing to obtain food. Human
offspring are unable to care for themselves for years and so are burdens to their mothers
seeking to survive.
Without culture humans would be greatly disadvantaged compared to other animals,
and perhaps hardly multiply in number. Fortunately, our highly developed brain enables us
to create culture, which help us to overcome our physical disadvantages and allow us to
provide ourselves with fire, clothing, food, and shelter. Through culture, we can lived in either
an arctic or tropical environment and can make tools and weapons to defend ourselves and
secure food. The length of infancy ensures that our progeny will have an extended training
period in which to learn our culture.

ETHICS 10
LANGUAGE AND THE TRANSMISSION OF CULTURE
What gives human beings prominence is the fact that they are the only living creatures
known to be capable of communicating intricate system of symbols, storing knowledge, and
transmitting this knowledge to a new generation. Because of language people do not have to
start anew at birth to develop a way of life. They build upon and improved the accumulated
wisdom of the past. According to Professor Murdock: Without Language, man would be little
better off than the animals. In a society without language, each individual would have to begin
exactly where his parents began; he could possesses no habits, no group habit ; his behaviour
in short, would be confined to the organic level. Professor Murdock further cites evidence
showing that non-human creatures have habit-forming capacity, social life, and intelligence,
but they fall short of possessing culture. Studies have clearly demonstrated that the
anthropoid apes possesses intelligence… of an order comparable to that of man, inferior only
in degree; that both apes and men, for example, solve problems by intelligent behaviour as
opposed to the mere trial-and-error learning characteristic at the rest of the animal world. Yet,
in spite of their intelligence the apes lack culture.
The great difference is the lack of language among apes. Language is the key factor in
the success of the human race in creating and preserving culture. For without language, the
ability to convey ideas and traditions is impossible. With language, persons can perpetuate
and pass on knowledge from one generation to the next. Language is also the one way we
classify human beings. One example is the higher prestige assigned to speakers of English or
Filipino in the Philippines.

CHARACTERSTICS OF CULTURE
Culture is learned

If a child born in the Philippines of a Filipino parents were move shortly after birth to
Japan and brought up with Japanese parents, he/she would develop none of the traits of
Filipino culture. Instead, he/she manifest all the behaviour patterns of the Japanese,
including language and dietary practices. Among the many sources of learning, the most
important is usually the family or parents, playmates, work companions, schools, churches,
books, television, radio, movies, computers, and the like are traditional sources. Although
humans, like animals, learn much by simple imitation, many important parts of culture are
taught largely by precept. One can imagine the number of children who would fail to survive
childhood if they had to learn the danger of poison by experience rather than by being warned
and scolded.
T.S. Eliot argues that not only does the family transmit culture, but upper class family
is to serve as a model of the essence of the culture of the group. Upper class culture is merely
an aspect of the culture of the total society. However the greater leisure, wealth and prestige
of the upper class family gives it an advantage both in acquiring a complex culture and in
transmitting it to the young.

Poor people sometimes called the lower class may have only limited education and little
exposure to literature, art, or music. However they learn how to live and enjoy life even when
money is scarce and they pass on this part of the culture to their children. Also the kind of
folk of customary traditions one sees in fiestas are often preserved mainly by the poor. It is
true that the rich often represent the culture in its most elaborate form, but all people
participate in a given culture, In fact, those we call primitive often have cultural traditions of
kinship and religion which are more complex than those of more modern people. To
understand a society’s culture, it is necessary to understand the life of all groups which make
up the society.

CULTURE IS SHARED
Each person have probably has a few idiosyncrasies-things not done by anyone else within
the group. These individual habits are not part of the culture because they are not shared,

ETHICS 11
but they could become so if they are learned by the others and become the customary actions
of the group

CULTURE IS CUMULATIVE
Knowledge is stored and passed on from generation to generation and new knowledge is
constantly being added to the existing stock while information which is no longer useful is
slowly discarded. Each culture has worked out solutions to the basic problems of life, which
it then passes on its children. Consequently, children gain free time to devote of making
changes or improvements in facing new situations. The jeepneys and pedicabs in the
Philippines are good example of the cumulative quality of culture. Their inventions involved
the use of materials which were invented in different parts of the world.
CULTURE IS DYNAMIC
A character of culture that stems from its cumulative quality. No culture is ever in a
permanent state. It is constantly changing. The changes may be imperceptible, but they are
changes nonetheless. The practices of today will never be the same tomorrow. A culture is
always changing because new ideas and new techniques are constantly added and old ways
modified or discarded. This is as true for the most isolated and simple society as it is for a
highly complex one. The degree of change and the rate of change may vary enormously. Change
is slow in a primitive, isolated society and rapid in a contemporary institutionalized society.
Nowhere does the culture of a group remain static. Culture also grows by the spread of traits
from individual to individual and from one group to another. The spread of a culture trait is
called diffusion, which is the principal source of culture change. Diffusion taking place within
the group that is, from individual to individual is sometimes called primary diffusion.
Intergroup or intersociety diffusion is the passing of traits from one society to another. The
term borrowing is used for the group that adapts the new element. One form of diffusion is
the movement of words from one language to another. Philippine languages have borrowed so
many words from Spanish, Chinese, and English. There is also a reverse process as words
from the various regional languages have made their way into English.
CULTURE IS DIVERSE
The sum total human culture consist of a great many separate cultures, each different.
Even in such a basic problem as child care, there are great number of workable alternatives.
People, therefore, must be careful to avoid assuming that their way of doing things is the only
practical or right way. One of the goals of this chapter is to illustrate the great diversity of
cultural behaviour. Finally, each culture is a whole, system with many mutually
interdependent parts. For example, the choice of a marriage partner involves many different
parts of a culture, religion, economic class,, age, education, and ideals of beauty and romance
all play a role.
CULTURE AS SYSTEM OF NORMS
One of the salient qualities we have noted about culture is that it provides us with
guidelines for action and proper conduct in our day-to-day interaction with others. Another
way of saying this is that culture tells us how things should be done. Thus we say that culture
is normative since it regulates our actions and conduct. A norm is nothing but a behaviour
expectation, an idea of how people are supposed to act and behave. For example, in the rural
areas of the Visayas and Mindanao {and to a much lesser extent in the cities}, when a death
occurs relatives, friends, and neighbors come and contribute some amount of money to the
family. The contribution is usually placed on a plate or in a box near the deceased. They are
no longer expected to help make the coffin. The bereaved family serves food to the visitor
during the nine days of prayers, after the day of the burial, during the last day of the prayer
for the dead, and the end of the first year of the death {hukbos or babang luksa}.
Another behavior expectation concerns the keeping of the family purse. Usually, Filipino
Husbands are expected to turn over the monthly paycheque to their wives who keep the family
budget. In the United States, this is usually reversed the husband is in charge of the family
finances. In recent years, however, in both the Philippines and the United States, as more and
more marriage patterns both work outside the home, the management of the family finances
is a shared endeavour. Such in the case with culture, it consists of a complex and elaborate
network of expected, standardized ways of acting and feeling which members of a society follow
more or less strictly.
DO ANIMALS POSSESS CULTURE? Why? or Why not? Explain your answer.

ETHICS 12
Does culture today brought development of mankind? Does culture brought catastrophist in
our modern development? Explain ?

Filipino Culture and Morality

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand the meaning of cultural relativism
2. To prove why cultural differences are not applicable to Ethics
3. To make a comparison between Filipino psyche and Asian thinking

Cultural Relativism
Culture relativity is a concept that cultural norms and values must be understood based
on the culture he is adhered to. As the saying goes, “different strokes for different folks” which
simply means that if I am to understand a situation the explanation must primary begin with
my own culture. According to William Graham Sumner, in his book entitled “Folkways” written
in 1906 culture can only be understood in its own value and content. Example is December
30 to the Filipinos it is value for it is Rizal Day but it is worthless to the Americans and the
Japanese. On the other hand, February 22 is Washington’s Birthday to the Americans but of
no value to the Filipinos or the Japanese. Same is true every February 6 which is the
Foundation of the Japanese Empire but is just an ordinary day to Filipino and American
calendars. The example reflects the significance or insignificance of these dates reflecting a
national holiday to some and an ordinary day to others. In the first place who is Jose Rizal to
the Japanese and Americans but he is adored in the Philippines.

Conversely George Washington is just a face in a one-dollar bill as far as Filipinos and
Japanese are concerned but a revered persona in America.

It is impossible to understand what the actions of members of other groups mean if we

analyse them in terms of our motives and values. We must interpret their behaviour in the
light of their motives, habits, and values. The same behaviour has different meanings in
different cultures and we must look at the behaviour in relation to the culture of society in
which it takes place. In short, the meaning of behaviour is related to the culture in which it
occurs.

Many examples can be cited of behaviour which has a different meaning in different
cultural contexts. If an employee in a manila business office stays home until noon on a
weekday, this probably indicates either illness or a lack of sense of responsibility. The same
thing could not be said of the farmer, since his/her labor varies with the season rather with
the day of the week and, during the interval between harvest and the next planting, these is
little field work to do. The interaction of Americans and Filipinos in business activities has
also brought about behaviour which has to be interpreted in the light of cultural backgrounds.
Americans assume that a frank, concise, rather brusque approach in which constructive
criticism is freely voiced is a sign of acceptance, whereas Filipinos tend to take this type of
approach as rather resulting, involving rejection and a loss of face.
Although Philippine culture is assuming a greater degree of uniformity throughout the
country, there are still sub cultural differences which affect the meaning of behaviour. One
difference that is rapidly disappearing concerns the relations of clothes and modesty. Urban
night clubs come as close as the Law allows in featuring topless female entertainers. However,
in remote mountain districts, bare-breasted women go about their tasks with no thought of
sexual suggestions but quickly run for cover when word spreads that lowlanders with a
different cultural interpretation are in the vicinity, similarly, if a lowland boy and a girl
announce they were through living with their parents and were going to sleep elsewhere, this
would be taken as a sign of revolt against parental authority. Among the Bontocs, the practice
of the young sleeping in separate buildings is the normal behaviour pattern expected of
conventional Bontoc youth.

ETHICS 13
 Considerations of cultural Relativism are open brought up in relation to the question as
to whether subcultures should be exempted from laws which are otherwise applicable to the
entire country. The principle of cultural relativism has been used to support the stand that
subgroups should be exempted from laws which run contrary to their own mores. This has
been especially true of laws relating to marriage and divorce. Christian Filipinos take it for
granted that polygamy is wrong and, with somewhat less unanimity, have also agreed to outlaw
divorce. But Filipino Muslim and some of the animistic mountain groups feel that these
regulations are based on the culture of Christian society and have no relation to their norms.
Sociologists are sometimes accused of understanding morality with their concept of
cultural relativism and the claim that almost everything is right somewhere. From this it may
be surmised that, if right and wrong are merely social conventions, one might as well do as
she/he pleases. This is a grave misunderstanding. It is approximately true that “everything
is considered wrong somewhere” but not everywhere. The central point of cultural relativism
is that, in a particular cultural setting, certain traits are right because they work in that setting
while other traits are wrong because they clash painfully with parts of the culture.

There may be some traits which should be judged wrong by an absolute standard in any
culture. One for instance, is human sacrifice which was widespread in the past, but which few
people would defend today. Even here, however, it is necessary to understand the relation of
the trait to the total culture. Human sacrifice was usually the final act in a ritual which
emphasized the solidarity of the group and their belief in themselves and in supernatural
powers. Hence, the trait cannot be seen in isolation, but must be looked at in relation to its
context. If it is desirable to abolish this or other cultural traits, the question always remains.
“What type of substitution or other adjustment will serve the function of the trait discarded?”
Ethics and Cultural Relativism
Before we delve into that let us define ethical relativism, it is theory that holds that
morality is related to the tenets of his culture. Right or wrong a certain belief that prevailed in
a culture is shared by everyone. In a nutshell, everybody thinks the same way dictated. This
is universality in a culture for as what everyone believed, culture is shared by everyone and
denial of their practices is a pariah among their ranks. However not everyone shared their
beliefs because blind obedience denies man his fundamental right of his freedom of choice.
With his free will, he can decide what is right or wrong but he is aware of what his culture
dictates him what to obey. For example during the Second World War, NAZI Germany believed
that the extermination of Jews is the “final solution” that may be akin to ethnic cleansing. The
dictates of their Fuehrer Adolf Hitler has to be taken into account by every German and is
expected that every German must obey profiteer Oscar Schindler who saved twelve hundred
Jews from the Auschwitz Concentration Camp to work in his metal factory. This proves that
ethical relativism is untrue. To discuss further, although Communist China Party Chairman
believed in the apogee of communism of human development and abhorred western culture
his successors believed otherwise among them were Deng Xiaoping who even went to the US
and begin China’s rise to industrialization – the worst enemy of the communist/socialist
ideology.

Filipino Psyche and Morality

Being a nation of multi-cultural race, Filipinos are also cosmopolitan that our hospitality
extends to almost every nation in the world. Filipinos are a happy people that are known for
their hospitality, subtleness, patient and fun-loving. Despite coming from a third world
country, personal and family honor are given priority if given a choice. They value education
highly that poverty is not an excuse to get a scholastic degree. At an early age Filipinos consider
shame as the worst among negative trait they avoid they value dignity as an important value
in life that they cannot live in a society that consider them as outcast. Spanish and American
colonial rule that lasted for more than four centuries are the major ingredients in the Filipino
psyche.

Comparing Filipinos to other Asian nations they are generally more easy-going that their
Asian counterparts. In a study conducted by the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk
Constituency (PERC) the Filipinos are “the easiest people in Asia to get along with.” Being a
happy people that is understandable. In the 2006 Happy Planet Index (HPI), the Philippines

ETHICS 14
ranked 17th out of the 178 countries with the progressive United States at 150. This means to
show that materialism is not a primary source of Filipino happiness. In a study conducted by
Howard, he described Filipinos as nice, cheerful and open people, everyone is welcomed even
social misfits being the most non-judgmental and the least racist country in Asia. Filipino
negative rants in an article written by Alisa Krutovsky mentioned that Filipinos have colonial
mentality and are often tardy during appointments.

Differentiate amalgamation, acculturation, and enculturation. Will there be acculturation

without assimilation?

ETHICS 15
 MIDTERM ACTIVITIES

THE FILIPINO WAY

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1. To submit an essay wherein they narrate a personal experience
2. To analyse how problem were rooted in Filipino qualities
3. To recommend how they would have done things differently.

A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People--Building a Nation by Patricia Licuanan

(Source)

The events at EDSA in February 1986 not only ousted a dictator, but also demonstrated
to the world and to ourselves our great strengths as a people. At EDSA we saw courage,
determination and strength of purpose; we saw unity and concern for one another; we saw
deep faith in God; and even in the grimmest moments, there was some laughter and humor.
We were proud of ourselves at EDSA and we expected great changes after our moment
of glory. Today, sometime after, we realize that most of our problems as a nation still remain.
We may have ousted a dictator, but that was the easy part. The task of building a nation is so
much more difficult. Now, with EDSA only an inspiring memory, we are faced with our
weaknesses. Self-interest and disregard for the common good rears its ugly head. We are
confronted with our lack of discipline and rigor, our colonial mentality, and our emphasis
on porma (form). Despite our great display of people's power, now we are passive once more,
expecting our leaders to take all responsibility for solving our many problems.
The task of building our nation is an awesome one. There is need for economic recovery.
There is need to re-establish democratic institutions and to achieve the goals of peace and
genuine social justice. Along with these goals, there is a need as well to build ourselves as a
people. There is need to change structures and to change people.
Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses and developing our strengths; this
starts with the analysis, understanding, and appreciation of these strengths and weaknesses.
We must take a good look at ourselves--objectively with scientific detachment, but also
emotionally (i.e., lovingly) and, when appropriate, with disgust. We must view ourselves as
might a lover viewing a loved one but also as might a judge capable of a harsh verdict. We must
not be self-flagellating, but neither can we afford to be defensive.
We must change, and for this understanding ourselves is the first step.

STRENGTHS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

Pakikipagkapwa-Tao (regard for others). Filipinos are open to others and feel one with others.
We regard others with dignity and respect, and deal with them as fellow human
beings. Pakikipagkapwa-tao is manifested in a basic sense of justice and fairness, and in
concern for others. It is demonstrated in the Filipino's ability to empathize with others, in
helpfulness and generosity in times of need (pakikiramay), in the practice of bayanihan or
mutual assistance, and in the famous Filipino hospitality.
Filipinos possess a sensitivity to people's feelings or pakikiramdam, pagtitiwala or trust,
and a sense of gratitude or utang-na-loob. Because of pakikipagkapwa-tao, Filipinos are
very sensitive to the quality of interpersonal relationships and are very dependent on
them: if our relationships are satisfactory, we are happy and secure.
Pakikipagkapwa-tao results in camaraderie and a feeling of closeness one to another. It
helps promote unity as well a sense of social justice.
Family Orientation. Filipinos possess a genuine and deep love for the family, which includes
not simply the spouses and children, parents, and siblings, but also grandparents, aunts,
uncles, cousins, godparents, and other ceremonial relatives. To the Filipino, one's family
is the source of personal identity, the source of emotional and material support, and the
person's main commitment and responsibility.

ETHICS 16
 Concern for family is manifested in the honor and respect given to parents and elders,
in the care given to children, the generosity towards kin in need, and in the great sacrifices
one endures for the welfare of the family. This sense of family results in a feeling of
belonging or rootedness and in a basic sense of security.

Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach to life and its ups and
downs. There is a pleasant disposition, a sense of humor, and a propensity for happiness
that contribute not only to the Filipino charm, but to the indomitability of the filipino
spirit. Laughing at ourselves and our trouble is an important coping mechanism. Often
playful, sometimes cynical, sometimes disrespectful, we laugh at those we love and at
those we hate, and make jokes about our fortune, good and bad.
This sense of joy and humor is manifested in the Filipino love for socials and
celebrations, in our capacity to laugh even in the most trying of times, and in the appeal
of political satire.
The result is a certain emotional balance and optimism, a healthy disrespect for power
and office, and a capacity to survive.

Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity. Filipinos have a great capacity to adjust, and to adapt
to circumstances and to the surrounding environment, both physical and social.
Unplanned or unanticipated events are never overly disturbing or disorienting as the
flexible Filipino adjusts to whatever happens. We possess a tolerance for ambiguity that
enables us to remain unfazed by uncertainty or lack of information. We are creative,
resourceful, adept at learning, and able to improvise and make use of whatever is at hand
in order to create and produce.
This quality of the Filipino is manifested in the ability to adapt to life in any part of the
world; in the ability to make new things out of scrap and to keep old machines running;
and, of course, in the creative talent manifested in the cultural sphere. It is seen likewise
in the ability to accept change.
The result is productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship, equanimity, and survival.

Hard work and Industry. Filipinos have the capacity for hard work, given proper conditions.
The desire to raise one's standard of living and to possess the essentials of a decent life
for one's family, combined with the right opportunities and incentives, stimulate the
Filipino to work very hard. This is manifested most noticeably in a willingness to take
risks with jobs abroad, and to work there at two or three jobs. The result is productivity
and entrepreneurship for some, and survival despite poverty for others.

Faith and Religiosity. Filipinos have a deep faith in God. Innate religiosity enables us to
comprehend and genuinely accept reality in the context of God's will and plan. Thus,
tragedy and bad fortune are accepted and some optimism characterizes even the poorest
lives.
Filipinos live very intimately with religion; this is tangible--a part of everyday life. We
ascribe human traits to a supernatural God whom we alternately threaten and thank, call
upon for mercy or forgiveness, and appease by pledges. Prayer is an important part of our
lives.

The faith of the Filipino is related to bahala na, which, instead of being viewed as defeatist
resignation, may be considered positively as a reservoir of psychic energy, an important
psychological support on which we can lean during difficult times. This pampalakas ng
loob allows us to act despite uncertainty.
Our faith and daring was manifest at EDSA and at other times in our history when it
was difficult to be brave. It is seen also in the capacity to accept failure and defeat without
our self-concept being devastated since we recognize forces external to ourselves as
contributing to the unfolding of events in our lives.
The results of the Filipino's faith are courage, daring, optimism, inner peace, as well as
the capacity to genuinely accept tragedy and death.

Ability to Survive. Filipinos have an ability to survive which is manifested in our capacity for
endurance despite difficult times, and in our ability to get by on so little. Filipinos make

ETHICS 17
 do with what is available in the environment, even, e.g., by eking out a living from a
garbage dump. This survival instinct is related to the Filipinos who bravely carry on
through the harshest economic and social circumstances. Regretfully, one wonders what
we might be able to do under better circumstances.

WEAKNESSES OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

Extreme Personalism. Filipinos view the world in terms of personal relationships and the extent
to which one is able personally to relate to things and people determines our recognition
of their existence and the value. There is no separation between an objective task and
emotional involvement. This personalism is manifested in the tendency to give personal
interpretations to actions, i.e., to "take things personally." Thus, a sincere question may
be viewed as a challenge to one's competence or positive feedback may be interpreted as
a sign of special affection. There is, in fact, some basis for such interpretations as Filipinos
become personal in their criticism and praise. Personalism is also manifested in the need
to establish personal relationships before any business or work relationship can be
successful.

Extreme Family-Centeredness. While concern for the family is one of the Filipino's greatest
strengths, in the extreme it becomes a serious flaw. Excessive concern for the family
creates an in-group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the detriment of concern for
the larger community or the common good.

Lack of Discipline. The Filipino's lack of discipline encompasses several related characteristics.
We have a casual and relaxed attitude towards time and space which manifests itself in
lack of precision and compulsiveness, in poor time management and in procrastination.
We have an aversion to following strictly a set of procedures, which results in lack of
standardization and quality control. We are impatient and unable to delay gratification or
reward, resulting in the use of short cuts, skirting the rules (the palusot syndrome) and
in foolhardiness. We are guilty of ningas cogon, starting out projects with full vigor and
interest which abruptly die down, leaving things unfinished.

Passivity and Lack of Initiative. Filipinos are generally passive and lacking in initiative. One
waits to be told what has to be done. There is a strong reliance on others, e.g., leaders
and government, to do things for us. This is related to the attitude towards authority.
Filipinos have a need for a strong authority figure and feel safer and more secure in the
presence of such an authority. One is generally submissive to those in authority, and is
not likely to raise issues or to question decisions.

Colonial Mentality. Filipinos have a colonial mentality which is made up of two dimensions: the
first is a lack of patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation, and love of the
Philippines; the second is an actual preference for things foreign.
The Filipino colonial mentality is manifested in the alienation of the elite from their roots
and from the masses, as well as in the basic feeling of national inferiority that makes it
difficult for Filipinos to relate as equals to Westerners.

Kanya-Kanya Syndrome. Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving attitude that generates a feeling
of envy and competitiveness towards others, particularly one's peers, who seem to have
gained some status or prestige. Towards them, the Filipino demonstrated the so-called
"crab mentality", using the levelling instruments of tsismis, intriga and unconstructive
criticism to bring others down. There seems to be a basic assumption that another's gain
is our loss.
The kanya-kanya syndrome results in the dampening of cooperative and community
spirit and in the denial of the rights of others.

Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. There is a tendency in the Filipino to be superficial

and even somewhat flighty. In the face of serious problems both personal and social, there
is lack of analysis or reflection. Joking about the most serious matters prevents us from
looking deeply into the problem. There is no felt need to validate our hypotheses or

ETHICS 18
 explanations of things. Thus we are satisfied with superficial explanations for, and
superficial solutions to, problems.

ROOTS OF THE FILIPINO CHARACTER

The strengths and weaknesses of the Filipino have their roots in many factors such as:
(1) the home environment, (2) the social environment, (3) culture and language, (4) history, (5)
the educational system, (6) religion, (7) the economic environment, (8) the political
environment, (9) mass media, and (10) leadership and role models.

The Family and Home Environment. Childbearing practices, family relations, and family
attitudes and orientation are the main components of the home environment.
Childbearing in the Filipino family is characterized by high nurturance, low
independence training, and low discipline. The Filipino child grows up in an atmosphere
of affection and over protection, where one learns security and trust, on the one hand,
and dependence, on the other. In the indulgent atmosphere of the Filipino home, rigid
standards of behavior or performance are not imposed, leading to a lack of discipline.
Attempts to maintain discipline come in the form of many "no's" and "don'ts" and a
system of criticism to keep children in line. Subtle comparisons among siblings also are
used by mothers to control their children. These may contribute to the "crab mentality."
In a large family where we are encouraged to get along with our siblings and other
relatives, we learn pakikipagkapwa-tao. In an authoritarian setting we learn respect for
age and authority; at the same time we become passive and dependent on authority.
In the family, children are taught to value family and to give it primary importance.

The Social Environment. The main components of the social environment are social structures
and social systems such as interpersonal religious and community interaction. The
social environment of the Filipino is characterized by a feudal structure with great gaps
between the rich minority and the poor majority. These gaps are not merely economic
but cultural as well, with the elite being highly westernized and alienated from the
masses. This feudal structure develops dependence and passivity.
The Filipino is raised in an environment where one must depend on relationships
with others in order to survive. In a poor country where resources are scarce and where
the systems meant to respond to people's needs can be insensitive, inefficient, or non-
existent, the Filipino becomes very dependent on kinship and interpersonal
relationships.

Culture and Language. Much has been written about Filipino cultural values. Such
characteristics such as warmth and person orientation, devotion to family, and sense of
joy and humor are part of our culture and are reinforced by all socializing forces such
as the family, school, and peer group.
Filipino culture rewards such traits and corresponding behavioral patterns
develop because they make one more likable and enable life to proceed more easily.
Aside from emphasizing interpersonal values, Filipino culture is also
characterized by an openness to the outside which easily incorporates foreign elements
without a basic consciousness of our cultural core. This is related to our colonial
mentality and to the use of English as the medium of instruction in schools.

History. We are the product of our colonial history, which is regarded by many as the culprit
behind our lack of nationalism and our colonial mentality. Colonialism developed a
mind-set in the Filipino which encouraged us to think of the colonial power as superior
and more powerful. As a second-class citizen beneath the Spanish and then the
Americans, we developed a dependence on foreign powers that makes us believe we are
not responsible for our country's fate.
The American influence is more ingrained in the Philippines because the
Americans set up a public school system where we learned English and the American

ETHICS 19
 way of life. Present-day media reinforce these colonial influences, and the Filipino elite
sets the example by their western ways.

The Educational System. Aside from the problems inherent in the use of a foreign language in
our educational system, the educational system leads to other problems for us as a
people. The lack of suitable local textbooks and dependence on foreign textbooks,
particularly in the higher school levels, force Filipino students as well as their teachers
to use school materials that are irrelevant to the Philippine setting. From this comes a
mind-set that things learned in school are not related to real life.

Religion. Religion is the root of Filipino optimism and its capacity to accept life's hardships.
However, religion also instills in the Filipino attitudes of resignation and a pre-
occupation with the afterlife. We become vulnerable also to being victimized by
opportunism, oppression, exploitation, and superstition.

The Economic Environment. Many Filipino traits are rooted in the poverty and hard life that is
the lot of most Filipinos. Our difficulties drive us to take risks, impel us to work very
hard, and develop in us the ability to survive. Poverty, however, has also become an
excuse for graft and corruption, particularly among the lower rungs of the bureaucracy.
Unless things get too difficult, passivity sets in.

The Political Environment. The Philippine political environment is characterized by a

centralization of power. Political power and authority is concentrated in the hands of
the elite and the participation of most Filipinos often is limited to voting in elections.
The fact that political power is still very much concentrated in the hands of a few
may lead to passivity. The inefficiency of government structures and systems also leads
to a lack of integrity and accountability in our public servants.

Mass Media. Mass media reinforces our colonial mentality. Advertisements using Caucasian
models and emphasizing a product's similarity with imported brands are part of our
daily lives.
The tendency of media to produce escapist movies, soap operas, comics, etc., feed
the Filipino's passivity. Rather than confront our poverty and oppression, we fantasize
instead. The propensity to use flashy sets, designer clothes, superstars, and
other bongga features reinforce porma.

Leadership and Role Models. Filipinos look up to their leaders as role models. Political leaders
are the main models, but all other leaders serve as role models as well. Thus, when our
leaders violate the law or show themselves to be self-serving and driven by personal
interest--when there is lack of public accountability--there is a negative impact on the
Filipino.

Answer the following question regarding the different topic moral recovery program building
people building nation and roots of Filipino character.
1. Enumerate 5 weaknesses and strengths of the Filipinos.
2. Trace the causes of the so-termed split-personality syndrome of the Filipinos.
3. As regards the Filipino weakness in character, who should be blame a. Spanish
colonizers b. American colonizers c. the Filipino themselves . Explain
4. Do you have hope for the future of the Filipinos? How can he change and attain his
better self?

ETHICS 20
 UNIVERSAL VALUES

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1. To discuss the possible results of upholding or not upholding the two values (respect for
human life and truth-selling)

The Universal Values they are values that apply to all types of human beings, regardless
of their social, ethnic or cultural origin. A value is considered universal when it goes beyond
laws and beliefs; rather, it is considered to have the same meaning for all people and does not
vary according to the societies.
The definition of universal value and its existence are conjectures subject to studies in
social sciences, such as moral philosophy and cultural anthropology. In fact, cultural
relativism is a belief that opposes the existence of universal values; proposes that a value
cannot be universal because it is perceived differently in each culture.

What are the universal values?

Given the ambiguity of the term, the existence of universal values can be understood in
two ways.
The first is that a large number of human beings, under different living conditions and
subjected to different beliefs, find a certain human characteristic as valuable. In that case, the
characteristic in question would then be called a universal value.

The second is that something I considered a universal value when all human beings
have reason to think that it is a characteristic that is generally valued, regardless of whether
or not it is believed in said characteristic.
For example, non-violence could be considered a universal value, because even those
who cause acts of violence may appreciate the common need for peace.
Universal values are believed to be the basis of human integrity, but their definition and
existence remain concepts widely discussed in psychology, political science and philosophy.

Universal Values in Different Branches of the Social Sciences

Philosophy- The philosophical study of universal values seeks to answer certain questions,
such as the importance and meaning of what is a universal value and the veracity of its
existence in societies.
Sociology- the study of values seeks to understand how these are formed within a functional
society.
Psychology- it is where more emphasis has been given to the study of universal values. A series
of practical studies have been developed, with Shalom Schwartz being the most
outstanding psychologist in doing so.

Shalom Schwartz’s Theory of Human Values

Schwartz’s study resulted in the creation of his Theory of basic human values, which is
used in the field of intercultural research.
The author considers that his theory is no more than an expansion of other previous
research, and this has been applied in cultural research that seeks the relationship of values
that occur within two or more societies.
There are four groups of attributes that encompass all the categories studied by the
psychologist
-Capacity for change, which includes the ability to self-direct.

-Ability to improve oneself, which encompasses hedonism, achievements and power.

-Conservation capacity, which encompasses security, conformity and tradition.
-Ability to transcend, encompasses benevolence and universalism.

Interactions between values

In addition to identifying values, Schwartz’s theory explains how they interact with each
other. The pursuit of one of these values results in harmony with another; as for example, if
security is sought, it must go through compliance.

ETHICS 21
 In turn, this search may result in a conflict between two values: if benovelence is sought,
there would be a conflict with power.

James Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy

Lecture notes by Dan Gaskill

Cultural Relativism

Cultures differ with respect to what is deemed morally acceptable. Rachels illustrates
this with the story of the ancient King Darius, the Callations and the Greeks. (The Callations
were an Indian tribe who had a custom of eating their dead fathers, while the Greeks cremated
their dead; according to the story, each regarded the others’ practice as abhorrent). Other
examples: Most people in America consider polygamy to be a moral outrage, but it is common
and accepted for men to have more than one wife in some cultures, including Islamic
countries. In America, no legal or moral distinction is made between killing infants, the elderly,
or anyone in between (all are condemned, of course). But among Eskimos, infanticide is
permitted at the discretion of the parents. Killing of the elderly (by abandoning them in the
snow) has been practiced by Eskimos and the native peoples of northern Greenland. Lending
money for interest was considered sinful in medieval Europe, and it is still regarded as such
in some parts of the world. In America, male circumcision has been the norm since the late
19th century, and parents who opt against it are often roundly criticized or condemned; it is
quite the opposite in Europe and most of the rest of the world. Female circumcision, on the
other hand, is condemned in America and Europe but widely practiced in many African
countries. There is no shortage of such examples.

There is no doubt that cultures exhibit differences --often radical differences-- in their
ethical stances on food, sex, punishment, political expression, human rights, and matters of
life and death. The existence of differing ethical norms in different cultures has convinced
many people of Cultural Relativism, the doctrine that ethics is culturally relative and that there
are no objective moral standards.

As Rachels’ points out, Cultural Relativists have advanced several distinct claims:

(1) Different societies have different moral codes.

(2) The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral
code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within
that society.

(3) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code better than
another’s.
(4) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
(5) There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all
peoples at all times
(6) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt
an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.

As we shall see, these claims need not be accepted or rejected as a package: some of
them may be true even if others are false.
The following are examples of the kind of reasoning that convinces people of Cultural
Relativism:

1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callations believed that it
was right to eat the dead.
________________________________________________________________
Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture.

2. The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is
immoral.

ETHICS 22
________________________________________________________________
Infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion,
which varies from culture to culture.

ETHICS 23
 MORAL CHARACTER

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1. To hold group discussion and presentations
2. To analyze the lives of Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler

The English word “character” is derived from the Greek charaktêr, which was originally
used of a mark impressed upon a coin. Later and more generally, “character” came to mean a
distinctive mark by which one thing was distinguished from others, and then primarily to mean
the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another. In modern usage,
this emphasis on distinctiveness or individuality tends to merge “character” with “personality.”
We might say, for example, when thinking of a person’s idiosyncratic mannerisms, social
gestures, or habits of dress, that “he has personality” or that “he’s quite a character.”
As the Introduction above has suggested, however, the philosophical use of the word
“character” has a different linguistic history. At the beginning of Book II of the Nicomachean
Ethics, Aristotle tells us that there are two different kinds of human excellences, excellences of
thought and excellences of character. His phrase for excellences of character – êthikai aretai –
we usually translate as “moral virtue(s)” or “moral excellence(s).” The Greek êthikos (ethical) is
the adjective cognate with êthos (character). When we speak of a moral virtue or an excellence
of character, the emphasis is not on mere distinctiveness or individuality, but on the
combination of qualities that make an individual the sort of ethically admirable person he is.
This entry will discuss “moral character” in the Greek sense of having or lacking moral
virtue. If someone lacks virtue, she may have any of several moral vices, or she may be
characterized by a condition somewhere in between virtue and vice, such as continence or
incontinence.

Some ancient Greek views and why character matters

The views of moral character held by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics are the
starting point for most other philosophical discussions of character. Although these ancient
moralists differed on some issues about virtue, it makes sense to begin with some points of
similarity. These points of similarity will show why the Greek moralists thought it was
important to discuss character.
Many of Plato’s dialogues (especially the early or so-called “Socratic” dialogues) examine
the nature of virtue and the character of a virtuous person. They often begin by having Socrates
ask his interlocutors to explain what a particular virtue is. In reply, the interlocutors usually
offer behavioral accounts of the virtues. For example, at the beginning of Plato’s Laches the
character Laches suggests that courage consists of standing one’s ground in battle. In
the Charmides, Charmides suggests that temperance consists in acting quietly. In the Republic,
Cephalus suggests that justice consists in giving back what one has borrowed. In each of these
cases, Plato has Socrates reply in the same way. In the Republic Socrates explains that giving
back what one has borrowed cannot be what justice is, for there are cases where giving back
what one has borrowed would be foolish, and the just person recognizes that it is foolish. If the
person from whom you have borrowed a sword goes mad, it would be foolish for you to return
the sword, for you are then putting yourself and others in danger. The implication is that the
just person can recognize when it is reasonable to return what he has borrowed. Similarly, as
Socrates explains in the Laches, standing firm in battle cannot be courage, for sometimes
standing firm in battle is simply a foolish endurance that puts oneself and others at needless
risk. The courageous person can recognize when it is reasonable to stand his ground in battle
and when it isn’t.
The trouble one encounters in trying to give a purely behavioral account of virtue
explains why the Greek moralists turn to character to explain what virtue is. It may be true
that most of us can recognize that it would be foolish to risk our lives and the lives of others
to secure a trivial benefit, and that most of us can see that it is unjust to harm others to secure
power and wealth for our own comfort. We don’t have to be virtuous to recognize these things.
But the Greek moralists think it takes someone of good moral character to determine with
regularity and reliability what actions are appropriate and reasonable in fearful situations and
that it takes someone of good moral character to determine with regularity and reliability how

ETHICS 24
and when to secure goods and resources for himself and others. This is why Aristotle states
in Nicomachean Ethics II.9 that it is not easy to define in rules which actions deserve moral
praise and blame, and that these matters require the judgment of the virtuous person.

Virtue and happiness

Most of the Greek moralists think that, if we are rational, we aim at living well (eu zên)
or happiness (eudaimonia). Living well or happiness is our ultimate end in that a conception
of happiness serves to organize our various subordinate ends, by indicating the relative
importance of our ends and by indicating how they should fit together into some rational overall
scheme. So the Stoics identify happiness with “living coherently” (homologoumenôs zên), and
Aristotle says that happiness is “perfect” or “complete” (teleios) and something distinctively
human. When we are living well, our life is worthy of imitation and praise. For, according to
the Greek moralists, that we are happy says something about us and about what we have
achieved, not simply about the fortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves. So they
argue that happiness cannot consist simply in “external goods” or “goods of fortune,” for these
goods are external to our own choosing and deciding. Whatever happiness is, it must take
account of the fact that a happy life is one lived by rational agents who act and who are not
simply victims of their circumstances.
The Greek moralists conclude that a happy life must give a prominent place to the
exercise of virtue, for virtuous traits of character are stable and enduring and are not products
of fortune, but of learning or cultivation. Moreover, virtuous traits of character are excellences
of the human being in that they are the best exercise of reason, which is the activity
characteristic of human beings. In this way, the Greek philosophers claim, virtuous activity
completes or perfects human life.

A Comparative Study of Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler Essay Sample

Adolf Hitler and Nelson Mandela are vastly different men, however in many ways
throughout their lives they both held a huge influence over their countrymen, the politics of
their country and inevitably they both shaped the course of history for better or worse. Their
fight, was not won without a struggle, but was helped by their masterful oratorical skills and
the willingness of their followers to do anything for “the cause”.
Following the First World War Germanys economy began to fail, the German people were
disgruntled with their current government and went in search of another leader. They were
looking for a man that had the mettle to lead their country out of the bad times and into the
good. As the world slipped into an economic recession caused by the 1929 Wall Street Crash,
conditions in Germany got worse, and the people more desperate.
At this same time, Hitler saw a weakness in the current government and began to exploit
it for all it was worth. Hitler finally came to power in a country that was suffering from national
humiliation, economic depression and mass unemployment. As he went slowly about fixing
these problems his popularity soared. Hitler was the first leader to fully exploit the power of
propaganda and mass media. By utilizing these tools combined with his moving oratory’s he
was able to quickly win the German people over. It is said that when Hitler spoke, the audience
would hang on his every word, and eventually some people did. By using statements that
reflected the hopes and expectations of large sections of the population such as “Hitler, Unsere
letze Hoffnung” (Hitler, our Last Hope) he was able to create a dependence of the German
people on himself. They were looking for someone to lead them and Hitler has presented himself
as their man, “a man of the people who would save Germany from decline”. As Hitler built up
his base of followers through ventures such as the Hitler Youth and his personal army the
German people became more and more convinced that he was their savior. They not only
believed in the principles and moral values that he held but much more than this they loved
him, they would do anything for him, and later many were called upon to do so.
Following World War One, Germany’s previous governing monarch was ousted
and replaced with an alien democracy. This however was not to last long, with many people
viewing this change of system as responsible for Germany’s numerous problems. As soon as
Hitler came to power he removed and challenge of a political form , sometimes using force and
then further more entrenched himself as dictator of Germany. As he became less and less
dependent of the other politicians around him he effectively made all the decisions on

ETHICS 25
Germany’s future by himself. Hitler, through the use of his incredible influence on the people
of Germany had engaged them to such a stage where they were happy to let Hitler run the
country. As history has proved time and time again one man making all the decisions for a
country is a very dangerous situation and as you know it was proved once again. Through
Hitler being empowered as dictator of Germany he had influenced Germany to such as stage
that, he was politics within Germany.
The twentieth century was a time of much development and amazing achievements and
there is no doubt in my mind that many of these will go on to be remembered well into the
future. However it is true that the events best remembered are those which involve horrific
acts, such as the death of six million Jews. In this way Hitler, has influenced history for ever.
Hitler has also instilled in history mean important lessons that no one will ever forget. Hitler
was also in many ways a pioneer, he was the first leader to truly take advantage of mass media,
propaganda and to really display his views on Semitism on such a physical level. Through this
Hitler was able to cement in the minds of the people of Germany and of the onlookers all over
the world his ability as a leader and at the same time his tyrannical, cruel, uncaring,
domineering style of leadership that ultimately cost so many lives and at the same time write
himself into the history books as one leader who will never be forgotten. As well as doing this
he changed the way future leaders would campaign for public support, and inevitably promoted
a more cautious attitude to the leadership of a country by one man.
Nelson Mandela is a very different man from Hitler although at one stage or another
their countrymen and women both felt the same about them. Nelson Mandela was a black
Zulu, with a royal heritage, unlike Hitler who most believe lead for his own gratification Nelson
Mandela lead because of what he believed in and because he was disgruntled with the life he
was forced to lead, all because his skin was black. With his strong beliefs, Mandela who had a
degree in law set about finding a way that he could finally return Africa, to the black Africans.
With this in mind he joined the ANC (African National Congress), however was quickly
disgruntled with the lack of progress being made and decided that violence was the only way
to get the whites to “sit up and take notice”. With this in mind he formed a radical branch of
the ANC known as Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), whose aim was to use violence
as a political lever. It was this willingness to lead, to take risks and his want of a quick solution
that made him such a good leader, and won him the support of all those around him.
As the years passed Nelson Mandela gained more influence on those around him as they
increasingly came to respect him for his true courage. Unlike Hitler, Nelson was willing to
sacrifice himself and later proved his loyalty to the cause when he was thrown in prison, after
being charged with treason, during the time he was in prison he was kept in isolation however
he remained in the minds of all black Africans and undoubtedly influenced their actions in the
struggle for freedom. “We will speak to them with guns, again and again, now here, now there,
until their day is done and apartheid destroyed forever.” Is a statement that very much sums
up Nelson Mandela’s influence on politics in his earlier life. I think you cannot rightly say that
he had any real influence on the politics of white South Africa before his spell in jail other than
the fact that he made them take notice and never let them forget the lengths blacks were willing
to go to, to gain some control over their country. At the same time he also had a large influence
of the politics within the ANC, he convinced many members, that violence was the language
the whites had chosen and the only solution was therefore to answer them in the same
language.
Following his spell in jail, Nelson Mandela changed his ways and his views on how South
Africa should enter an era of reform. Using his background in law, he set about improving the
rights of black people in South Africa, and was rewarded when much later in his political career
he was made the President of South Africa. Nelson Mandela has never wavered in his devotion
to democracy, equality and learning. Despite terrible provocation, he has never answered
racism with racism. His life has been an inspiration, in South Africa and throughout the world,
to all who are oppressed and deprived, to all who are opposed to oppression and deprivation.
It is these principles, will power and strength that he used to change the politics of South Africa
to such an extent where it was once impossible for blacks to earn a decent living and to travel
without a passbook to a country where they were once again free.

ETHICS 26
 Nelson Mandela lead a life that a life that symbolizes the triumph of the human spirit
over man s inhumanity to man, it is with this attitude that he shaped the history of South
Africa. Nelson Mandela was undoubtedly a critical figure in shaping the future of South Africa.
He guided reform to apartheid, giving black South Africans a say in how their country was run,
and in the struggle for this allowed himself to be unjustly imprisoned without a struggle, all
the time increasing the strength of the feeling of the people for him. Even then after he had
succeeded in achieving equal rights for blacks, he didn’t not end his fight for justice. He was
constantly using his privileged situation as an educated black, to help those around him. It
was this generosity and tireless devotion to the cause that has lead him to being cemented in
the history books of the world as the man that saved the black Africans and gave them back
their freedom.

Explain why universal values necessary for human survival?

Does all cultural practices be always correct. Why/why not?

Present how do you developed your personal character/attitude and personal values?

ETHICS 27
 MORAL DEVELOPMENT

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1. To identify the stages of the agents in each of three cases and justify their answer

In ancient philosophies, moral development was normally conceived “teleologically.”

This means defining the inherent reality or essence of a moral phenomenon by the valuable
function or purpose it ultimately serves. Teleology is a strong version of functionalism—x is
what x does (well).
Confucian traditions attributed “four beginnings” to human personality, which naturally
unfolded into defining human virtues. These were reason (which becomes moral
understanding) affiliation or fellow-feeling (which transmutes into compassion), resentment
(which yields a sense of justice) and feelings of guilt and shame (which become moral regret at
having done wrong). Moving from initial inner drives to polished virtues in such a direct way
stretches plausibility. It leaves mysterious how such socially subtle and adept abilities spring
forth from such psychologically isolated and internal roots, despite all the other influences
apparently at play. This contrasts with the Confucian view of how ritual institutions in society
guide the careful crafting of artful behaviors.
Aristotle also focuses on habituation regarding ethical virtues. But strands of natural
growth and moral evolution are embedded throughout his depiction of human flourishing. For
him, ethical happiness or flourishing is the fulfillment of our natural human function. The
“Aristotelean Principle” of cognitive motivation is one such strand, moving us to prefer more
complex to less complex activities. This pulls us toward greater challenges and resulting
cognitive growth in dealing with them over time. The development of the intellectual virtues is
largely a process of natural growth toward natural function. And some of these (logos and
sophrosune especially) play necessary roles in the proper expression of ethical virtues.
Aristotle’s approach was more plausible because its natural growth only provided tools
and tendencies for able behavior. No assumption need be made that human nature is distinctly
moral. With these general abilities and sensibilities in place, social experience could pick up
the developing story, shaping norm-compliant traits along and behaviors. An apparent
psychological principle toward moderation leaned this process norm-compliance farther
toward moral norms since many distinctly moral virtues arise at the mean between and under-
and overflow of non-moral motivation.
In general, the more indirect and morally non-distinctive the view, the more plausible it
depicts moral development. Developmental views of morality themselves make such an
advance on earlier innatist viewpoints that locate full-blown moral insight and virtue in our
souls from birth. Such views cannot explain the anomaly of moral wisdom amidst the naiveté
of all other childhood beliefs, nor the failure of this wisdom to actually show itself. Likewise,
direct moral development views cannot explain evolution’s highly distinctive selection of such
a complexly civilized and culturally mediated form of social reasoning and cooperation. Nor
can they explain why peculiarly institutionalized social experience seems necessary to attain
full natural edification and character.
In general, also, the logic of moral development history tells us more than its authorship,
suggesting strategies for the philosophical progress on the concept. Our “inherent goodness”
is best viewed as akin to genetic instructions for seeking social competence, and competence
in a general sense. The basic instruction is to unpack and upgrade personality potencies as
suits whichever environments will welcome their designs. Some parts of the social environment
will welcome the combined expression of cognitive and social talents that enable cooperation.
Some combination will be practically geared, some geared more to prudent reciprocity and
mutual expectation in kind. Those that are mutually beneficial across these dimensions will
progress, in a general sense of beneficial or valuable. Some will function to produce norms,
and institutionalize them—norms of various sorts.
As social organization and practice moves toward beneficial divisions of labor, some
norms will engender bind with traditions, other generate laws and legal systems, and some
foster moral tenets of mutual fairness and respect, mutual reliance and aid. Again, each norm
system endures primarily because of its respective benefits such as sense of social continuity,

ETHICS 28
belonging, meaning, or worth. Our cognitive and social capacities will help shape these distinct
practices and tailor their functions to them. Those that take moral shape thereby realize our
inherent moral nature.
To the degree this process is unavoidable in the moral realm, and progresses in an
unavoidable manner, it is natural. Yet its distinctive moral nature arises naturally, for the most
part, as the fruition of its basically non-moral or morally undifferentiated path. On this indirect
view, it is not that uprightness simply works in the world, as our limbs do. It is that general
competencies differentiate and partner, adapting to and helping shape differentiated social
environments, some of which take a moral shape and demand moral functions from them. This
explains why moral tendencies would be attractive to biological selection and evolution—why
our “survivalist” human psycho-biology would turn toward admirable sociality along a
progressive, age-appropriate time line.
The perfectionist legacy found in writers as diverse as Augustine and Nietzche carried
this indirect approach forward, more and less. Perfectionist principles urged us to develop a
range of non-moral traits, serving certain individual needs and interpersonal problem-solving
functions. When practiced, polished, and performed artfully together, within an artfully
organized social system, these rise to the level of virtues and find their moral niche.
With the decline of teleological metaphysics and axiology, the “natural development” of
morality assumed a more purely functionalist form. (Development was not pulled by a potential
telos or end-point; rather it foreshadows that end-point by able handling the means to it.)
Arguable, this requires that moral development be reconceived as a distributed property,
crossing various domains. One might be a perfectionist ethic, a second, the functional
psychology on which it rides, and, third, the adaptive needs each serves for the individual and
society (Puka 1980). In such combination, moral development becomes a naturally motivated
striving to fulfill those prescriptions that bid us nurture and express certain virtues. These are
the virtues that, in turn, produce an effective personality and excellent overall character while
fostering a thriving, progressive society.
To avoid circularity, such naturalistic views strained historically to distinguish between
descriptively and normatively “natural” psychological processes—between normal and
adaptive, that is. They strained further to distinguish “adaptive” from “morally apt or
desirable.” And their perfectionist ethical component strained hardest to represent the
transitions from minimal moral ability to high moral excellence as a smooth and homogeneous
continuum. This is a stretch because excellence by its admirable nature seems extraordinary,
not “natural;” it requires special efforts, not mere formative growth, to attain.
Where such straining fails, the logic of moral development falls into various fallacies,
seeming to build moral norms into social and psychological ones by fiat, then trying to pass
the attempt off as descriptive or factual. Efforts to avoid this outcome are worthwhile because
of the valuable function moral development serves in ethics.
Any morality faces so-called strains of commitment. At base, these are strains on
motivational rationality. The ultimate logical question, “Why be moral” has real-world versions:
why act as I am told I should when it conflicts with what I want—with what motivates me? why
struggle toward a life of integrity, when the childhood propensity to duck and weave promises
an easier path to a fun-filled life? This question raises the prospect that being intellectually
moral is motivationally unnatural or irrational, or even pathological. What suits our reason
likely doesn’t suit our full range of motivations (some stronger than reason) that reason, to be
reasonable, should take into account. As noted, the most powerful psychological answer is
this. “Because doing right is what is in fact most fulfilling overall: w are spontaneously drawn
to it at all levels of need, desire and interest, the more so as we grow. Moral integrity produces
greater self-esteem and personal satisfaction than material acquisition and social status. Thus
morally we need follow our ever-increasing propensities to do what we should, exerting that
little extra to bolster and stretch those propensities. The extra effort pays tenfold in making us
more of what we are at our best.”
In these respects, moral development is to ethical perfectionism what psychological
egoism is to ethical egoism. It renders excellent character and virtue natural, relatively easy to
achieve, fulfilling, and therefore motivationally rational. Immorality does not seem so naturally
desirable to us here that it must be forbidden. Instead, it presents merely tepid attraction,

ETHICS 29
notable debilitation, and therefore, an undesirable cast overall. Natural development in
morality, however, can serve any type of ethic, perfectionist or otherwise, providing the needed
psychological resources for fulfilling whatever obligations and pursuits it recommends.
Unfortunately, neither ancient teleological views of moral development nor their functionalist
successors detailed the presumed processes of psycho-moral evolution. Nor did they clarify the
relation of nature to nurture involved. This pointed to the need for copious empirical
investigation.
Recent philosophical history gave a rare nod to moral development through Rawls’s
(1972) A Theory of Justice. Like Kant before him, Rawls paid homage to Rousseau’s vision of
moral cooperation. Such cooperation is nature’s way of humanizing and civilizing the human
race, not merely of institutionalizing humanity’s civilizing intent to stabilize and protect it. But
we see in Rawls’s hands the degree to which supporting ethical prescriptions with psychological
proclivities has retreated under threats from the naturalistic fallacy, and other category
mistakes. Rawls recognizes only the logical requirement that just social institutions remain
compatible with the facts of human psychology and its development so that socializing each
successive generation in justice institutions will be a feasible enterprise, assuring compliance.
He does not turn to moral development for moral support, grounding value prescriptions on
its facts.
Rawls relied on a pre-scientific account of moral development (Rousseau’s Emile), when
an entire field of social science provided an empirically-based alternative. (This field was
centered just a short stroll from Rawls’s Harvard office). We see here philosophy’s reluctance
to rest enduring theory on the current state of empirical research programs. (Quine paid the
price of resting the epistemology of Word and Object too heavily on the Skinnerian psychology
of operant conditioning.) But we also see the skepticism and controversy that marks the
research field of moral development and its guiding light, Lawrence Kohlberg. Philosophy
gratefully accepted the flattering role of guide in the design of Kohlberg’s research design and
the interpretation of data. But Kohlberg’s presumptive preferences for one rival philosophy over
all others smacked of ideological partisanship. It raised philosophical hackles as well when
Kantianism was provided empirical validation, while Utilitarianism, intuitionist virtue theory
and the like were disconfirmed. Had evolution really selected Kant’s categorical imperative as
our racial destiny? The title of Kohlberg’s first ethics monograph did nothing to mollify
philosophical ire: “From Is to Ought: How To Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy in the Study of
Moral Development and Get Away With It.”

ETHICS 30
 ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1.

What does Ethical mean?

Ethical can be defined as being morally correct or principled. Individuals differentiate
between good and bad through ethical principles. Ethics is a universal phenomenon. Each
society has its own ethical conduct that requires the members of the particular society to
behave in a certain way. Some ethics can be seen in almost all the societies. For example, it is
considered to be ethical for doctors to take care of any patient, regardless
of gender, race or nationality. In addition, ethical conduct helps the smooth functioning of the
society and also it keeps the harmony and peace among the members of the society. Being
ethical helps an individual to have a well standard life and h/she may be revered in the society
as well.

What does Unethical mean?

Unethical is the opposite of being ethical. A person who lacks moral principles can
be defined as an unethical person. In an unethical situation, individuals refuse to adhere to
the proper conduct or the accepted behavioral pattern of the society. Unethical behaviors may
lead the society to anarchic situations as well. As in ethics, there are some universally shared
unethical practices as well. When it comes to certain professions, there are well-defined ethical
and unethical behaviors. For example, it is considered unethical for physicians to advertise for
themselves. Also, it is considered unethical for rich to exploit the poor for their advantage. In
business field, it is considered unethical to use brand names, other than one’s own brand
name illegally for his/her own benefit. Likewise, there are morally unaccepted behaviors in
almost all the societies. The special thing with regard to unethical behavior is that the
particular person who engages in an unethical action may be aware of his/her misconduct and
might feel guilty as well. Thus, ethical and unethical issues have a connection with one’s moral
conduct.

What is the difference between Ethical and Unethical?

When we look at both terms, we see that they are related to the moral conduct of
individuals. Both these terms define the moral and immoral principles of a society and they
help in differentiating good deeds from the bad. Further, they function as adjectives in the
language.
• When we look at the differences in the two terms, the main difference is that ethical is being
morally principled and has a good conduct whereas unethical is the total opposite of it.
• An ethical principle in one society may be unethical in another society and these differ from
one society to another.
• However, there are some universally accepted ethical behaviors as well.
• Almost all the societies promote ethical conducts and demote the unethical behaviors.

ETHICS 31
 WILL

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1.

The principle of Will is “Will yourself”. It is the principle in virtue of which we want to
examine Aristotle's ideas. We say that Willing, Volition, the Will is the hegemonic and governing
principle of the Universe. Its “I will” expresses itself not as the subjective urge of the individual
(everyone is an individual), but as an objective, directed towards itself and entering in
possession of itself activity, i.e. as a self-purpose of the absolute material entelechy, which is
actual in and through itself.
The Absolute material entelechy acts and it is precisely its acting in which it has itself,
is in possession of itself, and there is nothing in which it does not come into possession of
itself. It is the absolute creator, which sets itself purposes - different material forms, the plant
and animal kingdoms, man, - and materializes them in and through itself. In each of them the
absolute expresses its inner Volition, urge and inclination to possess itself as objective material
actuality. It is the purpose, which wills itself and as directed towards itself material actuality
has the urge to enter in possession of itself.
It is precisely this being in possession of itself of the absolute material entelechy that is
the good of every organic whole; its Volition is the actual material Good. Aristotle does not
speak so; he expresses it in his own way. He says: “But movement involves three factors: first
the moving cause, secondly the means by which it produces movement, and thirdly the thing
moved. The moving cause is of two kinds; one is unmoved and the other both moves and is
moved.” What moves and what is moved are one and the same; the ultimate end is the
beginning of the action. It is the willing itself volition of the absolute material entelechy, which
is the in-and-for-itself having itself absolute. “The former is the practical good, while that which
both moves and is moved is the appetite (for that which is moved is moved qua influenced by
appetite, and appetite qua actual is a kind of movement), and the thing moved is the
animal.”(4) Aristotle claims that the living being moves only insofar as it is in possession of the
faculty for wishing. This is a great and superb definition; it appears for the first time in the
history of philosophy.
However, Aristotle fails to bring forward the principle. He does not say that the practical
Good is the Volition of the absolute, that the latter is Volition; it is not yet the principle of his
philosophy. But he does say that in itself the wish of the living being is precisely the practical
Good, which wishes nothing else but itself alone. The end and the beginning unite; in the final
end the beginning of the energy of the absolute material entelechy meets only with itself. It is
a great merit of the Aristotelian philosophy that it determines the absolute final end - the
practical Good, the Volition, - as immanent possession of the material actuality. The practical
Good is the Volition of itself; it is not formed from outside. Aristotle claims, “that if nature is
activity for a certain end, or if it is the implicitly universal, “it is absurd to deny that action is
in conformity with end, because that which moves cannot be seen to have deliberated and
considered.””(5) This purpose is objective. Aristotle defines the practical Good as unmoved, i.e.
as the in-and-for itself having itself material actuality. The latter has in itself the Volition to
wish, to want itself. The wish of the living being is nothing else but the acting, the activity of
the absolute Volition. The wishing (the subjective) and what is wished (the objective) is one and
the same; the material entelechy is the actual by means of itself. It wills itself and for itself.
And, precisely thus, it is the absolute possession of itself.

As we have seen above, Aristotle asserts that practical Reason (let alone theoretical
Reason) is not the moving, that the subject of Reason is the objective self-moving absolute
beginning, the material entelechy. Reason cognizes its objects, but even as a practical Reason
it cannot be the cause for their origin or movement. Aristotle expresses the strongest conviction
that “mind is never seen to produce movement without appetite (for will is a form of appetite,
and when movement accords with calculation, it accords also with choice), but appetite
produces movement contrary to calculation; for desire is a form of appetite.”(7) He expresses

ETHICS 32
the same thought in his Nicomachean Ethics where he asserts: “It is not thought as such that
can move anything, but thought which is for the sake of something and is practical, for it is
this that rules productive thought also; for he who produces does so for the sake of something,
[a product], though a product is not an end without qualification but is relative to something
else and is a qualified end.”(8) The purpose, the Volition as the striving for itself and in-and-
for-itself having itself practical Good, is the first. It is the absolute form of the material
entelechy. The Volition, the urge, is the subject's energy, which does not give him peace and
makes him move, overcome all difficulties and achieve his goals.
Volition is the source of the natural needs, urges, impulses, instincts and drives of the
living being; the latter has the whole energy of its volition to satisfy them. Living beings and
man strive for their practical (actual) good; the material entelechy cannot wish anything else
but itself, its own Volition. For that reason Aristotle says: “Now if of things we do there is an
end which we wish for its own sake whereas the other things we wish for the sake of this end,
and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for in this manner the process
will go on to infinity and our desire will be empty and vain), then clearly this end would be the
good and the highest good.”(13) He determines the latter further: “Again, among ends
themselves the complete is always better than the incomplete. A complete good is one the
presence of which leaves us in need of nothing; an incomplete good is one which may be present
while yet we need something further; for instance, we may have justice and yet need many
things besides, but when we have happiness we need nothing more. This then is the best thing
of which we are in search, which is the complete end. The complete end then is the good and
end of goods.”(14)
According to Aristotle happiness is the final end and the supreme good. Let us quote
Hegel; his translation is definitely the most speculative one: “Aristotle says that the good is
what has its end in itself (τελειον). If we tried to translate τελειον by "perfect" here, we should
translate it badly; it is that which, as having its end (το τελος) in itself, is not desired for the
sake of anything else, but for its own sake. Aristotle determines happiness in this regard as
the absolute end existing in and for itself, and gives the following definition of it: It is ‘the energy
of the life that has its end in itself in accordance with absolute virtue.’”(15) Today we say that
happiness is the supreme good of the Volition of material entelechy; it is the purpose of man's
Will. Man, the highest self-organisation of the principle “Will yourself”, attains his happiness
through active using of his entelechial nature. Aristotle asserts that the natural impulses and
urges of man, his needs and his selfishness serve as a basis of ethics, politics and any practical
activity, in and through which man manifests his absolute self-moving entelechial Volition.
And precisely this is the infinite merit of Aristotle's philosophy: he was the first to regard man
as absolute actual subjectivity due to the fact that he regarded man in his infinite material
entelechiality.

ETHICS 33
 MORAL THEORIES

At the end of this chapter, students are expected to;

1.

Moral theories determine a theory of the right: they tell us what we ought to do morally.
This is in contrast to theory of value, which focuses on what kind of things are morally good.
We said that scientific theories were not ‘mere’ theories – untested, tentative, vague
generalizations. They were, instead, comprehensive, supported by large bodies of converging
evidence, based on repeated observations, usually integrating and generalizing hypotheses and
making consistently accurate predictions across a broad area of scientific inquiry.
Moral theories are not mere theories in the dismissive sense either. They too are based
on repeated observations, are likely to integrate hypotheses, and attempt to explain and justify
a range of moral or ethical judgments about particular cases.
But neither are moral theories quite like scientific theories. The data that scientific
theories try to explain is provided by observation of the natural world. The data that moral
theories try to explain is our considered moral judgments; judgments that have, we might say,
survived the test of good logical and critical thinking. There is an obvious difference here. In
the case of moral theories, we use our considered judgments to supply the data by which we
judge the adequacy of moral theories.

Theories of Morality

(1) Moral Subjectivism

Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or
'feel') is right or wrong.
In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of
any significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence,
'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some
action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot
object to anyone's Behavior (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they
think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone
thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That
is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.

(2) Cultural Relativism

Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time.
Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot
criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the
denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about
what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral
advancement (which also seems not to be true).

(3) Ethical Egoism

Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- which we, by nature, act
selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to aim for at least some
'higher' goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we will (ideally) act so as to
maximize our self-interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasures for the
sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others.
However, egoists will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egoist
will claim that the altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive
pleasure out of helping others) or because they think there will be some personal advantage in
doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of genuine altruism (because they think we are all
by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person
who helps others at the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally. Many think

ETHICS 34
that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of morality -- i.e., morality is the system
of practical reasoning through which we are guided to constrain our self-interest, not further
it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited.

(4) Divine Command Theory

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such
that, without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behavior. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and
guide people to behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection
between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God
(or the gods).Ý This view of morality is known as Divine Command Theory. The upshot is that
an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it, wrong if God commands we
refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be done.
Divine Command Theory is widely held to have several serious flaws. First, it
presupposes that God or gods exist. Second, even if we assume that God does exist, it
presupposes that we can know what God commands. But even if we accept theism, it looks
like even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised the relevant objection 2500 years ago.
He asked:
Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right?
If the latter, then right and wrong are independent of the gods' commands -- Divine
Command Theory is false. If the former, then right and wrong are just a matter of the arbitrary
will of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, contradictory commands).
Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary -- that is, some action is wrong, say,
for a reason. Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because of
this reason, not simply because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong,
then, is not God's commanding it, but the reason. Divine Command Theory is false again.

(5) Virtue Ethics

Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making the good person.
The most widely discussed is Aristotle's account. For Aristotle, the central concern is
"Ethica" = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character -- i.e.,
the moral virtues.
Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty,
i.e., modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human beings
truly 'happy'. True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being / fulfilment /
self- actualization). Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective reasons for living
in accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and temperance). For
Aristotle, this comes from a particular account of human nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is the
'happiest' (most fulfilling) life.

Three steps to the argument:

(1) The ultimate end of human action is happiness.

(2) Happiness consists in acting in accordance with reason.
(3) Acting in accordance with reason is the distinguishing feature of all the traditional
virtues.

Aristotle thought that humans had a specific function. This function is to lead a life of
true flourishing as a human, which required abiding by the dictates of rationality and so acting
in accordance with the traditional virtues.

(6) Feminist Ethics

Right and wrong is to be found in women’s' responses to the relationship of caring.
Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male
bias. Specifically, feminists are critical of the 'individualistic' nature of other moral theories
(they take individualism to be a 'masculine' idea).Ý Rather, feminist ethics suggests that we
need to consider the self as at least partly constructed by social relations. So morality,

ETHICS 35
according to some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions' like love
and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring. This allows legitimate biases towards those
with whom we have close social relationships.

(7) Utilitarianism
Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of
action.
Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.

Answer the following question:

Give specific example, What is legal is not always moral?

Identify a certain principle.philisophy, values that is universally accepted by all races or

any form of government in the world.

ETHICS 36
 Morality and Conscience 1

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand the development of values
2. To learn the importance of conscience
3. To answer the question of the “greatest good”

Morality (Review)
Morality according to Perry is man’s effort to harmonize conflicting human interest. As
mentioned in the past modules morality of a person is different from another person. On
example is the case of public execution. There are some sectors in the Philippine society that
consider this evil for taking life ran contrary to their belief that taking human life is against
the laws of God. On the other hand public execution especially the most humane type that is
lethal injection is a necessity to curb men from committing evil deeds, a necessary evil so to
speak. Morality is the goodness or evilness of the act that may be justifiable. People mistook
that anything that we find good is moral because man’s pursuit of happiness is the primary
reason why we live in this world.

This is not true, for man’s desire to be good is innate in him and may prevent his pursuit
of such act. A married man might entertain extra-material affairs, especially to a lovely-woman
that also implied interest in him and for him that is “good” for that is a means to his pursuit
of happiness. But then again he might neglect this passion once he recalled his marital vows
which is the greater good.

Values
Values are anything that satisfies human needs. Aristotle once said that the ultimate
good is find things that will give us happiness and that is where happiness comes in, he further
added that value is a “fitting function” – anything that is important or significant to us.
Anything that enriched our life or at least made it meaningful such as a special someone, a
friend, our laptop our birthdays or anything that is special are values. Even our beliefs and
principles are values that we even shared to our offspring that will guide them to their
adulthood. Values may also come as actions of our own or of others that we classify good acts
are values which evil acts are not, because they result to unhappiness. Morally good values
are genuine for their goodness are evident whereas evil are called apparent values for they are
evil things masquerading as good.

Kinds of Values
1. Biological Values- they are important because they for the physical survival and growth
of man examples are food, shelter, work, pleasure, medicine and the likes.
2. Psychological Values- this contributes to his psychological and social life examples are
companionship, friendship, marriage etc.
3. Intellectual Values- this developed man’s mental fulfilment such as truth, science, art
and religion.
4. Moral Values- this is for the formation of one’s character. Examples are generosity,
kindness, charity and honesty.

Conscience
Is a feeling or inner voice that served as a guide to the correctness or error of one’s
behavior. Some authors viewed it as the “inner law” or the “sixth sense” that gives premonitions
o acts we are to perform or acts we already did. Where did this come from? Moral conscience
is innate idea that simply follow God’s unwritten dictum of “follow good and obey evil”. Man is
basically good for man is a creation of God, being the source of goodness, He created man
endowed with free will bur induced conscience to make sure His words are heard.

An upright conscience is a necessity for human dignity, because it knows moral

principles and practiced them in each circumstance. Only prudent judgments can recognize

ETHICS 37
the truth. Anyone who follows his conscience s prudent for he is guided not only by human
reason but by the voice of God. God is the source of the truth and through conscience man
can grasp a semblance of reason. Inasmuch as conscience is present in man he assumes
responsibility. When an evil act is performed, he realized his error by feeling remorse for his
action then later regret it, which is a manifestation of conscience. An act that is wilfully done
is appeared to be guided by conscience thereby responsibility is undeniable.

The Greatest Good

Jeremy Bentham a British philosopher during the 19th Century answered that question
when he said that the “greatest good is for the greatest number”. He introduced Utilitarianism
that is simply states that the ends of an action must be good, if it is not then the action is
unjustified. Which is simply anything of use is good while useless are evil. But like a double-
edged sword it also has a good side, he implied the spirit of humanity where everyone lived in
single planet and their desire to be happy and goodness are innate in man. Everybody wants
to be happy, so the best thing is to follow happiness and goodness that is common to everyone.
Being children of God, we have identical aspirations, so whatever we find good might also be
good to others.

ETHICS 38
 FINAL TERM ACTIVITIES

Feelings and Moral Decisions 1

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand the contribution and non-contribution to moral decisions
2. To know the ethics of love
3. To differentiate virtues from vices

What are feelings and emotions?

Before we begin this discourse, let us differentiate feelings and emotions. Feelings are
defines as an emotional state or reaction while emotions are distinctive feeling distinguished
from reasoning or knowledge. Simply put emotions or feelings do not play any role in a human
act and is not justifiable with regard to moral decisions. As mentioned in many books human
acts are human actions men perform knowingly, freely and voluntarily. Ergo a human act must
have these three qualifications a) he must fully aware of what he is doing or what he will don,
b) he used his freedom of choice to decide using his innate free will, and c) his decision is not
coerced by any outside factor. Feelings and emotions are one and the same for it plays merely
to the weakness of men which some sociologists dubbed as “human frailties”. It can never be
used as an excuse for our negative actions for if we allow our emotions to “decide” then we are
not acting as human beings. Brutes react only to mere instincts for they lack reason, emotions
are devoid of reason and rely to spur-of-the-moment decisions or the mood of the doer.

The Ethics of Love

Many people are confused between love and emotions. We think that emotions are
strong because of love for it propels people to feel it. We have to refuse this perverted claim, in
the scientific world of emotions can be seen through the face of the doer from there we can
discern happiness, sadness, anger and content but what moves them, it is not love but drives.
By drive mean the cravings of men that they simply can’t do without such as hunger, need for
sex, companionship and the likes. From these needs man developed a desire to acquire them
by any means possible and emotions are born, if we succeed in doing so we felt happy or
contented if not it lead to frustration that may later result into anger or sadness. These cravings
of man boosted his competitive nature that he won’t stop until he achieved it. In short,
emotions are simply attachments that resulted due to man’s desires. Love on the other hand
is an intense feeling of deep affection that is also a drive but compared to emotion which is
solely for self-aggrandizement, love does not necessarily have to be reciprocated. Man can love
another person, thing or event if it does not render love in return. In relation to love when it
comes to moral decision such as love is acceptable just as long as it is guided by morality and
reason.

Vice and Virtue

Socrates once said that, “knowledge is virtue and ignorance is vice”. We got these things
from the habits we obtain from dealing with people in our everyday lives. A virtue is a trait or
quality that is deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and
good moral being while vice is the opposite is what we know as vice. Different from feelings,
this is ot a spur-of-the-moment affair, this develops as man progressed intellectually and
physically. Bad habits develop into vice that as mentioned earlier the opposite of virtue.

Moral Values- are those pertaining to the functions of the intellect and the will – that may be
our choices, decisions and actions that became habits. This later will develop spiritual growth
that is part of human perfection. Moral values have the following characteristics: a) they have
intrinsic work – they are good acts in themselves without any shadow of doubt, b) they are
universally accepted by all people, and c) they are obligatory which means everyone is expected
to abide by it considering that it is a universally accepted good.

Guidelines for choosing values:

1. Paramount or lasting values over temporal ones
2. Values favoured by the majority instead by a few individuals

ETHICS 39
 3. Essential values must be preferred over physical values
4. Moral values must be preferred over physical values

ETHICS 40
 Human Reasoning 1

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand the importance human reasoning
2. To differentiate the types of human reasoning
3. To learn the steps for moral reasoning

Human Reasoning
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying
facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on
new or existing information. In short, this is the ability of man to decide which the same way
how morality is. But lets us make us discernment here, as Immanuel Kant explained, morality
is the usage of our freedom of choice but is based on what we want, this is purely based on
the necessities men needed to fulfil such as the freedom to do whatever we want. Human
reasoning is our sense of obligation to do what is right even if we do not want to do it. For
example we have fifty pesos in our pocket and we went to a canteen to satisfy our need for
food. In the counter, we see a plate of fried chicken and a bowl of hot noodles, you want them
both so morally tells us to make a choice. But circumstance denied you these things for they
cost beyond your allowance and cannot spare additional cash from your transportation
allowance so you have to choose only one to fir within your means 0 that is where reason
comes in.

Reason is a feature that is characteristic of men and without it they are not classified
as such. Reason is a tool for the man to cognizance as well as our guide to correlate to the
absolute truth (God). It must be noted though that it is reason. Stimuli such as human
sensation, perception, and observation that the five senses can perceive are part of man being
part of the animal kingdom but the power transforming sensuous stimuli into experience is
inherent in man’s intellect denied to brutes. With it, he alone can arrange his experience that
will later guide him in his decisions. In any human endeavor, action is secondary to thinking.
Thinking is a deliberate act of anticipating future events that might come by reflecting past
actions or occurrences. Thinking and acting are inseparable. Every action rests upon the
foundation of an idea related to casual relation. Casual relations developed theories that guide
human action. Action without basis is absurd but acting without thinking is ludicrous; but
thinking and theorizing are still present so his action might be “valid” or at least acceptable.
Thinking is an individual process, society does not think for man even if his customs, traditions
or laws are dictated by the society an individual belongs. There is joint action, but no joint
thinking, meaning people can be moved into a collective action but collective thinking is
impossible. People often subscribe to common sense but the trouble with common sense is
that it is ot common. People can never think the same hence there is no common sense.

In the religious point of view, God created human beings aside from his image and like
ness as rational creations capable of reason. Divine Revelation that may center on the salvation
of the soul or foreboding natural catastrophes are in harmony with reason. Reason is God and
comes from God so human reason is the only way of understanding Him.

Types of Human Reasoning

1. Deductive Reasoning- it is the form of reasoning in which a conclusion follows logically
and coherently from the factual premises and proposition. Arguments are based upon
the concept of logical reasoning. In doing so the premises which the conclusion hinges
its validity that if they are true then the resulting statement are true and valid. This is
plain logic.
2. Inductive Reasoning- refers to reasoning that take specific information and makes a
broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the
conclusions based on general observations coming from occurrence that might give
similar results. To differentiate, deductive reasoning began with a premise while
inductive reasoning begins with a conclusion.

ETHICS 41
 Examples Deductive Reasoning – The Pope is the Representative of God, God is never
wrong therefore the Pope is never wrong. Inductive Reasoning- Mark shows a golden ring
to his friend Paul, Mark said he will marry Martha therefor Paul thinks Martha will receive
the ring.
3. Abductive Reasoning- is a method of reasoning in which one chooses the hypothesis
that would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. It is a type of reasoning that gets
its conclusion in an abductive argument of what is possibly true. This type of logic is
also considered as inference to the best explanation. It is choosing the most likely or
best hypothesis or explanation based upon the most relevant evidence.
Example: You wake up in the morning and you see that your roommate has left but you
see a half-eaten food in the kitchen then you abduce that he left early.
4. Reductive Reasoning – It is proving a statement true by reducing to the opposite of it
and showing the absurdity of the opposite result. A statement is true based on reducing
or showing the absurdity of the opposite result. It is also called Reductio ad absurdum
(Latin: “reduction to absurdity”).
Example: people do not go to college because they don’t need it.
5. Fallacious Reasoning – It is not real reasoning, it is the faulty premises for critical
thinking and logic.
Example: God is love, love is blind ergo God is blind.

The Seven Steps to Moral Ethical Decisions

1. State the problem – what is the dilemma one is facing
2. Check the facts – find out if the problem can easily be solved by mere speculations
alone or there is still a need for a deeper means of resolving it.
3. Identify the relevant and irrelevant factors – there are things that are contributory in
answering the question but we have to separate from those that might help or not.
4. Develop the list of options – by options we mean sources beyond what we are aware
of that may be a list of sources person or books that might help in answering the
dilemma.
5. Prepare test questions – that might give us possible solutions
6. Choose the best answer
7. If need be, review steps 1-6

ETHICS 42
 COURAGE AND MORAL COURAGE

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand what is courage
2. To enumerate the types of courage
3. To expound moral courage

The Virtue of Courage

Courage is defined as taking action even one doubts or questions about the
consequences of his actions. Courage is often a stereotype about soldiers giving their lives for
the country; sometimes is accepting defeat after a hard-fought struggle.

Courage is on a daily basis because everything that mattered to us require this trait. We
feel deep courage and strength to protect our children either from sickness or bodily harm that
we risk our lives just to secure them. Courage comes even to the most cowardly for it is innate
in man. Mary Anne Radmacher, author of “Lean Forward into your Life” mentioned in that
poem “Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the silent voice at the end of the day
that says ‘I will try again tomorrow’. “

Types of Courage
1. Physical Courage – this is the courage most people often subscribes to - bravery at the
risk of bodily harm or death. In order to attain this, one must develop his physical
strength, resiliency, and awareness.
2. Social Courage – this type of courage is common to most of us because it involves the
risk of social embarrassment or exclusion, unpopularity or rejection. It also involves
leadership. Adhering to socially-accepted norms is a mandate all members have to follow
to avoid being a social outcast.
3. Intellectual Courage – this talks about our willingness to engage in cerebral fitness by
raising questions on things we know and will know, as well as to avoid the risk of making
mistake.
4. Moral Courage – this involves doing the right thing, particularly when risks involve
shame, opposition, or the disapproval of others. Details will be discussed in the next
topic.
5. Emotional Courage – this type of courage opens us to feeling the full spectrum of positive
emotions, at the risk of encountering the negative ones. It is strongly correlated with
happiness.
6. Spiritual Courage – courage that deals with questions about faith, the purpose, and
meaning of life whether in a religious or nonreligious framework.

Moral courage
Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse
consequences and it requires deliberation and careful thought. Moral courage entails a
person’s strength of character and must be willing to face risks in order to act according to his
or her values and beliefs.

Moral courage is the strength to stand up to authority to protect his or her soldier’s
welfare or defend his or her decisions. This virtue develop leaders that are followed by their
inferiors without any iota or doubt. Integrity is gained by leaders who perform their jobs even
if they do not want it because they knew their leader has their trust and confidence.

ETHICS 43
ETHICS 44
 ARISTOTLE ON VIRTUE

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To know Aristotle’s understanding of virtue
2. To learn about Telos philosophy of Aristotle
3. To understand happiness in Aristotle’s point of view

Virtue according to Aristotle

Aristotle believed that virtue (arête) is a trait of mind or character that helps us achieve
a good life guided by reason. Virtues maybe intellectual and moral. The first deals with qualities
of mind and character that promote critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Moral virtue
talks about behaving in the right manner that differentiate need from avarice that lead to vice.

Aristotle mentioned that anything that is passion, a faculty or a state (trait) of character
is part of the soul (the mind) that regulates vice and virtue. Virtues are part of the soul, they
must be in union with the following:

1. Passions: By ‘passions’ we mean our bodily needs and stimuli (examples are the need
for food, drink, sex, etc.), our emotions, and any feelings that accompany either pleasure
or pain. We must keep in mind though that these cannot be virtues per se because:
a) Passions cannot exactly define a goodness or character of a person.
b) We can never choose our passions because it is inherent in person, however virtues
are related to the choices we make. We cannot will what we want for passions come
to man it is only his decision in relation to that passion that create virtues.
c) Virtues center only on our responses; they are not desires that actually motivate us.
2. Faculties: are stimuli that we get from our senses. They are not actually virtues but
these perceptions can guide us in the creation of virtues.
3. Virtues must be states or character. Aristotle defines it as ‘the things in virtue of which
we stand well or badly with reference to passions’. Character is formed, by means of a
person’s decisions in relation to what they feel, how they think, how they react, the
choices they make, as well as their reaction based in given situation. For example
someone is short-tempered often to feel angry at the slightest provocation; quick-witted
people can think and decide in an instant and so on. Character traits last much longer
and change less easily than many ‘states of mind’, such as moods and desires. But as
what everybody believes character change as well.

Aristotle’s Telos Philosophy

Aristotle widely known as the ancient Greek Father of Western Philosophy, believed that
there is purpose in life, and he called that purpose telos. The word might be interchanges with
‘purpose,’ ‘end,’ or ‘goal’. Aristotle for his part, termed it as the inherent purpose of each thing.
He refers it as the ultimate reason for each thing being the way it is, regardless as to whether
it was man-made or created by nature.

Man-made Objects
Take for example a coffee mug. A simple definition is that it is metal, plastic or ceramic
handled object that can carry hot liquid; but the mug reveals other purpose. You can’t use
your coffee mug to contain petrol or book cover. Describing the color, texture or height of the
object might be useful; but doing so would miss the most important thing about it, its very
reason for existing – it’s telos. The coffee mug was created by humans to drink of coffee with,
and every human artifact is made for a specific purpose – chairs for sitting, cars for driving,
television shows for entertaining.

Natural Objects
What about natural objects? Do they have inherent purposes? Can we make a definition
of them sans any reference to religious beliefs?

ETHICS 45
 Aristotle said that the telos of a plant or animal is also ‘what it was made for’ that we
can observe. For example, the trees’ purpose is to grow, develop branches, produce fruit, nuts,
or flowers, provide shade, and reproduce. The telos of a tree is something that can make use
of its full potential – the very purpose why it was created. Some observers include the telos of
a tree is its eventually decaying and death, and perhaps that is partv of it, but Aristotle could
disagree by saying that the telos of a thing is that which it does when it fulfills its full potential.

Humans
Humans according to Aristotle, has happiness as the telos for human beings. The
Greeks termed it as or eudemonia that also means something more like “fulfillment.” By what
Fulfillment is he speaking? Man of all beings has the potential for excellence, or “virtues” in
English translation of Aristotle. Aristotle defined “virtue” as referring to artistic, scientific,
athletic, or any other kind of excellence. When man performed a chore such as painting a
masterpiece, winning an athletic event or aspiring for scholastic honors happiness can be
achieved once one aims for perfection.

Aristotle’s definition of Happiness

“Happiness depends on ourselves.” More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines
happiness as a central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. As a result, he devotes more
time in pursuing happiness than any other topic to think about in the modern era. Living
during the same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some similar
conclusions. Aristotle was convinced that in order to attain a completely happy life requires
the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental well-being.
Essentially, Aristotle argues that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the
balance of the mind to a state of equilibrium.

ETHICS 46
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To get a brief background of The Angelic Doctor\
2. To learn The Natural Law
3. To understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of Happiness

St. Thomas Aquinas – The Angelic Doctor

St. Thomas Aquinas is also known as Doctor Angelicus or “Angelic Doctor” because of
his chastity that remained with him until he died. Angels are pure and being a Doctor of the
Church he was called as such. He was born on 1224 at Roccasecca, near Aquino, in Sicily
where he got his surname. He died on March 7,1274 at Fossanova, Italy; and was canonized
as saint on July 18,1323. He was an Italian Dominican theologian and one of the leading
Scholars of the Medieval Period. He developed his own conclusions based on Aristotelian logic,
notably in the study of Metaphysics (the study of the existence of God) that personality,
creation, and Providence. As a theologian he was responsible for the masterpieces namely, the
“Summa Theologica” – a compendium, of church teachings for the laity and the “Summa Contra
Gentiles” (Summary against the Gentiles) which is a guidebook for missionaries who might
debate Moslems and Jews in the East. As a poet, he wrote some of the most gravely beautiful
Eucharistic hymns for church services.

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law

What is the Natural Law: Do Good and Avoid Evil. Man is born intrinsically good and
being molded in the image and likeness of God this law is natural to every human being. St.
Thomas Aquinas based his doctrine on the aforementioned law being a prelate himself. Based
on his theory, the Natural Law is a reflection of the Eternal Law (in God). In order to explain
the existence of the Eternal Law, he gave a definition of all laws: law is an ordinance of reason
promulgated by the one in charge of the society. Laws are dedicated by reason and it is the
reason or intellect of the ruler that propels the creation of laws. The purpose of law is for a
well-ordered function of community under the sovereign’s care. (This political theory of St.
Thomas Aquinas believed that rulers rule for the sake of the governed. By well-being, we mean
the good and betterment of his subjects.) With his idea that God rules the world with his
reason, Aquinas concludes that God has an idea on how to govern the world. This idea, in God,
for the governance of things is the eternal law.
The Natural Law, which is an extension of the Eternal Law applies to human beings,
requires greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free will. It is the nature
of humans to act freely (by being free from outside intervention and coercion) by synchronizing
our acts and ends. Human beings must exercise our natural reason to discover what is best
for us in order to achieve the end to which their nature inclines. Natural law tells us that it is
natural for humans to achieve their ends through reason and free will. In other words, the
Natural Law is humans’ participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will that helped
them discern good from evil thereby giving them a happy contented life.

The Philosophy of Happiness and the Universal Man

In relation to Human happiness, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed that man is
constantly searching for happiness. But St. Thomas believed that with the immortality of
Human Soul happiness can be achieved and it can be found in God alone. The Universal Man,
according to Aristotle whom he also calls “The Whole Man” is a reasonable man. St. Thomas
believed that while man exists on earth he must possess an eternal and infinite perfection.
Despite the presence of material things, man is not perfectly happy. While man lives on earth
his happiness is mortal finite and perfect but upon the attainment of the Supreme Purpose
man’s happiness is divine, immortal, and perfect.

ETHICS 47
ETHICS 48
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF IMMANUEL KANT

A t the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To understand Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of Good Will
2. To learn about Kant’s Categorical Imperative
3. To know the Kingdom of Ends

Man and Duty

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that believed in the dignity of human reason,
duty, goodwill and the ends of human actions. But first, let us begin with duty – it simply
means that it is anything that has to be done or omitted. Others believe that it is a moral
obligation one has to do but within the framework of human freedom. There are four kinds of
duty namely:

1. Natural Duty – these are moral duty of citizens to obey the laws of their state and God
in relation to the Eternal Law. Examples are the duty to worship God or the duty to
value human life
2. Positive Duty – an obligation to do an act, on the part of the person on whom it is
imposed. Examples are the duty to hear mass, pay taxes and tuition fees
3. Affirmative Duty – these are things that adhere to moral obligation. Examples are the
inherent law of doing good and avoiding evil, helping the poor, aid the needy and the
likes
4. Negative Duty – moral obligation to avoid or refrain from doing something. Examples are
prohibitions of “no smoking”, “no littering” or “loitering” as well as legal decisions.

Kant’s philosophy revolved around the dignity of Human Reason. Man has gift or reason
and free will and the master of his destiny. Man is the only creature who can create his own
destiny and is the end not the means of God’s creation. Man having a free will should never
exploit his fellow men that slavery, bribery and any form of human exploitation degrades men
into beasts which is morally wrong. God created all things as means and Man is an end being
an instrument of God’s Divine Plan. Man’s primary duty is to make sure that God’s Divine Plan
of being like Him is implemented but in accordance with his free will.

Kant’s Philosophy of Good Will

Contrary to the Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophies that mentioned Moral Law came
from God and was made undisputed by Man through his conscience for conscience came from
Him. Kant believed that reason made all laws and makes everyone obey all laws at the same
time this is called the “Autonomy of reason”. Reason is endowed in men that laws are created
because there is reason for it and that is to reach a reasonable end. Man is the only being
capable of grasping the truth, according to Kant it can only be seen through sense experience
(sensation felt by the senses). We can only grasp the tangible and phenomenon never the
noumenon (unexplainable events). Man cannot know the very essence of the thing itself for
man cannot know everything. Man will never know what is right from wrong since there is no
certainty in this world. So what is Good Will then, Kant means to act out of a sense of moral
obligation or “duty”. The German Scholar believed that the Eternal Law “do good and avoid
evil” is inherent in man, meaning that there is goodness in every man that no matter how evil
they are, the tendency to do good or wanting something good is innate in man. The will is his
ability to pursue his good with the help of human reason but then again the goodness or
badness of an act lies in the purpose why he had done it. Not all good acts are good in itself
such as a politician doling out goods typhoon victims or an adversary delivering a eulogy to a
fallen opponent. Good will is the reason why he made such action and the ends he wanted to
achieve upon doing it.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

This philosophy of Immanuel Kant is a derivation of The Golden Rule mentioned in the
Chinese Classics “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you”. In his case
he “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that

ETHICS 49
it becomes a universal law”. To sum it up that is a command or imperative. There are two kinds
of imperatives hypothetical and categorical, let us differentiate. The former are commands that
are dependent on the goals to be fulfilled. These are commands that apply only in particular
circumstances, for particular people who happen to have these desires, these goals. Examples
are brushing your teeth to avoid bad breath, go to school to fulfill your scholastic needs and
the likes. Categorical Imperatives are commands that are universal and impartial. It
encompasses every reasonable being regardless of their origin, culture or social standing and
at the same time they have to perform these in respect for the dignity of everyone which devoid
of their bias or inclinations. Universal Love is an example of categorical imperative, World Peace
is another.

The Kingdom of Ends

Immanuel Kant believed in the dignity of human reason but also of the free will. As
mentioned in past modules man is endowed with free will and human reason to decide but if
they are coerced then their freedom of choice is hampered making them less of a human being.
Dignity of man should not be compromised. The Kingdom of ends is the idea of a state equal
to Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. Kant defines it as, “a systematic union of different rational being
through common laws”. But is it attainable? He believed it is because as long as men think the
same way which he deemed as “categorical imperative” it is attainable. The Kingdom of ends
has three ingredients: the embers, the sovereign, and the private ends which the members
have. The members refer to reasonable free-willed persons, who obey universal laws. They are
ends in themselves and are willing to spread their ideals to others absent of personal biases.
The sovereign is perceived to be God for he is not subject to any law but has no “power” to
break the law itself he is a role-model that the members will subscribe to. The private ends of
the members are the goals they wanted to achieve that will benefit everyone that might refer to
categorical imperatives. In this kingdom, human degradation, slavery and exploitation for the
private ends they wanted to attain are for everyone’s benefit.

ETHICS 50
 RIGHTS

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To give a definition of Rights as well as the types f rights
2. To differentiate rights from privilege
3. To discern moral rights from legal rights

What is Rights?
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. Rights are part
of modern civilizations, and are regarded as established pillars of society and culture. Conflicts
in history such as war, for example, began and end with rights. Democracy protected the rights
of individuals, property and privileges that is a thing men can never do without. Human rights
are moral principles that describe standards of human behavior protected by law. They are
considered as inalienable and fundamental, which means they can be given and taken away
once abused and is a necessity for human existence. Human right are inherent among human
beings because that is part of their existence regardless of their race, color or creed. It must
be noted that human rights may be protected by law but if abused, as mentioned will be taken
away but with due process. The “aggrieved” party may lose his fundamental rights backed up
by a court litigation and at the same time meet punishment for his mistake.

Types of Human Rights:

1. Civil and Political Rights – “civil-political” rights center on political liberties dealing with
politics. They are strongly individualistic and negatively constructed to protect the
individual from the state. These rights got their origin from Thomas Paine’s “Rights of
Man” that is part of the democratic process. Civil right include the security of peoples’
well-being, the protection from discrimination, and the exercise of freedom of speech,
freedom, press and assembly. By Political Rights we mean natural justice such as the
right of the accused to fair trial, redress of grievances and legal remedies.
2. Socio-economic and Cultural Rights – are human rights guarantee equal conditions and
treatment of necessities provided by the State. These include the human right
employment, the right to a high quality of life, including the basic needs of food, clothing,
and shelter and the right to social security, healthy environment, and education. These
rights are part of the body of human rights that resulted after World War II.
3. Collective-Developmental Rights – the right of peoples and groups to development in
relation to states’ rights to public assembly. This is for the protection of associations
and groups with the help of the state in its well-being.

Rights versus Privileges

A privilege is an entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a
restricted group on a conditional basis. On the other hand a right is an inherent, irrevocable
entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth. What is the
difference? Privilege refers to special powers or immunities held as consequence of political
power, social status, or wealth. Any local citizen has the right to elect a public official but
having a driver’s license is a privilege for it cannot be demanded. Such government ID needed
exams to pass and laws to follow. Privileges elevate a person, that granted them status and
power that not everybody can claim. Both of them however can be taken away once abused.

Moral Right versus Legal Right

As explained in the past modules not everything moral as legal and vice versa but we
will give an in-depth analysis of that in this module. Moral rights are rights accorded under
some system of ethics. Moral rights adhere to the idea that men are to be respected because
they are rational people. This includes the right to fair treatment and right to privacy. That is,
if Pedro has the right to do these things, Juan also being a human being must also be given
the same privileges. Legal rights are people’s rights under some legal system, granted by the
government or any duly-constituted authority. Everyone has the right to know the veracity of
a news item that the State may upheld the right to information but cannot force the people to
believe in it.

ETHICS 51
ETHICS 52
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF UTILITARIANISM

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To learn the core of his 18th Century Philosophy

2. To differentiate the beliefs of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
3. To correlate Utilitarian philosophy in business

Utilitarianism
This philosophy is also known as Consequentialism that says the rightness or wrongness
of an object depends on the effect of the consequence regardless of the method it utilized. There
are two kinds of utilitarianism and they are Act utilitarian and Rule utilitarian, the first believed
about the goodness or badness of a particular act. An example is the assassination of former
Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 that was an act of murder by the civilized people
but to the perpetuators it was an act beneficial to the maligned Indian minority. Rule utilitarian
means the goodness or evilness of an act itself. Say abortion may be an evil act but Western
civilization view it as a means to combat population explosion. Morality is defined, simply as
an increasing good and decreasing evil by eliminating traditions, taboos or archaic beliefs that
obstruct human development. These age-old beliefs put man in a “primitive” way of life that
denied their right to free-will and are a bane to human behavior. The proponents of this theory
were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill wherein the first thought about this idea and later
shared to his pupil which the latter propagated for humanity albeit with his own interpretation.
Despite being thinkers of the 18th Century their ideas were utilized by the present generation
but were doubted for its absurdities. That even today the ideas of these scholars were unsure
as to they tend to Act utilitarian or Rule utilitarian. Their writings are ambiguous that they
have no idea what utilitarian act they subscribe.

The Philosophy of Bentham and Mill

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) proposed utilitarianism in this premises:

1. Human life is greatly-affected by pleasure and pain;

2. Consequences of actions are caused by pleasure and pain;
3. The idea of anything pleasurable is good and anything painful is evil is absolute; and
4. Pleasure and pain can be quantified.

To sum it up, man’s happiness is quantified by either pleasure and pain and nothing else.
They can be measured according to the following criteria such as: intensity, duration, certainty
and nearness.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) for his part clarified his professors’ stand by making his own
counterpoint:

1. The quality of happiness is more important than its quantity;

2. The quality of happiness cannot be measured for these things are felt and no amount of
calculation can quantify it;
3. Mill believed in the idea of the “General Happiness of the People” that happiness can be
felt by everyone, in short common happiness.

Positive and Negative Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is famous for its maxim “Greater happiness for the greater number” and
believed in the premise that while man’s purpose in this world is to be happy, we must only
think more of happiness and neglect misery in our lives. Which brings us to Positive
utilitarianism which adheres to the maxim mentioned, while its negative counterpart centers
on its complete contradiction “least misery for the least number of people”. It must be noted,
though that both are absurd because suffering is part of human existence that comes in great
numbers that made a considerable number of people suffering as well. Negative utilitarianism
is also impractical if not totally ludicrous because by experiencing misery we became
emotionally stronger in as much as it is triumph over adversity, life is not a bed of roses

ETHICS 53
anyway. Positive utilitarianism is also preposterous for happiness may not be attained by
everyone and anyone might not feel the same way. For example, if we are happy inflicting pain
to another being a sadist will the receiving party feel pleasure? Certainly not unless he is a
masochist.

Business Utilitarianism
As mentioned earlier, the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the
consequence regardless of the method employed. We can also connect that to a common adage
“the end justifies the means” just as long as it benefits the society where one belongs.
Conversely speaking, any action is valid as long as it is for the “greater good for the greater
number”. Now let us correlate Utilitarianism to Business, four things have to be kept in mind:

1. Business depends upon the consequence of an action ergo consequentialism – as

mentioned the validity of the action is the consequence or the attainment of its ends.
This type of belief is considered bad because this is practically permitting the profiteers
of exercising avarice by jacking up price of commodities and at the same thing using
substandard goods and services just as long as they attain of raking cash at the expense
of good business.
2. Business depends on welfarism – by welfarism we mean an act is valid if the society
where one belongs subscribed to that similar understanding. This has positive effects
because it deals with the well-being of the society such as raising the salaries of the
workers that the State (unless they adhere to Command economy practiced by
Communists) approved.
3. Business is individualism – this centers on the happiness of the consumer while the
first two ideals are for the businessmen and the workers respectively. In this concept,
the businessmen will give quality goods and services at affordable prices devoid of profit
but merely public services.
4. Business is aggregation – by aggregation this means the rightness or wrongness of an
action is dependent in only on the average values of all the individual, egalitarian in the
real sense of the word. It simply means that happiness should be shared by all sectors
of business – the businessmen, workers, buyers and society.

JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To define justice and social justice
2. To understand Law and the State
3. To discern how societies dispense justice

What is Social Justice?

Plato in his writing “The Republic” dubbed social justice as Pantheism because he
compared justice or fairness as the universe in its entirety that is moved by an invisible source.
The universe has been here since time immemorial and no one can determine the age but why
it that it never collided is and still “in order”? He defined justice as universal, absolute and
eternal. But what is justice, Merriam Webster defined it as, the maintenance or administration
of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment
of merited rewards or punishments. So to correlate that with Plato’s “The Republic”, the
components of justice is harmony and unity. But that can never be attained if there is no State
which is the very purpose why the need for state, politics and law is a must in every society.
Social justice only came in to being during the 19 th Century in the Industrial revolution to be
exact by European countries. The populace who were fed up by their monarchs demand justice
and fairness based on the premises of equality among men and to resolve capitalist

ETHICS 54
exploitation. This later expanded to issue such as rights of the poor, equal distribution of
wealth, race, gender, and the likes. Aristotle, Plato’s most apt subordinate gave his own
definition when he said, “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally” that means
that individuals must be treated the same but if necessity dictates there are exceptions. For
example, John and Joanne are both workers in the same factory and in the same position and
are having the same compensation. However, there are things may differ when it comes to age,
sex, educational background or religious belief.

State and Laws

State is a community of persons more or less numerous permanently occupying a
definite territory having a government of their own to which a great body of inhabitants render
habitual obedience and enjoying freedom from external control. A State has the following
elements namely:

1. People: mass of population living within the state;

2. Territory: land, maritime, aerial and fluvial area over which jurisdiction exists;
3. Government: the agency through which the will of the state is carried out;
4. Sovereignty: supreme power of the state to enforce its will on the people without foreign
intervention and;
5. Recognition: the acceptance of a nation into the Family of Nations.

A law is part and parcel of a state and is defined as any rule that if broken will meet
punishments to offenders. It is also defined as a body of rules made by the government
interpreted by the courts and backed by the power of the State. It is a legal order which
refers to a specialized phase of social control. Law is not only a means to a civilization
but also a product of civilization according to Roscoe Pound, the spokesman for the
School of Social Jurisprudence. Law is responsible for social engineering for it is a
mechanism in reacting to changes in a society. Laws are susceptible to change and is
not bound by traditions and legends and is created for the interest of all members of
society.

Government and Justice

1. Egalitarianism – is a trend of thought in political philosophy. It favors equality to
everyone where people are treated the same as equals. Justice is given to everyone
regardless of race color or creed.
2. Communism – is simply based class dictatorship of the proletariat (the ruling party).
This type of governance was thought of by Karl Marx, where a society is dominated by
one class over the entire state. Socialism is the reciprocal of capitalism, where state
control of the economy is the nation’s priority.
3. Socialism – a political ideology that advocates for an equal redistribution of wealth and
power in society through a democratic ownership and distribution of society’s means of
production (or means of making money).

ETHICS 55
 PLURALISM VERSUS FUNDAMENTALISM

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. To differentiate the Pluralist and Fundamentalist Philosophies
2. To explain Globalization and Pluralism
3. To define Filipino Millenials or Filinnials
4. To understand the role of religion in ethics

Pluralism versus fundamentalism

Let us define Pluralism – it is the holding of two or more beliefs or concepts in a single society.
This is the prevailing idea that is introduced in the modern world to make this a better place
to live in. the Pluralist ideology fell on the following premises:

1. Pluralism is engagement with diversity. This means that the walls that divide people due
to religious beliefs shall be removed, at present religious diversity is present but devoid
of religious pluralism. That is in certain countries religious ghettoes allow religious
minorities to exist in their fold but is still alienated due to their biases by the adherents
of the dominant religion.
2. Luralism is understanding that transcends lines of differences. Many are mistaken that
we have to learn the entire religious doctrine of another only a portion is enough to at
least build a bridge to connect them. Absence of knowledge of another culture led to
bias and alienation.
3. Pluralism is encounter of commitments, this is simply to emphatize to people of another
religion. We should not isolate ourselves from what we know but break borders.
4. Pluralism is based on dialogue – talking is the most basic way of communicating, silence
will bring us nowhere. Fundamentalism is defined as a strict belief in the literal
interpretation of the religious tenet. Fundamentalist’s view of other religious beliefs are
biased and contrary to their fundamental beliefs are considered “heretic”. Their religious
tenets adhere to the idea that morality is ebbing due to modernization.

Globalization and Pluralism

In our ever-changing world, pluralism are political responses to different historical
challenges that they shape history that build bridges than Fundamentalism that create walls.
Policies geared religious pluralism center on religious toleration, rights for denominations, or
individual religious freedom. They believed that even if they subscribe to religious beliefs they
belong to One Faith and are unified by the philosophy of being one. Globalization since we are
now in the Digital Age, play a major role in achieving common understanding that Ecumenical
Services accepted people of “alien” religions to be at one thanks to the internet. With the
continuing development in telecommunications that will prove brighter in the years to come,
will lead to peaceful co-existence and even to ideological convergence. Then again, like a
double-edged sword, pluralism may also lead to social dissolution, since the awareness of
fundamental differences between religious world-views and might lead to misunderstanding
and lead to religious wars. One example is the Crusades that occurred in the Middle Ages
between Muslims and Christians in spite of the fact that Islam revered Christ as one of their
prophets and the Muslim beliefs foster humility and brotherhood akin to Christian traditions.

The Filipino Millennial aka Filinnials

Time Magazine, described millennial as people born from 1980 to 2000. This generation
comprise the largest age group in America and Asia. Their age group is called the “yuppie” age
(from the acronym YUP or Young Urban Professionals). In the Philippines, they are described
as the “selfie” generation and followers of social media no thanks to modern communication
gadgets such as mobile phones, laptops and tablets that seems they can never do without. A
Fillinnial (short for Filipino millennial) are usually spendthrifts due to their propensity to spend
money for luxury goods which left their bank accounts “broke”. Another trait that unified most
of them is their narcissistic attitude, making them known as the “Me, Me, Me Generation.”
They are so conscious of what and how they look that selfies are a common thing. It must be
noted though that there are also good attitude which millennial possess among them are their

ETHICS 56
politically and social astuteness. The social media opened their eyes that traditional media
such as TV, movies, radio and print are no longer the source of information. Compared to other
generations, millenials have their say about issues and are more involved with politics and are
not squeamish about revealing their opinions.

The Role of Religion in Ethics

Even in the current situation, many are still arguing about the role of religion in Ethics.
Will this age-old institution be the primary agent for the right ethics for they propagate the
Word of God? Most religions have an ethical component because ethics is yardstick for right
conduct and good life. A necessary component of making this guide to temporal happiness. Is
this the most reliable conception of analyzing what is right from what is wrong? The central
theme of ethics is “the good life”, the very reason we aspire for in this temporal world we live
in that ancient Greeks regarded as 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 is the source of good character, that us integrated by good personal habits
such as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual virtue.

ETHICS 57
 REFERENCES AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

1. Agapay, Ramon B., Ethics and the Filipinos; Mandaluyong Metro Manila, National Book
Store
2. Montemayor, Felix M.; Ethics, the Philosophy of Life; Navotas Metro Manila; National
Book Store Inc.
3. Babor, Eddie R., Ethics – The Philosophical Discipline of Action; Manile, Rex Book Store
4. Colendrina-Bucu, Luz et al; Introduction to Psychology; Rex Bookstore; Quezon City
5. Panapio, Isabel et al; Sociology Focus in the Philippines; Ken Inc.; Quezon City Online
Supplementary Reading Materials
6. “Considering the Influence of Culture on Morality”;
http://thegoodproject.org/considering-the-influence-of-culture-on-morality/, August
20,2015
7. Filipino Character and Persnality;
http://factsanddetails.com/southeastasia/philippines/sub5_6c/entry-3867.html;
June 2015
8. Ethical Relativism; http://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-
decisionmaking/ethical-relativism/; August 1, 1992
9. Moral Conscience; https://catholicity.com/catechism/moral_conscience.html; 2018
10. Love isn’t an emotion; https://theanatomyoflove.com/what-is-love/love-isn’t-
anemotion/; October 26, 2016
11. Virtue; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue;
12. Human Reason; https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/713;
13. God, Man and the Universe; http://scalar.usc.edu/works/god-man-and-
theuniverse/what-about-human-reason;;
14. Mary Ann Radmacher Inspires; http://www.maryanneradmacher.net/
15. The Real definition of courage; https:www.huffingtonpost.com/rebeccaperkins/the-
real-definition-of-courage_b_6857068.html; December 6,2017
16. Aristotle on Virtue;
htto://documents.routlegeinteractive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/ethical_th
eories/Aristotle
17. Philosophy of Terms; http://philosophyofterms.com/telos/
18. The Pursuit of Happiness; http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-
ofhappiness/Aristotle/
19. St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law;
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html
20. Ethical Traditions;
www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScienced/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_E
thical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperatives.htm; 2002
21. The Kingdom of Ends; http: https://limnk.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-
010-3099-1_26;
22. How to tell the differenece between the right and a privilege?;
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-moral-rights-and-legalrights;
January 9,2017
23. Three Generation of Human Rights; http:http://www.cesr.org/what-areeconomic-
social-and-cultural-rights;
24. Act and Rule Utilitarianism; https:///www.iep.utm.edu/utilitarianism-inbusiness;
December 1, 2016
25. Utilitarianism; http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html; 2002
26. Positive and Negative Utilitarianism;
https://procrastinatoryponderings.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/positive-andnegative-
utilitarianism-two-absurd-versions-of-consequentialism/ ; March 28,2013
27. Applying Utilitarianism in Business;
https://www.academicwritersbureau.com/ssamples/219-applying-utilitarianism-
inbusiness; December 1, 2016
28. Social Justice; https://www.pachamama.org/social-justice/what-is-social-justice

ETHICS 58
 29. Justice and Fairness; https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-
decisionmaking/justice-and-fairness/ ; August 1, 2014
30. Definition of Justice; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice
31. Egalitarianism; https://plato.standford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/; April 24, 2013
32. Social Justice: Code for Communism; https://www.quora.com/What -is-a-
communistgovernment-1; August 4, 2016
33. What is Socialism Really? https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is-
socialismdefinition/
34. What is Pluralism; http://pluralism.org/what-is-pluralism/; 2006
35. What is Fundamentalism; https://www.gotquestions.org/fundamentalism.html
36. Modes of Religious Pluralism under Conditions of Globalization;
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-
humansciences/resources/periodicals/diversities/past-issues/vol-1-no-1-
1999/modes-ofreligious-pluralism-under-conditions-of-globalisation/#topPage; 1999
37. Millennials in the Philippines; http://primer.com.ph/blog/2016/06/27/millennialsin-
the-philippines-who-are-they-and-what-do-they-do/
38. Can we be ethical without being religious;
http://www.ethicssage.com/2012/09/therole-of-ethics-in-religion.html; September
4,2012
39. Hunt Chester L. et. Al. Sociology in the Philippine Setting, 5 th Edition HIBS Publishing
House, Inc. Quezon City Philippines
40. https://iep.utm.edu/moraldev/
41. Universal Values, United Nations Statements and Messages, December 12, 2003. Taken
from un.org
42. Schwartz’s Universal Values, (n.d). Taken from changingminds.org

Written by: Christopher S. Espiritu, AMACC Caloocan Campus

ETHICS 59