By: Ms.

Josille Marquez

1
What is the value of studying ethics if none of the
four major ethical theories such as Utilitarianism,
Natural Law ethics, Kantian Deontology and
Virtue Ethics is definitive or final?

2
• Each ethical theory represents the best attempts of the best
thinkers to give fully thought-out answers to the question of
ethics such as “What ought to do?” and “Why ought I to do so?”

• The quest to answer these questions has not reached its final
conclusion. Meaning, 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. (This means that the process of learning
the things that we ought or should do and the reasons why we
should do those things is continuous. Through these ethical
theories, we will able to see what would be the best theory and
action to be applied in every situation.)

3
• These questions of what the right thing to do is and why are
questions that all human beings will have to ask at one point or
another in their lives. (Meaning, these ethical questions are
important since its everyone’s concerns.)

• Neither the laws nor rules of one’s immediate community or of

a wider culture of or religious affiliation can sufficiently answer
these questions, especially when different duties, cultures or
religion intersect and conflict. (Conflicting culture, religious
teachings and duties cannot completely provide ideas on the
things that are morally and ethically right.)

4
• Reason has a role to play in addressing these questions, if not
in resolving them. It is therefore the power that identifies the
situations in which rules and principles sometimes conflict with
one another. (This means that since none of the four ethical
theories is final as each theory may be applied depending on
the situation, and also none of culture, laws and religion could
possibly be sufficient in answering these questions, reason
plays a very important role as it allows one to finally make
the best decision possible in a given situation or moral issue.

5
• The first level is personal. It can understood to mean both the
person in relation to herself (the person who’s making moral
valuation), as well as her relation to other human beings on an
intimate or person-to-person basis. Ethics is clearly concerned
with the right way to act in relation to other human beings
and toward self. An example is how she takes care of herself
badly like suicide, drug abuse) is a question of ethical value
that is concerned mainly with her own person. With respect to its
relation with other people, like parents, siblings, children and
friends, there are right and wrong ways of dealing with these
people. Ethics can help navigate what ways should be in
dealing with them.
6
• The second level is societal. Society in this context means one’s
immediate community (neighborhood, 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 countries in the world. All levels of society mentioned
involve some kinds of culture, which may be loosely described
as the way of life of a particular community of people at a
given period. Culture is a very broad term and can extend to
such realms as art, laws, field of knowledge and custom of
community therefore may lead to conflicting ideas. Ethics
serves to guide one through the potentially confusing thicket
of an individual’s interaction with her wider world of social
roles.

7
• The last level will be in relation to physical environment. It
refers to the non-human, natural world that serves as home and
source of nurturance for all beings. Thus, ethics is also concerned
with the human beings’ responsibility toward their natural world.
The environmental crises that the world is currently facing today
such as global warming, endangerment of some species are
existing proofs that there is a need to think ethically about one’s
relationship to her natural world.

8
• Applying rational deliberation to determine a person’s ethical
responsibility to herself, society and environment is the overall
goal of a college course in Ethics. Ethical thought and decision-
making are done by an agent who is shaped and dictated upon
by many factors within her and without. Ethical situation is
complex and therefore demands mature rational thinking as
well as courageous decision-making.

9
• Human individual is the one who is tasked to think about what is
“right” and why it is so, and to choose to do so. “Who one is”
(who is this individual who must engage herself in ethical
thought and decision-making) is another major topic in the act
of philosophizing.

• A Filipino philosopher, Ramon C. Reyes, in his essay “Man and

Historical Action” explained that “who one is” is a cross-point.
He means that one’s identity, who one is, or who I am, is a
product of many forces and events that happened outside of
one’s choosing. He identifies four cross-points: the physical,
interpersonal, social and the historical.

10
• “Who one is” is a function of physical events in the past and
material factors in the present that one did not have a choice in.
Meaning physical factors are already given, they have
happened are still happening whether you want 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 or grow up in such a
physical environment.

• Example of this cross-point is a Filipino to be born in an

archipelago with tropical climate situated near the equator.

11
• An individual is also a product of interpersonal cross-point. This cross-
point refers to the events and factors which are also outside of one’s
choosing. One did not choose her own parents (physical) and yet her
own 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. Thus, in this cross-point, who
one is in the sense of her character or personality is affected and
been shaped by one’s relationships as well as the physical factors
affecting her character.

• Example of a character that is shaped by physical factor is the stance

of Europeans before about the laziness of Filipino. (This is during the
Spanish colonization when Filipinos during that time were already
working at around dawn in order to avoid the sun and already
sleeping the moment when these Spaniards woke up). Rizal argued
that this mistook “laziness” was a function of the tropical climate.
12
• “Who one is” is shaped by one’s society. This pertains to all the
elements of the human groups that one is a member of. Reyes
argued that “who one is” is molded in large part by the kind of
society and culture -which one did not choose-that one belongs
to. This cross-point interacts with physical and interpersonal
factors that affect an individual.

• Example: Filipinos have their own way of doing things

(pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values ( closely-
knit family ties) and even their own notion of right and wrong
(communal vs. individualistic rights) .

13
• This cross-point pertains to the events that one’s people has
undergone. Thus, one’s people’s history shapes “who one is”
right now. This cross-point also interacts with the three cross-
points mentioned.

• Example: Philippines had a long history of colonization that

affected how Philippine society has been formed and how
Philippine culture has developed. It shaped an individual who is
a member of the Philippine society. Christianity which is brought
to us by the Spaniards has formed Philippine society and
culture.

14
• However, being a product of all these cross-points is just one
side of “who one is”. It is also a project for one’s self. This
happens because a human individual has freedom. This finite
(not absolute) freedom means that the one has the capacity to
give herself a particular direction in life according to her own
ideal self. Thus, “who one is” is a product of the four interacting
cross-points which are outside his choosing and ideal future for
herself.

15
• A common opinion many people recognized is the so-called
cultural relativism, is that one’s culture dictates what is right or
wrong for an individual. Generalizations concerning supposed
Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes especially
since one may be hard to think if any other culture does not
exhibit such traits.

• American philosopher James Rachels (1941-2003) provided

a clear argument against the validity of cultural relativism.

16
• Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that
there is no such thing as objective truth in the realm of morality.
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 standard of right and
wrong.

17
• Rachels also employs a reductio ad absurdum. This argument means
that the claim in question is correct, in order to show the illogicality
that will ensue if the claim is accepted as such. Rachels used this
argument and posits three weaknesses of this claim.

1. If cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot

criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture as that
they think that what they are doing is correct.

2. If cultural relativism was correct, one cannot question the

practices or beliefs of one’s own culture.

3. If cultural relativism is correct, then one cannot accept that

moral progress (changes or development when it comes to
beliefs) can happen. ex. Recognition of women’s rights as they
are not recognized before.
18
• Rachels argues that recognizing the differences between
cultures do not necessarily means that there is no such thing as
objective truth in morality. He argues that though different
cultures have different ways of doing things, cultures may hold
certain values in common. Example, no culture would promote
murder. They may prohibit murder on their own way, whether
that prohibition will be different from the other cultures. He
argued that one may criticize beliefs and practices that she
thinks are wrong but and the same time may recognized
differences through rational deliberation.

19
• Ethics, therefore, should not be reduced to one’s own
cultural beliefs and practices as these beliefs may
enlighten her to what is ethically correct or wrong.
Moral development therefore is a prerequisite if the
individual is to encounter ethical situations.

20
• Many religious followers assume that what their religion teaches can
be found either in their sacred scripture or body of writings or in
other forms of preaching that their leaders had promulgated and
become part of their traditions.

• But a critical, philosophical question of “What exactly does a sacred

scripture (or religious teaching) command?”. This is a question of
interpretation since even the same passage from a particular
religious tradition can have many different interpretations from
religious teachers even from within the same tradition. Moral agent,
therefore, must still , in full responsibility, challenge herself to
understand using her own powers of rationality, but with full
recognition of her situation and what her religious authorities claim
their religion teaches.

21
• Another concern is that one must determine what justifies the claim of
a particular religious teaching when it commands its followers on
what they “ought to do”. 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 says so?

• If a particular preacher or priest teaches his/her followers to do things

because it is what their sacred scripture says, a critical-minded follower
might find herself at an unsatisfying impasse. An example is when
terrorists who are religious extremists use religion to justify acts of
violence they perform on fellow human beings. The problem is that too
many people perform heinous acts simply because they assumed they
were following the teachings of their supposed religion, without
thinking whether these acts are harmful.

22
• American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg theorized
moral development which according to him happening in six
stages, and which he divided into three levels.

• The first level is pre-conventional. It corresponds to how infants

and young children think. This level, whose reasoning is centered
on the consequences of one’s actions is divided into two stages.
The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience and the
avoidance of punishment. Later, a child enters into the second
stage of reasoning and learns to act according to what she
thinks will serve her self-interest.

23
Example of pre-conventional level”

First stage- (fear of punishment) A child who will stop

crying because he is afraid that his father might scold him.

Second stage- ( self-serving) A child who will eat

whatever he can see inside their refrigerator to satisfy
his/her stomach.

24
• The second level is the conventional level. It is the age in which
older children, adolescents and young adults learn to conform
to the expectations of the society. The third stage is when one
begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to
expects of her. The individual here assumes that what will
benefits her best is when the other members of her group
approve of her actions. The fourth stage is achieved when a
person realizes that following the dictates of her society is not
just good for herself but more importantly, necessary for the
existence of society itself. The individual at this stage values
most the laws, rules and regulations of her society.

25
• Example of conventional stage.

Third stage- (Conforming to the value of one’s group) An

individual who is studying his lessons with his friends
before attending the class since that is what his friends
always do.

Fourth stage- (Valuing the laws, rules and regulations of

the society) An individual who thinks that stealing is bad
since there is a law prohibiting it.

26
• The third and the highest level is what Kohlberg calls post-
conventional. The morally responsible agent in this level
recognizes that what is good or right is not reducible to
following the rules of one’s group. It is a question of
understanding personally what one ought to do and deciding ,
using one’s free will, to act accordingly.

• Moral maturity, therefore, is seen in an agent who acts on what

she has understood using her full rationality. In the fifth stage,
the moral agent sees the value of the social contract or the
agreements that rational agents have arrived at whether
explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered
the common good are what ought to honor and follow.
27
• On the other hand, the sixth and the highest stage of moral
development that exists beyond the 5th stage of the social
contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal
ethical principles that one has determined by herself. One
realizes that all the conventions (laws, rules and regulations) of
society are only correct if they are based on these universal
ethical principles. This is the full maturity of post-conventional
thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end, the questions
of what ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent
and her own rationality.

28
• Example of post-conventional level

Fifth stage- (value of the social contract) An individual

who participated in a rally protesting for the rights of
everyone. That individual is doing this not only because
there is a law provided their rights to expression but
because it will benefit the majority and will contribute to
the common good.

Sixth stage- (Based on universal ethical principles) This is

when an individual always consider what is ethically good
based on his rational thinking.

29
• The passions or feelings do not necessarily detract from making
an informed moral decision. What an individual must do is to
educate and cultivate her feelings so that they do not remain in
the pre-conventional level, that is, of self-centered feelings
which are only based on individualistic notions of pain and
pleasure.

• The morally developed or mature individual must have honed

her intellectual capacity to determine the relevant elements in a
moral situation, including the moral principles. She must also
have cultivated her feelings so that she neither simply gives in to
childish emotions.

30
WHAT MUST A MORALLY MATURE INDIVIDUAL DO
WHEN SHE IS CONFRONTED WITH A MORAL
PROBLEM?

31
• The first step is to determine our level of involvement in the
case at hand. You must be able to distinguish between making
a judgment on a case that we are not involved in or if we truly
need to make a decision in a situation that demands that we
act.

• After ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral

situation, the next step then is to make sure of the facts. The
first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a moral
situation or not. Is it really a moral situation or just merely in the
level of aesthetics or of etiquettes? We must also identify
whether an item in consideration is truly factual or merely
hearsay, anecdotal or an unfounded assumption.
32
• The third step is to identify all the people who may
potentially be affected by the implications of a moral
situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people
are called the stakeholders in the particular case. We must
identify these stakeholders forces to give consideration to
people aside from ourselves. When we identify all the
stakeholders, we are obliged to recognize all the other people
potentially concerned with the ethical problem and thus must
think of reasons aside from our own self-serving ones, to come
up with conclusions in the sense that they take consideration of
everyone’s welfare.

33
• The final step 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. It is so much easier to turn a blind eye or
to disregard other values that one does not want to consider in
a situation for whatever reason. The moral agent must be able
to learn how to avoid this seduction of surrendering to blind
simplification.

34
• The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify
whether a certain action is morally right or morally wrong.
This is where the different ethical theories or frameworks can
serve. Ex. Why is murder said to be unethical or immoral act?
How does Natural Law, Deontology, Virtue Ethics or
Utilitarianism explain this?

• The second type involves determining whether a particular

action in question can be identified with a generally
accepted ethical or unethical action. Ex. Issue of death
penalty. Can we say that this issue is tantamount or equivalent
to murder?

35
• The third type points to the presence of ethical dilemma.
Dilemmas are ethical situation in which there are competing
values that seem to have equal worth. The problem is concerned
with either a choice between two competing moral goods or two
evils. The individual at this point must identify the probable
consequences that a particular choice of action will bring to the
stakeholders concerned in order to determine which choice,
possibly is the best. Ex. Is “Robin Hood” scenario who steals
from the rich in order to help the poor. Question would be, is it
morally right to steal from the rich in order to feed the poor?

36
• These ethical theories (Utilitarianism, Natural law, Deontology
& Virtue Ethics) may serve as guideposts, given that they are
the best attempts to understand morality that the history of
human thought has to offer.

• Utilitarianism pays tribute to the value of impartiality, arguing

that act is good if it will bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number of those affected by the action. This theory
puts every single stakeholder at par with everyone else, with no
one being worth more than any other. It puts more value on the
notion of “common good” compared to any of the other ethical
frameworks we have covered.

37
• The natural law theory, 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 assumption that whatever is
right what feels right, that is, in the innermost recesses of one’s
being or of one’s conscience because what is good is imprinted
in our very being in the form of natural inclinations.

38
• Kantian deontology puts its focus on rational will, freed from
all other considerations, as the only human capacity that can
determine one’s moral duty. Kant focuses on one’s autonomy as
constitutive of what one can consider as moral law that is free
from other ends and inclinations. These inclinations including
pain and pleasures as well as conformity to the rules of the
group. These rules according to Kant are authorities external to
one’s own capacity for rational will.

39
• Aristotle’s virtue ethics indicates the needs for the habituation
(habit) of one’s character to make any and all of these previous
considerations possible. To weigh the collective happiness of
human beings, to choose to act on what one’s innermost nature
dictates, and to practice one’s autonomy regardless of all other
considerations. Solid resolve of one’s character can only be
achieved through the right kind of habituation.

40
41
• John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, giving an emphasis on
maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, elevates the human
element above the animalistic and above the merely selfish.
According to Mill, what is good or right does not simply reduce
to what “I feel is good for me”. It instead puts premium on the
higher kinds of pleasure that are appropriate to the human
being and which would be of benefit to the greatest number
affected.

42
• Thomas Aquinas’, Natural Law theory states as its first natural
inclination to the innate tendency that all human beings share
with all other existing things which is the natural tendency to
maintain oneself in one’s existence. Any action therefore that
sustains and cultivates one’s biological or physical existence is to
be deemed good, while actions that lead to the destruction of
one’s existence is to be called bad or evil. Taking care of one’s
being is a moral duty hat one owes to herself and to God.

43
• Kant’s deontology, celebrates the rational faculty of the moral
agent which is merely above sentient beings as compared to
other beings. Its principle of universalizability challenges the
moral agent to think beyond his own preferences and desires
and to instead consider what everyone ought to do. It teaches
one to always treat humanity, whether in her own self or in any
other individual , as the end or goal of all human. When it
comes to telling what ought do in a particular situation, the
highest authority is the rational individual herself.

44
• Aristotle’s Virtue ethics teaches that one must always find and
act on the mesotes whether in treating oneself or any other
human being. This mesotes points to the complexity of knowing
what must be done in a specific moral situation , which involves
identifying the relevant feelings that are involved and being
able to manage them. Temperance is one Aristotelian virtue that
clearly applies to treating oneself and other people close to
oneself fairly and with much circumspection.

45
• Ethical question arises when the expectations of a particular
society come into conflict with one’s most fundamental values. It
is problematic for an individual to simply agree to her group’s
given set of beliefs and practices. Each ethical framework
would discuss this ethical problem.

• Mill’s Utilitarianism will always push for 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. Thus, Filipinos cannot simply assume that their action is
good because their culture says so. Instead, the fundamental
question ought to be “Will this action bring about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number?”
46
• Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law theory, emphasized that human
life , the care and education of children, and the promotion of
truth and harmonious social living should be in the mind of an
individual when she performs actions directed to the larger
whole. For Aquinas, no harmonious social life will be possible if
individuals that comprise such a society do not value human life.
The morally responsible agent under this theory, must guard
against committing any act that can go against peaceful and
orderly social life.

47
• Immanuel Kant’s deontology argues for the use of
universalizability and of humanity as end in itself to form a
person’s autonomous notion of what she ought to do. No manner
of heteronomous rules and expectations should dictate one’s
choice of actions, whether they be laws of the state (country) or
international treaties and agreements, cultural norms and
customs or even the laws of one’s religion. An individual must
make sure that if she were to follow such a law, she must
understand why it is truly the right thing to do. Citizens of a
particular society ought to make sure that the laws and rules
that they come up with are in line with what universalizable
moral duty will prescribe.
48
• Aristotle’s virtue ethics prescribes mesotes as the guide to all
the actions that a person has to take, even in her dealing with
the larger community of people. Virtues such as justice,
liberality, magnificence, friendliness and the rightful indignation
suggest that they are socially-oriented Aristotelian virtues. The
case of the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) for example must
perform their jobs in other countries, and so they must balance
the need for acculturation (adjustment and integration of other
culture) and at the same time keeping their Filipino identity.
Temperance once again presents itself as it is much needed in
dealing with the other participants in social intercourse.

49
• Utilitarianism pointed out that this hedonistic doctrine that
focuses on the sovereignty of pleasures and pains in human
decision-making should extend into other creatures that can
experience pleasures and pains such as animals. Animal ethics
argue that humans should always take into account the potential
pleasure or pain that they may inflict on animals. What is good
then is not only what is good for the greatest number of human
beings affected, but also for the greatest number of creatures
that can feel pleasure or pain such as animals.

50
• Kantian deontology focuses on the innate dignity of the human
being as possessing reason, it can be argued that one cannot
possibly universalize maxims that, in the end, will lead to invalid
or flawed social existence. Can one accept the following
maxim as something that everyone ought to follow? Ex. “One
ought to not worry about environmental destruction, as long as
it produces economic wealth for my society?” Such thinking is
shortsighted and in the end, does not produce universalizable
maxims.

51
• Aristotle’s virtue ethics, also pick up on the problem of
shortsightedness and ask how this can possibly lead to
becoming a better person. According to this theory, one
becomes a better person if she learns to expand her vision to
see beyond what is merely at close hand. Meaning, seeing
beyond the immediate is a virtue. Therefore, Aristotle support
the argument that a person has the moral responsibility to see
beyond what is immediate. Thus, one must see beyond the
satisfaction of immediate economic needs and make sure that
harming the environment for the sake of such will not eventually
lead to something much worse.

52