1

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

GEC 8 – ETHICS
General Education

2nd Semester A.Y. 2020-2021

GEC 8- Ethics
 2

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

Chapter 1
THE ETHICAL DIMESION OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. Identify the ethical aspect of human life and the scope of ethical thinking;
2. Define and explain the terms that are relevant to ethical thinking; and
3. Evaluate the difficulties that are involved in maintaining certain commonly-held notions on ethics.

Introduction

In August 2007, newspapers reported what seemed to be yet another sad incident of fraternity violence. Cris
Anthony Mendez, a twenty-year-old student of the University of the Philippines (UP), was rushed to the hospital in the early
morning hours, unconscious, with large bruises on his chest, back and legs. He passed away that morning, and the subsequent
autopsy report strongly suggests that his physical injuries were most probably result of hazing. What exactly happened
remains an open question, as none of those who were with him that night came forward to shed light on what had transpired.
Needless to say, none of them came forward to assume responsibility for the death of Cris.

Even as the leaders of the Sigma Rho fraternity publicly denounced the death of Cris, those members who had been
with him that night vanished, avoiding and refusing to cooperate with legal authorities. Meanwhile, UP students and the
general public clamored for justice. In a move that surprised the student body, the UP Chancellor called on all fraternities
to justify their continued existence. Meanwhile the case of the tragic death of Cris Anthony Mendez was left unresolved. It
remains that way up to this day.

No one knows just what exactly happened. No charges have been filed, no definitive testimony has been
forthcoming. But there is more to this for us than just a criminal mystery. Pondering on the death of Cris, we may find
ourselves asking questions such as ‘What is the value of one’s life?” “What exactly were the wrongs done to Cris by his so-
called fraternity brothers?” or perhaps “is there any good in fraternities?” These questions that concern good and bad, or
right or wrong - and these questions concerning value are the kind of questions that we deal in ethics.

LESSON 1: Value

Definition of Ethics
- The good things that we should do and the bad things that we should avoid; the right ways in which we could or
should act and the wrong ways of acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human behavior. It
may involve obligations that we are expected to fulfill, prohibitions that we are required to respect, or ideals that
we are encouraged to meet.

Clarifications and Terminologies

GEC 8- Ethics
 3

1. Recognize that there are instances when we make value judgements that are not considered to be part of
ethics.

Kinds of Valuations
a. Aesthetics – derived from the Greek word “aesthesis” (“sense” or “feeling”) and refers to the judgements
of personal approval or disapproval that we make about what we see, hear, smell, or taste.
e.g.
For instance, I could say that a new movie I had just seen was a good one because I enjoyed it or
a song I heard on the radio was a bad one because it had an unpleasant tone.

b. Etiquette – certain approval or disapproval of actions which can be relatively more trivial in nature. It is
concerned with right and wrong actions, but those considered not quite grave enough to belong to the
discussion on ethics.
e.g.
For instance, I may think that it is right to knock politely on someone’s door, while it is wrong to
barge into someone’s office. Perhaps I may approve of a child who knows how to ask for something properly
by saying please, and otherwise, disapprove of a woman that I see picking her nose in public.

c. Technical Valuation – derive from the Greek word “techne” the English words techniques and technical
which are often used to refer to a proper way (or right way) of doing things but may not necessarily be an
ethical.
e.g.
Learning how to bake, for instance I am told that the right thing to do would be mix the dry
ingredients first, such as flour or sugar before bringing in any liquids, like milk or cream: this is the right
thing to do in baking but does not belong in the discussion of ethics.

2. Ethics and Morals

• Morals – used to refer specific beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe acts that people perform.
• Ethics- the discipline of studying and understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking

3. Descriptive and Normative

• Descriptive Ethics – reports how people, particularly groups, make their moral valuations without making
any judgement either for or against these valuations.
• Normative Ethics – often done in philosophy or moral theology, engages questions “What could or should
be the right way of acting? In other words, a normative discussion prescribes what we ought to maintain as
our standards or bases for moral valuations.

4. Issue Decision Judgement and Dilemma

• Moral issue – used to refer to those particular situations that are often the source of considerable ad inclusive
debates (thus we would often hear topics such as capital punishment and euthanasia as moral issue)
• Moral Decision – when one is faced in a situation and confronted by the choice of what act to perform.
e.g. For instance, I choose not to take something I did not pay for.
• Moral Judgment – when one is an observer who makes an assessment on the actions or behavior.
e.g. For instance, a friend of mine stole from a store and I find it wrong to do so.

GEC 8- Ethics
 4

• Moral Dilemma – Going beyond the matter of choosing right over wrong, or good over bad, and considering
instead the more complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods or choosing
between the lesser of two evils; When an individual can choose only one from a number of possible actions
and there are compelling ethical reasons for the various choices.
e.g. A mother may be conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing that it
would be wrong for her to steal.

Reasoning
Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is right and its opposite is wrong? The study of ethics in interested
in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way of acting as acceptable while that way of acting is
unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either
right or wrong?
A person’s fear of punishment or desire for reward can provide him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common
to hear someone say “I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I might get caught”. The promise of rewards and
the fear of punishment can certainly motivate us to act, but are not in themselves determinants of the rightness or wrongness
of a certain way of acting or of the good or bad in particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain
way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?
Going beyond whatever motivations or incentive is present in an instance of cheating (or not doing so), our thinking
may take on a level of abstraction, that is “Cheating is wrong” by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way.
Beyond rewards and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuations, decisions and judgment to be based on a principle
or a moral framework.

Principle
- Rationally established grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgement.

Moral Theory/Framework
- A systematic attempt to establish the validity of maintaining certain moral principles. It is a structure which can
evaluate our reasons for valuing a certain decision or judgement. This can make us reflect on the principles that
we maintain and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify,
modify, and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgments and moral
decisions.

LESSON 2: Sources of Authority

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

AUTHORITY OF THE LAW

• It is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social and governmental institutions to regulate behavior.
It has been defined as the science of Justice or the Art of Justice. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that
individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. Furthermore, the law is enforced by way of a systems of
sanctions administered through persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Provides us with
an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all.
GEC 8- Ethics
 5

• One point to be raised is the prohibitive nature of the law. The law does not tell us what we should do; it works by
constraining us from performing acts that we should not do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what
to pursue, only what to avoid. Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective of
that which we should not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and should do, even if
the law does not require us to do so?
• To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over by a couple of vehicles. While there
were many passers-by who witnessed what had happened for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The
child later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige people to help others in need, so none of these passers –by
were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to this sad news report share a sense that those
passers-by were somewhat ethically culpable in their negligence. In view, of all this, perhaps one should think of
ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with obedience of the law.

AUTHORITY OF THE RELIGION

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and
commandments.” Deuteronomy 1:11
(New American Bible)

Divine Command Theory

• The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey her Creator. There are
persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine. By listening to this figures and reading these writings,
an individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining more radical form of this
theory might go beyond this instruments of Divine Revelation and claim that God “spoke” to her directly to instruct
her what to do.
✓ We are presented with a more or less clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion
– “Thou shall not kill, “Thou shall not steal”, Thou shall not commit adultery” - seem to intuitively coincide
with our sense of what ethics should rightly demand.
✓ Religion is not simply prohibitive but it also provides us ideals to pursue.
✓ Provides us with not just a set of commands but also Supreme Authority that can inspire and compel our
obedience in a way that nothing else can.

• On the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its
adherents, which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards.

• On conceptual level, we can see a further problem where one requires the believer to clarify her understanding of
the connection between ethics and the Divine.

• We maintain that generally speaking it is a good thing for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular
religion. But the divine command theory demands more than this as it requires us to identify the entire sense of
right and wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual problem we have seen and the practical difficulties of
simply basing ethics on the divine command theory are reasons enough to wonder whether we have to set this
thinking aside. Now let us clarify one point: Our calling into question of the divine command theory is not calling
to question of one’s belief in God; it is not intended to be a challenge to one’s faith. Instead, it is an invitation to
consider whether there may be more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and
ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to be commanded by God.

GEC 8- Ethics
 6

AUTHORITY OF CULTURE

Culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge belief and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and
transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.

Cultural Relativism – From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that sheer variety
at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds
true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say,
dependent on one’s culture.

1. Cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience which is the reality of the
differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations.
2. By taking one’s culture as standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations.
3. It teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in
no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is
acceptable or unacceptable. In turn our own cultural moral codes is neither superior or
inferior to any other, but they would provide us the standards that are appropriate and
applicable to us.

James Rachels’ Criticism

1. The argument of criticism is premised on the reality of difference. Different cultures have moral codes. We cannot
say that any moral code is the right one. But the disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or wrong
is not immediately evident, but it does not mean that there is no correct resolution to the disagreement.
2. We realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices of another culture. This seems
to be a generous and an open minded way of respecting others but what if the practice seems to call for a comment.
Such as when a particular African tribe thought it is advantageous and therefore right for them to wipeout a
neighboring people through a terrible practice of genocide? Are we in no position to judge if this is wrong? Would
we be satisfied with concluding that we cannot judge another culture?
3. We realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgement on the practices of even our own culture. If
our culture was the basis of determining what is right or wrong, we would be unable to say that something within
our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be the standard for making such
judgments.
4. We can maintain it only by following presumption of our culture as a single clearly defined substance or as
something fixed and already determined. Now, it is always possible to fid examples of a certain culture having
unique practice or way of life and to distinguish it from other culture’s practices, but it is also becoming increasingly
difficult to determine what exactly defines one’s culture.

*Positive Points

Promotes sense of humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior to another. Such
humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciative of
human values.

*Weak Points

It basically renders us incapable of discerning about what values we may wish to maintain as we are forced to
simply accept whatever culture gives us. It keeps us from exploring whether there are values that are shared between
GEC 8- Ethics
 7

cultures; keeps us from comparing and judging- either positively or negatively – the valuations that are made by different
cultures.

Reflection
Returning to the case of Cris:
Can one claim that fraternities have their own culture that deserves respect? What would be
the strong and weak points of this claim?

LESSON 3: Senses of The Self

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

SUBJECTIVISM
- Recognize that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuation. She is the one who
is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgement.
- The individual is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong.
➢ “No one can tell me what is right or wrong”
➢ “No one knows my situation better than myself”
➢ “I am entitled to my own opinion”
➢ “It is good, if I say it is good”

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
“Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all our actions are always already motivated by self-interest”. The
theory describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in
any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an underlying basis for how one’s act. The ego or self has its
desires and interests, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.

Strong Points
1. Simplicity – when an idea is marked by simplicity, it has unique appeal to it; a theory that conveniently identifies a
single basis that will somehow account for all actions is a good example of this.
2. Plausibility- It is plausible that self-interest is behind a person’s actions. It is clearly the motivation behind many of
the actions one perform which are obviously self-serving; it could very well also be the motivation behind an
individual’s seemingly other-directed actions.
3. Irrefutable – there is no way to try to answer it without being confronted by the challenge that, whatever one might
say, there is the self-serving motive at the root of everything.
Thus, if we cannot refute it, shall we consider it as true? And “Do we accept the consequences of this theory?”

ETHICAL EGOISM
- It does not suppose all actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should
make our own ends, our own interests, as the single overriding concern. We may act in a way that is beneficial to
others, but we should do that only if it ultimately benefits us.
GEC 8- Ethics
 8

- It is not just some pleasant pursuit of one’s own desires, but the imposition of a will to power that is potentially
destructive of both the self and the others. One can take on this view, if one wishes, but it is also possible to wonder
whether there is a way of recognizing our being in the world with others, of thinking of our own wellbeing
concomitantly with the wellbeing of others.

Reflection
Returning to the case of Cris:
Do you think it is acceptable that those responsible for the death of Cris got away with murder? Do you think
it is right for someone to look after his/her own welfare over any other concern such as justice?

SUMMARY
In this chapter, we have established the scope and the rationale for a discussion of ethics. We explored various
domains of valuation in order to distinguish what makes a particularly grave type of valuation a moral or ethical one. We
clarified some of the terms that will be used in the study of ethics. We have also explored a number of problematic ways of
thinking of ethics: some give a too simplistic answer to the question of our grounds or foundations for moral valuations,
while others seem to dismiss the possibility of ethics altogether.

Additional Activities
Provide additional activity/activities here.
Reflection/Valuing

Suggested Readings
Frankfurt Harry. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. “The Importance of What We Care About:
Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.pp 11-25

Nagel, Thomas “The Fragmentation of Value. “Moral Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979,
pp. 128-41

Rachels, James “Can ethics Provide Answers? “The Hastings Center Report, Vol.10, No. 3, June 1980, pp.32-40.

Reyes, Ramon Castillo. “The Relation between Ethics and Religious Belief.” The Moral Dimension: Essays in
Honor of Ramon Castillo Reyes, edited by Nemesio S. Que, Jr., Oscar G. Bulaong, Jr., and Michael Ner E. Mariano, Queson
City: Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University, 2003, pp.107-112.

References/Additional Resources:

Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by Rex Bookstore, Inc.

GEC 8- Ethics
 9

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the Program General Education
Semester and Academic Year 1st Semester 2020-2021.

Chapter II
UTILITARIANISM

Intended Learning Outcomes

1. Discuss the basic principle of utilitarian ethics
2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the quantitative model of Jeremy Bentham and the qualitative model
of John Stuart Mill
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios

Introduction
On January 25, 2015, the 8th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police operation at Tukanalipao, Mamasapao
in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan Exodus, it was intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli Bin Hir or Marwan,
a Malaysian terrorist and bomb maker who had a 5-million-dollar bounty on his head. This mission eventually led to a clash
between the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) SAF, on one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF)
and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police operation was successful because of the
death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed sixty-seven lives including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF
Fighters and five civilians. However, the relatively high number of SAF members killed in this operation caught attention
of many including Philippine media and the legislature.

In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic mission, then Senate President Franklin Drilon and
Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to
cover up the massacre of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence
under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained
that any communication or spoken word or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part
thereof or any information therein contained, obtained and secured by any person in any violation of the preceding sections
of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation. “Seator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs argued
otherwise, “Sinabi na ni Senaator Drilon na ito daw ay illegal, na hindi daw pwede, na ako daw ay pwedeng maging liable
kung ito daw ay ipapakinig sa senado, ako naman, ano ba naman itong mga batas na ito?... Ang mga batas na to ay para
malaman natin ang katotohanan at magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong anti-wiretapping or mga recording na ganito, kung
hindi pwedeng lalabs sa publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session.”

GEC 8- Ethics
 10

Senator Poe response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights If it is morally permissible for
the government to infringe individual rights, when can the government do so? Does it become legitimate to sacrifice
individual rights when considering the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

The case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate investigations. The senate inquiry
proceedings raised questions on the possibility of wiretapping and the intrusion of one’s right to privacy. While the 1987
Philippine Constitution does protect one’s right to private communication, it did provide some exemptions to its
inviolability. These exemptions included a lawful order of the court and/or issues concerning public safety and order. RA
4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007) both provided exemptions on the
inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion and sedition. While this is a certainty a legal
issue, can it also contribute a moral concern? By raising the distinction between moral and legal issues and concerns, do
you think that these two are different? To simplify things, let us put aside the question of law and let us assume that you
were ask to decide whether wiretapping is morally permissible or not? On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible
and on what instance it is not morally permissible.

LESSON 1: The Principle of Utility

UTILITARIANISM
- It is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of right behavior based on the
usefulness of the action’s consequences.
- It claims that one’s actions and behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed toward the experience of the greatest
pleasure over pain for the greatest number of person.
- Its root word is “utility” which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s actions.
- It is consequentialist – meaning the moral value of actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness
of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad.
- According to Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), utility refers to understanding the
results of people’s actions. Specifically, they are interested on whether this actions contribute or not to the world.
The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion of
happiness.
o Happiness is the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some
individual rights.
o The pursuit for pleasure and pain are in fact the only principle in assessing action’s morality
o The natural preferability of pleasure Mill refers to as theory of life.

The Principle of Utility

- Refers to our subjection to our sovereign masters: pleasure and pain
- Refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure.
- Refers to pleasure is only good if and only if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is
not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

- He argued that our actions are governed by two sovereign masters – which he calls “pleasure and pain”. These
masters are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what to be done and not; they fasten
our choices to their throne.
GEC 8- Ethics
 11

- He equates happiness with pleasure.

- He provided a framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called Felicific Calculus.
o Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can
produce. In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure;
duration or length of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that pleasure will
occur; propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be pleasure.
o In measuring the tendency to choose these actions we need to consider two more dimensions:
▪ Fecundity – chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and purity of the chance
it has not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
▪ Lastly is consideration of the number of person who are affected by pleasure or pain, another
dimension called Extent should also be considered.
o Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure.
o This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and values. In this sense
pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from other experiences of
pleasure and pain.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873

- He reiterates moral good as happiness, and consequently happiness as pleasure.
- He clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of
pleasure.
- He argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are
painful.
- He dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish pleasure
qualitatively and not merely quantitatively.
- Utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate for pigs or to any other animals. He thinks that there
are higher intellectual and lower base pleasure.
- We are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs are capable of.
- Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive quantity of what
otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.
- In deciding over two comparable pleasures pleasure, it is important to experience both and to discover which one
is actually more preferred than the other.
- Actual choices of knowledgeable persons’ points that higher intellectual pleasures are preferable than purely sensual
appetites.

LESSON 2: Principle of The Greatest Number

Principle of the Greatest Number

• According to John Stuart Mill, equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral
agent and independently from others. This not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high,
intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the
consequence of our actions.

Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism cannot lead us to selfish acts
GEC 8- Ethics
 12

• It is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.

• It is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for all persons.
• Is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number
• Maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest number.
• J.S. Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions. Interested with the best consequence
for the highest number of people. It is not interested in the motive of agent.
• Moral value cannot be discernable in the intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely
on the difference it makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.

LESSON 3: Justice and Moral Rights

John Stuart Mill understands JUSTICE as respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness
of the greatest number. MORAL RIGHTS is a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.

Utilitarianism on Justice and Moral Rights

• The society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are protected and
that society as a whole defends it.
• A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the
unhappiness resulting from their implementation.
• Utilitarian argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the category of rights is directly
associated with the individual’s most vital interests
• Mill associates utilitarianism with the possession of moral and legal rights. He understands that legal rights are
neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions.
• He points out that when legal rights are not normally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle,
then these rights neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying that there are instances when the law is
not morally justified, and in this case, even objectionable.
• It is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher
moral good.
• Mill points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights
• Moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of greater overall happiness.
• What matters in what we do is the resultant happiness, then anything may be justified for the sake of producing the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
• For Mill, justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights because justice promotes the greater social good.

Mill explains that the idea of justice supposed two things: a rule of conduct and a sentiment which sanctions the rule. The
first must be supposed common to all mankind, and intended for their good. The other (sentiment) is a desire that punishment
may be suffered by those who infringe the rule. There is involved, in addition, the conception of some definite person who
suffers by the infringement; whose rights (to use the appropriated to the case) are violated by it. And the sentiment of justice
appears to me to be, the animal desire to repel or retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself, or to those whom one sympathizes,
widened so as to include all persons, by the human capacity of enlarged sympathy, and the human conception of intelligent
self-interest. From the latter elements, the feeling derives its morality; from the former, its peculiar impressiveness, ad
energy of self-assertion.

GEC 8- Ethics
 13

SUMMARY
Bentham and Mill see moral good as pleasure, not merely self-gratification, but also the greatest happiness principle
or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. We are compelled to do whatever increases pleasure and
decreases pain to the most number of persons, counting each as one and none as more than one. In determining the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people, there is no distinction between Bentham and Mill. Bentham suggests his
felicific calculus, a framework for quantifying moral valuation. Mill provides criterion for comparative pleasures. He thinks
that persons who experience two different types of pleasures generally prefer higher intellectual pleasures to base sensual
ones.

Mill provides an adequate discourse on rights despite it being mistakenly argued to be the weakness of utilitarianism.
He argues that rights are socially protected interests that are justified by their contribution to the greatest happiness principle.
However, he also claims that in extreme circumstances, respect for individual rights can be overridden to promote better
welfare especially in circumstances of conflict valuation.

Example Exercises with Solutions:

Provide example exercises with solutions as many as you can
Exercises
May include enhance exercise/s
Additional Activities
Provide additional activity/activities here.
Reflection/Valuing
Encode reflection questions in this section which students may ponder upon and respond to.

Suggested Readings
Albee, Ernest. A Histry of English Utilitarianism. New York: Macmillan, 1902.

Alican, Necip Fikri. Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill’s Notorious Proof. Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 1994

Berger, Fred R. Happiness, Justice, and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Crisp, Roger. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 2009.

Lyon’s David. Rights, Welfare and Mill’s Moral Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Mill, John Stuart. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. 33 Volumes, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1994.

Ryan Alan. The Philosophy of John Stuart Mil. London: Macmillan, 1987.

Semmel, Bernard. John Stuart Mill and the Pursuit of Virtue. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Skorupski, John, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

References/Additional Resources:

Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by Rex Bookstore, Inc.
GEC 8- Ethics
 14

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the Program General Education
Semester and Academic Year 2nd Semester 2020-2021

Chapter III
NATURAL LAW

Intended Learning Outcome

1. Recognize how Thomas Aquinas made use of ancient Greek concepts to provide a rational grounding to an ethical
theory based on the Christian faith;
2. Identify the natural law in distinction from, but also in relation to, the other types of law mentioned by Aquinas
eternal law, and divine law; and
3. Apply the precepts of the natural law to contemporary moral concerns.

Introduction
In October 2016, newspapers reported that Pantaleon Alvarez, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was
intending to draft a bill which would amend the country’s Family Code, thereby allowing for the legalization of same-sex
unions. This would result in the possibility of two men together and two women together being identified as a couple with
rights guaranteed and protected by law. However, as one newspaper reported revealed, even before anything could be
formally proposed, other fellow legislators had already expressed to the media their refusal to support any such initiative
The reasons given in the news vary, ranging from the opinion that seeing two men kiss is unsightly, to the statement
that there is something “irregular” about belonging to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community (LGBT), and
to the judgment that two people of the same sex is unnatural.
We are used to hearing people justify something that is done by making the appeal to what they maintain is
“natural”, and therefore “acceptable”. Likewise, people would judge something as unacceptable on the basis that it is
supposedly “unnatural”. Thus, we are no longer surprised when we hear people condemn and label many different things
as “unnatural”: maybe receiving blood transfusions, eating meat, or as our news report shows, engaging in sexual relations
that might consider deviant. We also realize that sometimes we might find ourselves astonished or perplexed as to what
different people might consider “unnatural”.
In order to proceed, it is therefore necessary to ask: “What do the words natural and unnatural mean?” Sometimes,
the word natural seems to be used to refer to some kind of intuition that a person has, one which is so apparently true to him
that it is unquestioned. For example, a woman may claim that it is unnatural to eat any kind of insect and what this means
is that she personally finds herself averse to the idea of doing so. In other instances, the word used to try to justify certain
ways of behaving by seeing its likeliness somewhere in the natural world. For example, a man might claim that it is okay
for im to have more than one sexual partner, since in pride of lions, the alpha male gets to mate with all the she-lions. In yet
other instances, the word natural is used as an appeal to something instinctual without it being directed by reason. For
example, a man may deem it all right if he were to urinate just anywhere because he sees it as natural functions of human.

GEC 8- Ethics
 15

Lastly, we also easily find people using the word natural to refer to what seems common to them in a particular environment.
For instance, a Filipina may suppose that eating three full meals of rice and viand every day is natural because everyone she
knows behaves that way.
Given these varied meaning of the term natural, we need to find a more solid and nuanced way to understand the
term. In this chapter, we will explore how Thomas Aquinas provided this, emphasizing the capacity for reason as what is
essential in our human nature. This understanding of human nature anchored on our capacity for reason will become the
basis of the natural law theory, a theory which will provide us a unique way of determining the moral status of our actions.

LESSON 1. Thomas Aquinas

There have been various thinkers and systems of thought emerging throughout history that could be said to present
a natural law theory. Among them, the one we will be focusing on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has o be
recognized, however, that this natural law theory is part of a larger discussion, which is his moral theory taken as a whole.
This moral theory, in turn, is part of a larger project, which is Aquinas’s vision of the Christian faith.

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

➢ Hailed as a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. A Dominican friar who was the preeminent intellectual figure
of the scholastic period of Middle Ages, contributing to the doctrine of the faith more than any other figure of
his time. His Summa Theologiae, his magnus opus, is a voluminous work that comprehensively discusses many
significant points in Christian theology. He was canonized in 1323.

THE CONTEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

➢ Aquinas elaborated and maintained in all his works the promise right at the center of Christian faith: that we are
created by God in order to ultimately return to Him.
➢ His magnus opus, Summa Theologiae follows the trajectory of this story; the three parts are
1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although we acknowledge that our limited human intellect cannot fully
grasp Him, we nevertheless are able to say something concerning His goodness, His might, and His
creative power.
2. It deals with man or the dynamic of human life. Salvation in only possible through the presence of
God’s grace.
3. It focuses on Jesus as our Savior.
THE CONTEXT OF AQUINAS’ ETHICS
➢ Explore Aquinas’s discussion of other matters, such as, how;
o In our pursuit of happiness, we direct our actions toward specific ends. Our emotions— “the
passions”—are involved in this process and therefore require the proper order if they are to properly
contribute to a good life.
o Actions are related to certain dispositions (“habits”) in a dynamic way since our actions both arise
from our habits and at the same time reinforce them
o Develop either good or bad habits with a good disposition leading us toward making immoral
choices.
o Christian life, therefore, is about developing the capacities given to us by God, into a disposition
of virtue inclined toward the good.
➢ Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral thinking. For Aquinas
there is a sense of right and wrong in us that we are obliged to obey. However, he also adds that this must
be informed, guided and ultimately grounded in an objective bass of morality.

GEC 8- Ethics
 16

➢ So we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined to develop and maintain a life virtue.
However, these both require content, so we need something more. We need a basis for our conscience to
be properly informed, and we need a clearer guidepost on whether certain decisions we make leads us
toward virtue or vice. Being told that one should heed conscience or that one should try to be virtuous, does
very little to guide people as to what specifically should be done in a given situation. There is a need for
clearer basis of ethics, a ground that will more concretely direct us sense of what is right and wrong, this
would be the natural law.
➢ We can recall how the ethical approach called divine command theory urges a person toward unthinking
obedience to religious precepts. Given the problems of he simplistic approach to ethics, we can contrast
how the moral theory of Aquinas requires judicious use of reason. In doing so, one’s sense of right and
wrong would be grounded on something stable: human nature itself.

LESSON 2. The Greek Heritage

NEOPLATONIC GOOD
➢ The central belief of Christian faith—God creates does not only means the He brings about beings, but also
means that He cares for, thus governs, the activity of the universe and of every creature.
➢ Plato a Greek philosopher who was credited the notion of the idea of a supreme and absolutely transcendent
good has shaped and defined the Christian Doctrine of Aquinas while inspired by divine revelation.
➢ It is the idea of the good—a good which is prior to all being and is even the cause of all being.
➢ In his work The Republic, it is often supposed that Plato is trying to envision the ideal society. But that plan
is only part of a more fundamental concern that animates the text, which is to provide an objective basis
and standard for striving to be moral. In other words, it can be said that Plato was trying to answer questions
such as “Why should I bother trying to be good?” and “Why cannot be “good” be whatever I say it is?” His
answer was that the good is real and not something that one can pretend to make up or ignore.
➢ Neoplatonists are scholars who decipher the wealth of ideas of Plato.

ARISTOTELIAN BEING AND BECOMING

BEING
➢ Aristotle proposes four concepts which provide a way of understanding any particular being under consideration
or can be said to have four causes.
o Material cause- We recognize that any being we can see around is corporeal, possessed of a certain
materiality or physical “stuff”.
-A being is individuated- it becomes unique, individual being hat it is- because it is made up of the
particular stuff.
o Formal cause- The “shape” that makes a being a particular kind.
-We also realize that this material takes on a particular shape: so a bird is different from a cat, which is
different from a man.
o Efficient cause- Something which brings about the presence of another being.
-One can also realize that this being does not simply pop up from nothing, but comes from another
being which is prior to it. Parents beget a child. A mango tree used to be a seed that itself came from
an older tree.
o Final cause- It has an apparent end o goal.
-A seed to become a tree or a child to become an adult.

GEC 8- Ethics
 17

BECOMING
Aristotle also discussed the process of becoming or the possibility of change that takes place in a being. A new pair
of principles is introduced by him which we can refer to as potency and act. A being may carry within itself certain potentials,
but these requires the being to actualized. A puppy is not yet a full grown dog. These potencies are latent to the puppy and
are actualized as the puppy grow and achieve what it is supposed to be. The process of becoming – or change – can thus be
explained in this way. Understanding beings, ow they are and how they become or what they could be, is significant
Aristotelian contribution to the picture which was given by Aquinas.

SYNTHESIS
The idea of transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the form of good and loving God, who
Himself is the fullness of being good and of goodness; as Aquinas puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially
good. So we recognize that all beings are only possible as participating in the first being, which is God Himself. God’s act,
like emanation of light, is the creation of beings.
In so far as God is that from which all beings come, it is ossible for us to speak of Him as the first efficient cause.
In so far as God is that toward which all beings seek to return, it is possible for us to speak of him as the final cause. We see
here the beginning of the synthesis by noting how the Neoplatonic movement from and back toward the transcendent is
fused with the Aristotelian notion of causes.
It must be noted though, that this is not some mechanistic unthinking process. It is God’s will and love that are the
cause of all things; to every existing thing, God wills some good. Creation therefore is the activity of the outpouring
overflowing of God’s goodness. Since each being n this way participates in God’s goodness, each being is in.
However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness possessed by beings are imperfect.
“For Aquinas, only God in the fullness of His being and goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this
goodness, and are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their participation. But once again, God
did not create us to simply be imperfect and to stay that way as He leaves us alone. Instead God, in His infinite wisdom,
directs how we are to arrive at our perfection. The notion of divine providence refers to how beings are properly ordered
and even guided toward their proper end; end which is for them to reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness
itself.
God communicates to each being his perfection and goodness. Every creature then strives to its own perfection;
thus the divine goodness is the end of all actions. All things come from God and are created by Him in order to return to
Him.
We now need to recall that beings are created by God in a particular way. It is not accidental how beings emerge
into existence; each being is created as a determinate substance, as a particular combination of form and matter. This applies
to all beings, including man. The particular form determines the materiality which makes a being a certain kind of being’
the unique way that we have been created can be called our nature.
This nature as participation in God’s goodness, is both good and imperfect at the same time. Coming from God, it
is good, but in its limitations, t has yet to be perfected. This perfection means fulfilling our nature the best we can, thus
realizing what God had intended for us to be. We accomplish by fulfilling or actualizing the potencies that are already
present in our nature.
While all beings are created by God in order to return to Him, the way the human being is directed toward God is
unique. Given that we are beings with a capacity for reason, our way of reaching God is by knowing and loving Him. It is
of key importance then that the presence of a capacity to reason is the prime characteristic of the kind of beings we are and
how the capacity for reason is the very tool which God had placed in our human nature as the way toward our perfection ad
return to Him.
This applies not only to an individual human being, but also to all humankind. But we should not forget how the
whole community of being, which is the universe itself, is directed towards its return to God. This is not, as mentioned

GEC 8- Ethics
 18

earlier, an unthinking process, but is the very work of divine reason itself or God’s will. We can think, then, of the whole
work of creation as divine reason governing a community towards its end. Under the governance of the Divine, beings are
directed as to how their acts are to lead them to their end, which is to return to Him.

LESSON 3. The Essence and Varieties of Law

ESSENCE
➢ As a rational being we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able to judge between possibilities
and to choose to direct our actions in one way or the other. Our actions are directed toward attaining ends or
goods that we desire.
➢ There are many possible desirable ends or goods, and we act such ways as to pursue them. However, just
because we think that a certain end is good and is therefore desirable does not necessarily mean it is indeed
good. That is why reason is an important of the process. Acts are rightly directed toward their ends by reason.
➢ COMMON GOOD- Considering what is good for the community as well as our own good.
➢ LAW- The determination of the proper measure of our acts.

VARIETIES OF LAW

➢ ETERNAL LAW- refers to what God wills for creation, how each participant in it is intended to return to Him.
➢ NATURAL LAW- refers to the natural inclination to its proper act and end.
➢ HUMAN LAW- refers to all instances wherein human beings construct and enforce laws in the communities.
➢ DIVINE LAW-refers specifically to the instances where we have precepts or instructions that come from divine
revelation.

NATURAL LAW

IN COMMON WITH OTHER BEINGS

➢ In Aquinas view, we have to consider how we human beings are both unique and at the same time participating in
the community of the rest of creation.
o desire to preserves one’s own being
IN COMMON WITH OTHER ANIMALS
➢ In Aquinas view, we human beings has a desire to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s offspring.
UNIQUELY HUMAN
➢ We have a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in the society.
➢ Presented three inclinations as bases for moral valuation;
o Preserving the self is good
o Sexual inclination and the sexual act is part of human nature
o Being rational is what proper to man
➢ Aquinas tells us that there is priority among the powers of the soul, with the intellectual directing and commanding
our sensitive and nutritive capacities.
SUMMARY

In this chapter we have seen how the natural law theory is instrumental to ethics that is rooted in the Christan
faith. In elaborating this, we explored how Aquinas had synthesized concepts of the Ancient Greeks to put forward an
intellectual ground that can overcome the imitations of simplistic divine command theory. Instead we provided an
objective basis for ethics: our own natural inclinations. Since these ae given by God, they provide us the path toward our
GEC 8- Ethics
 19

Perfection. Our natural inclinations as enumerated by Aquinas include the desire to preserve our being, the sexual act and
its fecundity, and our use of reason.

Example Exercises with Solutions:

Provide example exercises with solutions as many as you can
Exercises
May include enhance exercise/s
Additional Activities
Provide additional activity/activities here.
Reflection/Valuing
Encode reflection questions in this section which students may ponder upon and respond to.
Suggested Readings
Davies, Bryan and Eleonore Stump, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014.

MacDonald, Scott and Eleonore Stump, eitors, Aquinas’s Moral Theory: Essays in Honor of Normann
Kretzmann. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1999.

Mclnery, Ralph. Ethica Thomistica: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Revised, Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1997.

Pope, Stephen J., editor. The Ethcs of Aquinas. Washington, D.C.,: Georgetown University Press 2002.

References/Additional Resources:

Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by Rex Bookstore, Inc.

GEC 8- Ethics
 20

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the Program General Education
Semester and Academic Year 2nd Semester 2020-2021

Chapter IV
VIRTUE ETHICS
Introduction

An online news accounts narrates key officials from both the legislative and executive branches of the government voicing
out their concern on the possible ill effects of too much violence seen by children on television. The news estimates that by
the time children reach 18 years old, they have watched around 18,000 simulated murder scenes. This prompted then
Department of Education Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro to launch the implementation guidelines of the Children’s Television
Act of 1997 in order to regulate television shows and promote more child friendly programs.

According to the news article, the DepEd held a series of consultations with various stakeholders to address the issue of
exposure of children to TV violence. They also implemented the rules and guidelines for viewing safety and created a
television airtime for shows conducive to children.

Luistros claim seems to be based on a particular vision of childhood development. Children at a young age have not yet
achieved full personal growth and mental development. This situation makes them particularly vulnerable to possible
undesirable effects of seeing violent images presented on television. When they see violence on television on a regular basis,
they may consider such violent acts as normal and part of the daily occurrences in life. Much worse is that they might tend
to believe that such acts, since committed by adults are permissible. In this situation the saying “Life imitates art” becomes
uncomfortably true.

Mature individuals are aware that it is vital for children to go through the process of building personality, identity or
character. How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the character that children develop? Is it
possible that constant watching of violence on television affect that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching
of violence on television result aggression among children? What is the role of the child’s environment in her capacity to
develop in to a good individual? Perhaps it is best to look closely at how good moral character is developed among
individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this? One theory that can possibly provide a comprehensive
understanding of how an individual can develop moral character is virtue of ethics.

II. INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

1. Discuss the meaning and basic principle of virtue ethics

2. Distinguish virtuous acts from non virtuous acts; and
3. Apply Aristotle ethics in understanding the Filipino character.

GEC 8- Ethics
 21

III. DISCUSSION

VIRTUE is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of developing the virtuous
character of person.

• Focused on the formation of one’s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts.
• The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle , had discourses concerning virtue.
• Aristotle book entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue of Ethics.
• Aristotle discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and conception of the good. Both
Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the highest faculty of a person and having such characteristic enable of
a person to realize the very purpose of her existence.
• But at the end they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which in turn results in their contrasting stand
on what the ethical principle should be.
• For Plato the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience, but somehow grasped by one’s intellect.
• For Aristotle REAL is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the world. What makes nature
intelligible is its character of having both form of matter.
• The truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not independent of our experience.
• When one speaks of the truth for example how beautiful Juan Luna’s Spoliarium is, she cannot discuss its beauty
separately from the particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding of good.
• One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day to day living.

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

• Aristotle – “every act that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim ow what the Greeks called
TELOS.
• Theres a purpose why one does something.
• Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance to
the body.
• Chosen career aiming for a good that is to provide a better future for her family.
• A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her.
• Even a drug user thinks that substance abuse will cause her good
• Drug is good, but drug addict would want to believe that such act is good.
• For Aristotle Good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.
• One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of theses activities
has different aims.
• Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular purpose , but believes purpose can be utilized
for a higher goal activity. Which can be used to achieve an ever higher purpose and so on.
• When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she does this for the purpose
of being able to remember the lessons of the course.
• This purpose of remembering, becomes an art to achieve a higher aim which is to pass the examinations given by
the teacher.
• It is important to Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the different acts produce in order
for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than other.

GEC 8- Ethics
 22

Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man.

 FIRST THE HIGHEST GOOD OF A PERSON MUST BE FINAL

o As a final end it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end.
o The purpose of remembering lesson in the course, that is why one writes down notes, is not the final end
because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal.
 SECOND THE ULTIMATE TELOS OF A PERSON MUST BE SELF SUFFICIENT.
o Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this highest good is attained.
o Nothing else is sought after and desired, once this self-sufficient goal is achieved, since this is already
considered as the best possible good in life.
o The goal of remembering the lesson in the course is not yet the best possible good because a person can
still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life.

HIGHEST GOAL FOR ARISTOTLE

o What goal is both final and self-sufficient? It is interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question can only
be adequately answered by older individuals because they have gone through enormous and challenging
life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge.
o Other individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of a man is happiness or for
the Greeks, EUDAIMONIA means happiness (Greeks)
o Wealth, Power, and Pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a means to achieve
happiness. If one accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to have not just richness but also power
and other desirable thing as well such as honor and pleasure.
o Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth or power
can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness.
o Not for richness or fame.
o Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good that human aspire for.
o For Aristotle what defines human beings is her function or activity of reason. This function makes her
different from the rest of beings.
o Dancer, Waiter, Doctor etc.

VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE

GEC 8- Ethics
 23

Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason and
to perform an activity well of excellency. This excellent way of doing things is called VIRTUE.

WHAT EXACTLY MAKES A HUMAN BEING EXCELLENT

One needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed by her rational activity
in an excellent way.
For Aristotle the human soul is divided into two parts

Irrational element- this part of the man is not realm, where virtue is exercised because as the term suggest, it cannot be
dictated by reason.

It consists the Vegetative and Appetitive Aspects

The VEGETATIVE ASPECTS function as giving nutrition and providing activity of physical growth in
person.
The APPETETIVE ASPECTS works as a desiring faculty of man, that naturally runs counter to a reason
and most of the soul. Sexual Impulse for example is strong in person that one tends to ignore reasonable

Rational Faculty- man exercise excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part.

o Where a person can attain excellence in the intellectual faculty

o Attains through teaching
o This faculty is further divided into two aspects
Moral- which concerns the act of doing and
Intellectual- which concerns the act of knowing.
 One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul, excellence is
attained through teaching.
 Two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: PHILOSOPHIC AND PRACTICAL
PHILOSOPHIC WISDOM- deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths
that govern the universe (ex. General theory on the origin of things)
o Understand meaning of life
PRACTICAL WISDOM- Excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular act. In other
words one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives.

The condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of the soul, this situation does
not make her into a morally good individual.

For SOCRATES moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence.

❖ Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts.

For ARISTOTLE however having intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of
doing the good.

❖ Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtues: moral and intellectual.

A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the right actions. Moral
virtue is acquired through habit.
GEC 8- Ethics
 24

Being a good basketball player for example involves constant training and endless hours of shooting and
dribbling the ball in the right way until one habitually does the right same with….
A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of
choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her character.

MORAL VIRTUE AND MESOTES

MESOTES, the meaning of the center is a major element in the definition of human virtues in Aristotle’s
Nicomachean Ethics. On the other hand, the principle of mesotes often is described as powerful.

Developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences.

Knowledge is not inherent to a person.
Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy.
One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life.
In attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral choice
or action. But through these mistake, she will be able to sustain practical wisdom to help steer another’s ability to
know morally right choices and action.
This is why when it came to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a manner tt is
neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes.
One has function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of feelings, pasions and ability for a
particular act.
Generally, feelings and passions are neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor
wrong.
But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the degree of their application in a given
situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at an offensive remark but it
is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended by someone.

A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle the task of targeting the mean is always difficult because very
situation is different from one another.

As pointed out by Aristotle the mean is simply into and understanding the situation and assessing properly every particular
detail relevant to the determination of the mean, once can be angry with someone but the degree and aid of reason dictates
how humans should show different anger toward a child and a mature individual.

GEC 8- Ethics
 25

• MESOTES determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient.

In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for protecting and assisting the young in their
personal development should act in view of the middle measure, the government could have dismissed the issue or could
have banned television shows portraying violence.

But such extremes censure the citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in another issue.
Wisely the government acted on the side of the middle measure by going through a series of consultation to address the
issue of television violence-implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of television airtime
for child friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code that tool into account the sensibilities of children.
It seems that the government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.

MORAL VIRTURE

1ST the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out of her habitual exercise of particular action. one’s
character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the good.

2nd in moral virtue the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it is the middle. The
middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which these feelings or passions should be expressed.
Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply that mesotes totally depends on what the person identifies
as the middle. But Aristotle middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the circumstance that one is in. This
means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper way that
feelings and passions should be dispensed.

3rd the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous
person learns from her experiences and therefore develops that capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her feelings,
passions and develops the capacity to know the proper, specifically practical wisdom aid in making a virtuous person
develop this habit of doing the good.

A moral person in this sense is also someone whose is wise. Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and
actions have a middle point. When one murder someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still
murder. Further, there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper way that such act can be
committed.

Aristotle also provides example of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. This table
shows some of the virtues and their vices.

EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodagity Liberality Meaness

In the table Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of being coward and reckless.
Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery
of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the other hand is an excess in ones feelings and
passions. In this regard one acts with a surplus of guts that she is being to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible
implications of such act that she proceeds with caution.

GEC 8- Ethics
 26

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

GEC- 8 ETHICS

Name: Date:
Course & Sec.: Instructor:

ACTIVITY

1. What is moral virtue? What is Intellectual Virtue?

2. What is the difference between moral and intellectual virtue? Explain
3. Identify some Filipino traits categorize each as virtue (middle) or vices (excess or deficiency) place them in the
table.
4. How is a person’s character formed according to Aristotle?
5. Who do you think possesses a moral character in your community? Explain your answer.

EXERCISES

Sexual ethics is a study of a person’s sexuality and the manner by which human sexual conduct must be exercised. There
are many instances where sexual behavior must be observed in order to properly nurture good interpersonal relationships.
Thus, sexual ethics becomes a vital subject that must be studied by everyone. One particular topic being discussed within
sexual ethics is the issue of pornography. Pornography is the explicit manifestation of sexual matter presented in the different
forms of media.

Pornography normally shows different illustration of nudity and sexual acts in print, videos, and social media outfits. Some
people view pornography as immoral, citing how it treats persons as mere sexual objects for pleasure. Some people on the
other hand, view pornography as a personal way of displaying one’s freedom of expression which must be respected by
everyone. What is your view on this?

Perhaps, virtue ethics as a framework for moral valuation, can be utilized in assessing ones sexual behavior specifically
with regard to the person fondness for pornography. If virtue ethics aims for the development of the persons good character,
does watching pornographic materials reflective of such a character? Is there a virtue that is produced by the behavior of
patronizing pornography? What do you think will happen with regard to the character of a person if one habituates the act
of watching pornography? Virtue ethics challenges the person to look at one’s habits concerning sexual behavior. What
would possibly be affected by such behavior is the person’s appreciation and valuation of human relationship.

1. Go online and list down various source that can help you understand the different issues on pornography. Identified
the topics being discussed by these sources.
2. Discuss the possible implication (positive or negative) of patronizing of pornography to the development of one’s
character.

GEC 8- Ethics
 27

3. Discuss a different topic within the scope of sexual ethics and explain how this might affect the development of
one’s virtuous character.

REFLECTION

❑ What have you learned from the lesson?

SUGGESTED READINGS

Nussbaum, Martha C. The Fragality of Goodness. New York : Cambridge Unversity Press, 1986.

RESOUCES AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

ETHICS FOUNDATION OF MORAL VALUATION By Oscar G. Bulaong, Mark Joseph T. Calano, Albert M. Lagliva,
Michael Ner E. Mariano, Jesus Deogracias Z. Principe

GEC 8- Ethics
 28

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

College/ Department
Course Code GEC 8
Course Title Ethics
Place of the Course in the Program General Education
Semester and Academic Year 2nd Semester 2020-2021

I. INTRODUCTION

What is the value of a college-level class in Ethics? We have been introduced to four major ethical theories of
frameworks: utilitarianism, natural law ethics, Kantian Deontology and virtue ethics. None of them is definitive nor final.
What then is the use of studying them? Each represents the best attempts of the best thinkers in history to five fully thought
out to the answers to the question “what ought I do so?” this quest has not reach its final conclusion; instead, it seems that
the human condition of finitude will demand that we continue to grapple with these question. The story of humanity appears
to be the never ending search for what it means to be fully human in the face of moral choices.

The preceding chapters clarified several notions :

1. These question of what the right thing to do is and why are question that all human beings-regardless of race, age,
socioeconomic class, gender, culture, educational attainment, religious affiliation, or political association will have to ask
at one point or another in their lives.

2. Neither the laws nor rules of one’s immediate community or of wider culture or religious affiliation can sufficiently
answer these question, especially when different duties, culture and religion intersect and conflict.

3. Reason has a role to play in addressing these question, if not in resolving them. This last element, reason , is the power
that identifies the situation in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with one another. Reason hopefully will allow
one to finally make the best decision possible in a given situation of moral choice.

II. INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

• Identify the different factors that shape an individual in her moral decision making
• Internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions
• Apply the ethical theories of framework on moral issues involving the self-society and the non-human environment

III. DISCUSSION

Chapter 1 pointed out one of the capacities reason provides us – It enable us to distinguish between human situations that
have a genuinely moral character from those that are non-moral (for amoral). It shows us that

• Aesthetic consideration and questions of etiquette are important facets of human life, but they do not necessarily
translate into genuine ethical or moral value.
GEC 8- Ethics
 29

• Reason also reminds us that the distinctions are not always easy to identify nor explain.
• The choice of clothing that one is to wear in general seems to merely question of aesthetics and thus one is taste.
• In many urban centers in the Philippines in the first century, people wear a variety of clothing style and such a
situation does not seem to attract attention.
• Some cultures what a woman wears may bring upon harsh punishment to her according to the community rule
Afghanistan in the 1990s was ruled by the Taliban and women were expected to wear the full body burqa: a woman
caught in public even the small area of her body exposed will be flogged severely.
• Mistake can be frowned upon by members of one human society or another but need notmerit the severest of
punishments or penalty.
• Ethics is clearly concerned with the right way to act in relation to other human beings and toward self. How she
takes care of herself versus how she treats herself badly , substance abuse , suicide etc.
• Is a question of ethical clue that is concerned mainly with her own person.
• The second level where moral valuation takes place is societal. Society in this context means ones immediate
community (one’s neighbourhood, barangay, or town) the larger sphere (one’s province, region, or country) or the
whole global village defined as the interconnection of the different nations of the world.
• All level of society involve some kind of culture which may be loosely described as the way of life of a particular
community of people at a given period of time.
• Culture is a broad term it may include the beliefs and practices a certain group of people considered valuable and
can extend to such realms as art (music, literature, arts and performance)laws (injunctions agains taboo practices)
fields of knowledge (e.g scientidic, technological and medical beliefs and practices at a given point in time) and
customs of a community.

Ethics serves to guide one through the potentially confusing thicket of an individuals interaction wither her wider
world of social roles.

THE MORAL AGENT AND CONTEXT

The one who is tasked to think about what is right and why it is so and so to choose and do so, is human individual. Who is
this individual who must engage herself in ethical thought and decision making? Who one is in the most fundamental sense
is another major topic in the act of philosophizing.

Greeks has a famous saying for it: “Epimeleia he auto” usually translated into English as
“know thyself”. In response to this age-old philosophical challenge the Filipino philosopher
RAMON C. REYES (1935-2014) writing in his essay Man and Historical Action
explained the “who he is” is a cross point. By this he means that ones identity , who one is or
who I am, is product of many forces and events that haened outside of one choosing. Reyes
identifies four cross points the physical, the interpersonal, the social and historical.

Biography

❖ attended the Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City

❖ Bachelor of Arts degree in 1956
❖ PhD in Philosophy from the University Catholique de Louvain in Belgium 1965
❖ Techer in ADMU from 1965 to 2013 Ethics and Modern Philosophy and Contemporary Philosophy
❖ Most Outstanding Teacher Awarded by Metrobank 1987
❖ Book- Ground and Norm of Morality; Ethics for College Students published in 1988.
GEC 8- Ethics
 30

PHYSICAL EVENTS

• Past material factors that one did not have the choice in. You are member of the species Homo Sapiens and therefore
possess the capacities and limitation endemic to human being everywhere.
• Inherited by genetic material of both biological parents.
• All of these are given they have happened or are still happening whether you want it or not.
• You did not choose to be a human being nor to have this particular set of biological parents nor to be born in and
grow up in such physical environment.
• Filipinos born in archipelago, tropical climate, with specific flora and fauna which shape human life in this country
to a profound degree
• Individual is also a product of an interpersonal cross point of many events and factors outside of ones choosing.
One did not choose her own parent and yet personality, character traits and her overall way of doing things and
thinking about things have all been shaped by the character of her parents and how they brought her up.
• A third cross point for Reyes is the societal “who one is” is shaped by one’s society. The term society here pertains
to all the elements of the human groups- as opposed to the natural environment- that one is a member of. “Culture”
in its varied aspects is included here.
• The fourth cross point Reyes names are the historical which is simply the events that one’s people has undergone.
The effect of colonization that affect how Philippines society has been formed and how Philippine culture has
developed. This effect in turn shapes the individual who is a member of the Philippine society.
• WHO ONE IS is also a project for one’s self?
• We can the ethics plays a big role in this existential challenge of forming one’s self. We can see that ethics play a
big role in this existential challenge of forming one’s self.

CULTURE AND ETHICS

❖ CULTURE dictates what is right or wrong for an individual. As people saying when in Rome do as the Romans do
by ST. AMBROSE.
❖ This quote implies that one culture is inescapable that is one has to look into the standards of her society to resolve
all her ethical questions with finality. Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes, especially since one
may be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits.
❖ We hear claim from time to time that “Americans are individualistic; Filipinos are communal,” supposed difference
that grounds for some people radically different sets of moral values.
❖ But one may ask is there really any radical difference between one cultures moral reasoning or another?
❖ The American Philosopher JAMES RACHELS (1941-2003) provided a clear argument against the validity of
cultural relativism.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM- the idea that a person beliefs, values and practices should be understood based on that
persons own culture rather than be judged against the criteria of another.

❖ Also Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is no such thing as objective truth in
the realm of morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have different moral codes, then
there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow.
❖ The implication is that each culture has its own standards of right or wrong. Its culture confined within the culture.
❖ FIRST if cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture
anymore as long as the culture thinks that what is doing is correct.

GEC 8- Ethics
 31

❖ SECOND if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of ones culture.
If that is the case, the black South African citizen under the system of Apartheid a policy of racial segregation that
privileges the dominant race in the society, could not criticize that official state position.
❖ THIRD if cultural relativism was correct then one cannot even accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the
case then the fact that many societies now recognize womens rights and childrens rights does not necessarily
represent a better a situation than before when we societies refused to recognize that women and children had rights.
❖ Rachels ends his article on cultural relativism by nothing that someone can recognize and respect cultural
differences and still maintain the right to criticize beliefs and practices that she thinks are wrong, if she performs
proper rational deliberation.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are four of largest religious groups in
the world at present based on population. The Philippines is predominantly Roman Catholic, yet many other religions
continue to flourish in the archipelago. Beyond all the differences, however, other religions continue to flourish in the
archipelago. Beyond all the differences however other religions continue to flourish in the archipelago.

Many religions followers assume that what their religion teaches can be found either in their sacred scripture (eg BIBLE for
CHRISTIANS, the Qur’ans for Muslim or body of writings (eg Vedas including Upanishads and other text for HINDUS;
the Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu and other Taoist classics for Taoist or in other form .

 Religious teachings is relative to the individuals particular situation (implying no objective and universal truth
about the situatedness of the reader. This implies that the moral agent in question must still, In full responsibility,
challenge herself to understand using her own powers of rationality, but with full recognition on her own
situatedness and what is religious authorities claim their religion teaches.
 Second one must determine what justifies the claim of a particular religious teaching when it commands its
followers on what they “ought to do” whether in general or in specific situations. Relevant to this is Plato
philosophical question in his dialogue Euthyphro which was mentioned in an earlier chapter: is the pious loved
by the gods because it is loved by the gods? “Philosophers have modified this question into a moral version:
when something is “morally good,” is it because it is good in itself and that is why God commands it, or is it
good because God simply say so.

MORAL DELIBERATION

There is a big difference between a young childs reasoning on the right thing to do and the manner a morally mature
individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary growth , which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the
focus of study of many theorist. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) who
theorized the moral development happens in six stages which he divided into three levels.

a. FIRST STAGE – PRE-CONVENTIONAL in this stage there is two level

1. Obedience Vs. Avoidance and Punishment

o it corresponds to how infants and young children think

GEC 8- Ethics
 32

o Reasoning is centred on the consequences of action.

o Obedience vs avoidance of punishments to a young childs mind.

2. Reasoning and learns to act what she thinks (Naively Egoistical)

o If an action is good they can avoid punishment ; if its bad it lead to punishment
o Pleasure and Punishment

b. SECOND STAGE CONVENTIONAL In this age in which older children, adolescent and young adults learn
to conform to the expectation of the society.

3. Good boy and Good Girl Orientation

o One follows conventions of her group.
o Begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expects of her.
o The general tendency at this age is to conform fist to the values of ones immediate group , such as her
family playmates or later on barkada.

4. Law and Social Order

o When a person relizes that following the dictates od her society is not just good for herself but more
importantly it is necessary for the existence of society itself.
o The individual at this stage values most the laws, rules, and regulation of her society and thus her
moral reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to the external standards set by society.

c. POST CONVENTIONAL – in this stage is divided into two stages represents individual realization that the
ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even the rules or conventions that her society
dictates.

5. Legalistic Social Contract

❖ Namely agreement that rational agents have arrived at whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve
what can be considered the common good are what one ought to honor and follow.
❖ This notion of common good is conventional in the sense that the moral agent binds herself to what this
theoretical community of rational agents has identified as morally desirable , whether the agent herself
will benefit from doing so or not.
❖ What is good or right is what honors the social contract; what contradicts it is bad.

6. Universal ethical Principles

❖ Perform action based on universal ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that
all conventions (laws, rules and regulations) of society are only correct if they are based on these universal
ethical principles.
❖ Full maturity post conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end the question of what
one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and her own rationality.

The significance of studying different ethical theories and framework becomes clear only to the individual who has achieved
or is in the process of achieving, moral , maturity.

GEC 8- Ethics
 33

FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION

Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspective as having no place in properly executed
moral decision. This prejudice, however, needs to be re-examined thoroughly. Although some emotion or feelings can derail
one from a clear minded decision in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that human choice can be purged of all
feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither robot nor computer.

▪ Aristotle points out that moral virtye goes beyond the mere act of intellectual identifying the right thing to do.
Instead , it is the condition of ones character by which the agent is able to manage her emotions or feelings. Note
that Aristotle does not say “Remove all feelings”
▪ Tulak ng bibig kabig ng dibdib is the popular Filipino saying, the mouth says one thing but the heart drives you to
do another thing.
▪ There can be a disconnect between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual ability of an individual to
perform accordingly.

The responsible moral agent then as a supposedly “dispassionate” moral decision maker is an unrealistic idea. The
passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making an informed moral decision. One can even argue that making
a moral decision , because is all about what she values, cannot but involved her most serious feelings. What she must
do is to educate and to cultivate.

MORAL PROBLEMS

• We must first understand that there are different types of moral problems each one requiring a particular set of
rational deliberations. We may attempt to construct an outline of what we ought to do when confronted with the
potential ethical issue.
a. FIRST STEP- determine the level of involvement in the case at hand. Do we need to make moral
decision in a situation that needs action on our part? Or are we trying to determine the right thing to do
in a particular situation being discussed? In the latter situation , we may be making a moral judgement
on a particular case. Being moral agent specifically refers to the latter situation we must therefore
identify which activity we are engaged in, whether we are making a judgement on a case that we are
not involved.
b. SECOND STEP- after ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need to
make sure of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a moral situation or not.
Are we truly confronted with a genuinely moral situation, or one that merely involves judgement in the
level of aesthetics or of etiquette.
c. THIRD STEP- identify all the people who may potentially be affected by the application of a moral
situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people are called the stakeholders in the particular
case. Identifying these stakeholders forces us to give consideration to people aside from ourselves.

After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in the matter, we must now identify the
ethical issue at hand. These are several types of ethical problems or issues.

a. The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether a certain action is morally right or wrong.

GEC 8- Ethics
 34

b. The second one involves determining whether a particular action in question can be identified with a generally
accepted ethical or unethical action. E.g death penalty, is death penalty tantamount to murder?
c. The third one is to presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemma are ethical situations in which there are competing
values that seem to have equal worth. The problem can be concerned either with a choice between two competing
moral goods or between two evils.

The final step of course is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision whether in judging what ought to be
done in a given case or in coming up with a concrete action she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very
difficult enough to make and for so many different reason. The responsible moral individual, however must forge on
realizing full well that cultivating ones capacity for mature moral choice is continuously journey in her life. A moral
individual is always a human being whose intellect remains finite and whose passions remain dynamic and who is always
placed in situations that are unique.

THE VALUE OF STUDYING ETHICAL THEORIES OR FRAMEWORKS

 May serve as guide points given that there are the best attempts to understand morality that the history of human
thought has to offer, in ones quest to answer the twin question of “what ought I do? What ought I to do so?
 UTILITARIANISM- Puts every single stakeholders at par with everyone else, with no one being worth more than
any other. Rich or poor, man or woman, young or old everyone has a much worth as anyone else, values the
“common good” compare to any other ethical frameworks we have covered.
 NATURAL LAW-puts more emphasis on the supposed objective, universal nature of what is to be considered
morally good, basing its reasoning on the theorized existence of a “human nature”. This theory has the advantage
of both objectivity and a kind of intuitiveness. The latter pertains to the assumption that whatever is right is what
feels right, that is.
 KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY- put the premium on rational will, freed from all other consideration as the only
human capacity that can determine ones moral duty. Kant focus on ones autonomy as constituted of what one can
consider as moral law that is free from all other ends and inclinations-including pain and pleasure as well as
conformity to the rules of the group.

What the responsible moral individual must instead perform is to continuously test the cogency and coherence of the ethical
theory or framework in question against the complexity of the concrete experience at hand.

In the following section, let us try to show the strengths and drawbacks of each theory or framework in application to the
different realms of human action: the personal the social (both local and global) and the environmental.

SELF, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT

INDIVIDUAL/SELF

In the realm of the self, as noted earlier, one has to pay attention not just on how deals with oneself, but also on how one
interacts with other individuals in personal relations. One may respond to the demand for an ethically responsible “care for
the self” by making full use of the four ethical theories or frameworks.

JOHN STUART MILLS UTILITARIANISM, though seemingly a hedonistic theory given its emphasis on maximizing
pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the human element above the animalistic and above the merely selfish.

Mill builds on the earlier version of utilitarianism, the one espoused by JEREMY BENTHAM, which first posited
that what makes an action good is that it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
GEC 8- Ethics
 35

Not just in number but in kind and not just for him/her but for everyone affected by her acts.

THOMAS AQUIANAS

NATURAL LAW THEORY – states that as its first natural inclination the innate tendency that all human beings share
with all other existing things; namely the natural propensity to maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action therefore
that sustains and cultivates ones biological or physical existence is to be deemed good while all action lead to destruction
of ones existence is to be called bad or evil.

▪ Healthy life and that one avoids all things that may hurt one or cause on harm.
▪ Part of human nature is to promote the truth and cultivate a harmonious life in the society with other humans.
▪ To live peaceful social life is part of ones responsibility.
▪ Aquinas teaches that a person cannot remain within her own selfish desires since doing so might lead her to harm
herself to dispense with the truth or to destroy harmony in her community. Thus the moral philosophy of Aquinas
calls on a person to go beyond what she thinks she wants and to realize instead what her innermost nature inclines
her to do, which is the promotion of life of the truth, and of harmonious coexistence with others.

KANTS DEONTOLOGY

▪ Celebrates the rational faculty of the moral agent, which sets it above merely sentient beings. Kant principle of
universability challenge the moral agent to think beyond her own predilections and desires and to instead consider
what everyone ought to do.
▪ His principle of humanity as end in itself teaches one to always treat humanity whether in her own self or in any
other individual, as the end or goal of all human actions and never merely as the means.
▪ Kant foes beyond simply telling people not use others as instruments. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
using a human being as a means or a tool for ones own purposes because human interaction is not possible without
that happening.
▪ Kant principle of autonomy teaches us that no one else can tell her what she ought to do in a particular situation;
the highest authority is neither the king nor the general nor the pope. The highest authority that which is self
legislating in the realm of moral law, is none other than the rational individual herself.
▪ One must always treat humanity, whether in oneself or in any other , always as end in itself,”

ARISTOTLE VIRTUE OF ETHICS

❖ Ones ethical or moral responsibility to heself is one of self cultivation. Aristotle is quite forgiving when it comes to
individual actions, knowing full well the difficulty of “hitting the mark” in a given moral situation.
❖ One may make mistakes from time to time but in the end the important question is whether th person is learned
from such mistakes, then the person has not become EUDAIMON or a happy (that is flourishing)
❖ Finally this theory teaches us one must always find and act on the mesotes, whether in treating oneself or any other
human beings. This mesotes points to the complexity of knowing what must be done in a specific moral situation.

SOCIAL LIFE IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT AND IN THE GLOBAL VILLAGE

One’s membership in any society brings forth the demands of communal life in terms of the group rules and regulations.

❖ It made up of many ethnolinguistic groups, each with its own possibly unique culture and set of traditions. The
demands of the nation state as seen in the laws of the land sometimes clash with the traditions of indigenous culture,
one example is the issue of land ownership when ancestral land is at stake, can members of an indigenous group
lay claim to a land that they do not technically own because they do not have a legal title for it?

GEC 8- Ethics
 36

❖ Mills utilitarian will always push the greatest happiness principle as the prime determinant of what can be
considered as good action, whether in the personal sphere or in the societal realm.
❖ Thomas Aquianas on the other hand in his natural law theory has a clear conception of the principles that should
guide the individual in her actions that affect her larger society, human life , the care and education of children and
promotion of truth, and harmonious social living.
❖ Immanuel Kant arues for the use of the principles of universalizabilitu and of humanity as end Itself to form a
persons autonomous notion of what she ought to do. These principles an and should apply directly to the
construction of ethical duty in ones social life.
❖ Aristotle prescribe mesotes as the guide of all the actions that a person has to take even in her dealing with the
larger community of people, such as liberality, justice, magnificence, friendliness and rightful indignation suggest
that they are socially oriented.

THE NON-HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

❖ In case of UTILITARIANISM some scholars point out that his hedonistic doctrine focuses on the sovereignty of
pleasures and pains in human decision making should extend into other creatures that can experience pleasure and
pains; namely, animals.
❖ Animals themselves cannot become moral agents because they do not seem to have reason and free will.
❖ Some would therefore argue that since the greatest happiness principles cover the greatest number of creatures that
experience pleasure and pain, then that number should include animals. Therefore though only humans can make
moral decisions, animal ethics, proponents argue that humans should always take into account the potential pleasure
or pain that they may inflict on animals.
❖ KANTIAN DEONTOLOGY focused on the innate dignity of the human being as possessing reason , I can be
argued that one cannot possibly universalize maxims that in the end will lead to an untenable social existence. Can
one accept the following maxims that in the end will lead to an untenable social existence? Can one accept the
following maxim as something that everyone ought to follow:
❖ THOMAS AQUINAS may not necessarily talk about the physical environment and human moral responsibility to
it as such but one can try to infer from his philosophy that certain actions should be avoided because they do not
produce a harmonious peaceful society. One can argue that neglecting the physical environment because of
shortsighted economic goals. (overfishingthe waters off the coast of out islands or cutting down trees in our
mountains and hills will eventually lead to disasters such as flooding or famines that will affect the society in a
detrimental fashion.

A CLOSING THAT IS REALLY AN OPENING

At the end of this introduction to ethical study, we should already have a more or less clear idea of how to make informed
moral decision. You should at this point have sufficient mental and affective equipment to arrive at sound judgements for
cases in discussion or for enacting real life decision;

The four classical theories or framework that we have taken up are in no way exhaustive. There are many other theories or
to further discussions on moral philosophy. They are not to be seen as options to dictate on what one is supposed to do in a
particular situation. The more productive use of these frameworks instead is to employ them as beginning guides to ones
further exploration into the topic of morality.

In the end there is only a beginning ; we do not have a computer program here that can automatically calculate what is right
thing to do in a given situation. It seems safe to assume that there can never such a thing. There is only the human individual
along with her community of fellow human beings who need to accept that they must continue to explore the meaning of
what is good and right while hoping to arrive at the best judgments they can make at this point in time.

GEC 8- Ethics
 37

Republic of the Philippines

President Ramon Magsaysay State University
(Formerly Ramon Magsaysay Technological University)
Iba, Zambales, Philippines
Tel/Fax No.: (047) 811-1683

GEC- 8 ETHICS

Name: Date:
Course & Sec.: Instructor:

ACTIVITY

a. How can you be a genuine Filipino if you do not follow Filipino customs?
b. What is the distinction between a religious notion of sin and the philosophical understanding of immoral or unethical
acts?
c. How realistic Kohlberg ideal of higher stage of post conventional morality that of universal ethical principles, given
that feelings and emotions are inseparable from human choice.
d. Given that the human condition is one of finitude, how will you know that you are sufficiently informed when you
finally make your moral judgement
e. If a global ethic is current emerging does this mean that the true meaning or morality changes over time please
explain your answer.
f. Is there a difference between ones ethical responsibility toward fellow humans and toward nonhuman nature? Please
explain your answer?

EXERCISES

ORGAN TRAFFICKING AND HUMAN NEEDS

The many developments in the past few decades in both the life sciences and in biotechnology have given rise to the
recognition of a host of ethical issues that are concerned with the physical survival and welfare of living creatures including
of course human beings. These ethical discussions have been gathered under the name of bioethics, a rapidly emerging field
of applied ethics. Both medical ethics and animal ethics can actually be classified as subfields within the larger sphere of
bioethics, while environmental ethics can have a lot of concerns that are tied up with bioethics given that animal ethics , in
the form of the topic of animal rights, has already been covered in Chapter II and environmental ethics treated earlier in this
chapter, let us now concentrate on medical ethics. This field focuses on moral issues in medical practice and research. One
such issue that has given rise to much debate is the phenomenon of organ trafficiking which is defined as the trade in human
organs(whether from living or nonliving people) for the purpose of transplantation. The trade can happen through the sale
of organs or through any other means including coercive force.

In 2009, the Philippine government halted a planned kidney transplant from a Filipina wife to her Saudi Arabian husband.
It was discovered that the couple had only been married for a short time and that the man did not know how to speak in
English or Filipino while the wife could not speak Arabic- a situation that raised a lot of suspicion on the part of the
authorities. The government allegation was the planned transplant was not really an organ donation, which Philippine law
allows, but was , in actuality, a case of an organ sale, which tantamount to organ trafficking prohibited by law. One possible
GEC 8- Ethics
 38

reason for the woman consent to this alleged deal is the widespread poverty among Filipinos. Although organ trafficking is
patently illegal in the Philippines and in many other nations, it continues to be a tempting possibility, especially for
impoverished individuals, to earn some much needed cash. Most people are born with two kidneys and an individual can
live on a single kidney. Supposing that the transplant will be done under strict medical supervision that there is shortage or
available kidney donors and setting aside the clear illegal status of organ trafficking, is it really wrong for a person in great
financial need to sell one of her kidneys to someone who requires a transplant to survive and who is willing and able to
offer a generous amount of cash.

I. This chapter identified and explained the steps in making informed decisions when confronted with moral problems. The
steps can be summarized as follows:

1. Determine your involvement in the moral situation

2. Gather all the necessary facts
3. Identify the stakeholders
4. Name all the alternative choices possible and their potential effects on all stakeholders.
5. Identify the type of ethical issue at hand
6. Make your ethical conclusion or decision

Apply now all six steps to the questions, “Is selling one of my kidneys to a paying customer morally defensible? Write down
your application below:

Step 1:

Step 2:

Step 3:

Step 4:

Step 5:

GEC 8- Ethics
 39

Step 6:

II. Examine your feelings or emotions regarding the issue of organ trafficking. Did you feel symapathetic to the woman
who was about to sell her kidney to her Saudi Arabian husband? Or were you morally repulse by what she was planning to
do? Apply Ramon C. Reyes’s idea of the five cross-points the contribute to the formation of who you are in order to
understand your feelings about this particular moral issue. List below the elements that make up each of your cross points.

1. Physical Cross Points

2. Interpersonal Cross-Points

3. Social Cross Point

4. Historical Cross-Point

5. Existential Cross Point

GEC 8- Ethics
 40

III.Given the five cross points that make up who you are, can you provide an explanation below why you feel the way that
you do toward the woman who was about to sell her kidney? How can you make sure that your feelings about the matter
are not trapped in Kohlbergs pre-conventional stage?

1. How did I feel the woman who was about to sell her kidney and why?

2. How do I make sure my feelings are morally mature and not trapped in the preconventional stage?

IV. Search your library resources as well as online sources to come up five other ethical issues that can be categorized under
engineer’s ethics. List the issues down, cite your sources and provide a short explanation of each issue as well as one main
argument for and one main argument against a particular stand on the issue. Pay the particular attention to topics that are
relevant to the contemporary Philippine context. Make sure your sources are trustworthy and that you get all the necessary
facts straight (including the possible scientific explanations).

Ethics Issue A:

1. Ethical Issue:

2. Sources:

3. Explanation

GEC 8- Ethics
 41

4. Postion/Stand on the Issue

5. Argument for the Position

6. Argument against the Position

Ethics Issue B.

1. Ethical Issue:

2. Sources

3. Explanation

GEC 8- Ethics
 42

4. Position/Stand on the Issue

5. Argument for the Position

6. Argument Againts the Position

Ethics Issue C.

1. Ethical Issue:

2. Sources:

3. Explanation:

GEC 8- Ethics
 43

4. Position/Stand on the Issue:

5. Argument for the Position

6. Argument against the Position

Ethics Issue D.

1.Ethical Issue:

2.Sources

3.Explanation

GEC 8- Ethics
 44

4.Position/Stand on the issue

5.Argument for the Position

6. Argument against the Position

Ethics Issue E.

1. Ethical Issue

2. Sources

GEC 8- Ethics
 45

3. Explanation:

4. Position/Stand on the Issue

5. Argument for the Position

6. Argument against the Position

REFLECTION

• How does this lesson affect you personally site some reflections?

GEC 8- Ethics
 46

SUGGESTED READINGS

▪ Reyes, Ramon C. .”Man and Historical Action,” Philosophy of Man, edited by Manuel B. Dy, Jr. 2 nd ed.,
Makati City” Goodwill Trading Co., 2001 pp. 113-118
▪ Rachels. James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” The Elements of Moral Philosophy, New York:
Random , 1986, pp 15-32.

RESOUCES AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

▪ Bulaong O.G. et. al., 2018, “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuations” distributed by Rex Bookstore, Inc.

GEC 8- Ethics