ST.

JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO

COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

SIMPLIFIED COURSE PACK (SCP) FOR

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING

GECC 108 – Ethics

This Simplified Course Pack (SCP) is a draft version only and may not be
used, published or redistributed without the prior written consent of the
Academic Council of SJPIICD. Contents of this SCP is only intended for
the consumption of the students who are officially enrolled in the
course/subject. Revision and modification process of this SCP are
expected.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 1
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

By 2023, a recognized professional institution providing quality, economically

Vision
accessible, and transformative education grounded on the teachings of St. John
Paul II.

Serve the nation by providing competent JPCean graduates through quality

teaching and learning, transparent governance, holistic student services, and
Mission
meaningful community-oriented researches, guided by the ideals of St. John
Paul II.

Respect
Hard Work
Perseverance
Core Values
Self-Sacrifice
Compassion
Family Attachment

Inquisitive
Ingenious
Graduate Attributes
Innovative
Inspiring

Course Code/Title GECC 108/Ethics

This course is an introduction to the philosophical study of morality, including the theory
of right and wrong behavior, the theory of value (goodness and badness), and the
Course Description theory of virtue and vice. The intention of the course is to learn how to live well and
happy because ethics investigates the meaning and purpose of human life.
Course Requirement Reflection paper
Time Frame 54 Hours
“Based 40” Cumulative Averaging Grading System
Grading System Periodical Grading = Attendance (5%) + Participation (10%) + Quiz (25%) + Exam (60%)
Final-Final Grade = Prelim Grade (30%) + Midterm Grade (30%) + Final Grade (40%)
Contact Detail
Dean/Program Head Amie P. Matalam, MM (09953860989)

SCP-Ethics-108 | 2
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Course Map

GECC 108- Simplified Course Pack (SCP)

SCP-Topics: Prelim Period SCP- Topics: Midterm Period SCP- Topics: Final Period

The meaning, nature and scope of Ethics of Utilitarianism

Week 1 Week 7 Ethical Relativism Week 13
Ethics (Continuation)

Ambivalence of Filipino Cultural

Week 2 The Human Person Week 8 values Week 14 Deontological Ethics

The Morality of Human acts and Deontological Ethics

Week 3 Week 9 Natural Law Theory Week 15
its moral accountability (Continuation)

The Morality of Human acts and its

Week 4 Week 10 Natural Law Theory (Continuation) Week 16 Virtue Ethics
moral accountability (Cont.)

Week 5 Law and Conscience Week 11 Ethics of Utilitarianism Week 17 On Making Ethical Decision

Week 6 Preliminary Examination Week 12 Midterm Examination Week 18 Final Examination

Course Outcomes
1. Distinguish morally right actions from morally wrong actions.
2. Follow moral principles and ethical laws.
3. Apply the Ethical theories in deciding or determining what is right and wrong.
4. Develop ethical disposition and moral values.
5. Evaluate issues according to the Objective standards of morality.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 3
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Welcome Aboard! This course is an introduction to the philosophical

study of morality, including the theory of right and wrong behavior,
the theory of value (goodness and badness), and the theory of virtue
and vice. The intention of the course is to learn how to live well and
happy because ethics investigates the meaning and purpose of
human life.

SCP-TOPICS: PRELIM PERIOD TOPICS

Week 1 The meaning, nature, and scope of Ethics

Lesson Title Ethics: Meaning, Nature and Scope
1. Discuss the meaning, nature and scope of Ethics and its
Learning Outcome(s)
importance.

At SJPIICD, I Matter!

LEARNING INTENT!
Words to Ponder
This section provides meaning and definition of the
terminologies that are significant for better understanding of
the terms used throughout the simplified course pack of
Ethics. As you go through the labyrinth of learning, in case you
will be confronted with difficulty of the terms, refer to the
defined terms for you to have a clear picture of the learning
concepts.

Ethics is under that branch or division of Philosophy that is

called normative philosophy that deals with the morality of
human acts or human conduct.

Morality is that quality of human acts by which some of them

are called good or right while others evil or wrong. (Sambajon
Jr., 2011).
Science is a systematic study, or a system of scientific
conclusions clearly demonstrated, derived from clearly
established principles and duly coordinated. The science being
referred to here is not about experimental science but as a
philosophical science. (Felix & Montemayor, 1994).

SCP-Ethics-108 | 4
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Human acts are acts done with knowledge and consent. (Felix &
Montemayor, 1994; Sambajon Jr., 2011; Fernandez, 2018).

Essential Content

Origin of the word Ethics. The word “ethics” comes

etymologically from the Greek word “ethos” which its
equivalence is custom or character. The latin equivalent for
custom is “mos” or “mores.” This is where the word morality
came from. It is for this reason, that the two words where being
used to mean the same thing. It is here where they share the
same meaning.

Meaning of Ethics: Different authors used different

vocabularies in terms of the definitions about Ethics. Below are
the following definitions of Ethics:

1. Ethics is the practical science of the morality of human

actions.
2. Ethics is the scientific inquiry into the principles of
morality.
3. Ethics is the science of human acts with reference to
right and wrong.
4. Ethics is the study of human conduct from the
standpoint of morality.
5. Ethics is the study of the rectitude of human conduct.
6. Ethics is the science which lays down the principle of
right living.
7. Ethics is the practical science that guides us in our
actions that we may live rightly and well.
8. Ethics is a normative and practical science, based on
reason, which studies human conduct and provides
norms for its natural integrity and honesty.
9. Ethics is the investigation of life according to Socrates.
10. Ethics is a philosophical and practical science that deals
with the study of the morality of a human act or human
conduct.

As you can observe, the definitions are fundamentally the

same. In Ethics what is being studied is the rightness or goodness
and badness or wrongness of human act or human conduct.
Furthermore, Ethics (as a science) is a systematized body of
knowledge where the data gathered are arranged and put in order.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 5
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

In this connection, Ethics is a philosophical science because it

takes a look at the ultimate cause and principle of reality by the
use of human reason alone. Likewise, Ethics is a practical science
because whatever knowledge it provides, is to be acted upon in
accordance with what is applicable in daily human conduct or
activity. As a result, it is not only for the sake of intellectual
discourse or analysis, but it ought to be done in real situations of
our lives.

Divisions of Ethics. There are two major divisions of Ethics

namely:

a. General Ethics – presents usually the basic truths

about human acts and from these truths infers the
general principles of morality.
b. Applied Ethics - it is also called special ethics. It
applies the principles of general Ethics in various
specific areas of human life and activity both
individual and social

The Material and Formal Objects of Ethics. To clarify

further, the object of study in Ethics are the following:

a. Human Act or Human Conduct. The material

object of science is the subject matter with which
science deals in its study. In the case of ethics,
the material object is the human act or the
human conduct. The human acts are those acts
done by a human person in which his rational
and higher faculties of intelligence and free will
are utilized.

b. Morality or Moral Rectitude. The formal object

of science is the very viewpoint, setting, or
perspective employed in dealing with its material
object. In the case of ethics, the formal object is
the morality or moral rectitude of human act.

Morality of Human Acts. As defined, morality is that quality

of human acts by which some of them are called good or
right while others evil or wrong. In other words, morality
refers to that quality of goodness or badness of a human
act. This quality is determined by the kind of human act
that is performed.
SCP-Ethics-108 | 6
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Everyday, we pass judgement on the morality of human

action. For example, you will say; “what he did was right.” Or
“What he did was wrong.” This shows that there is a
fundamental and objective distinction of right and wrong, which
we call moral in human actions. While there is difference in
opinion as to the nature of morality which will be discussed
later, all are agreed that there are some actions that are good
and some actions that are bad.

To go deeper on the said quality of good and evil, the

question now is; what makes good, good? And what makes evil,
evil? As far as ethics being a moral philosophy is concerned, an
act is good when it is in agreement or in conformity with the
dictates of right reason. And it is evil when it is not in
conformity with the dictates of right reason. Now, what makes
reason right? As far as ethics is concerned, reason is considered
right when it is in conformity with the truth which must be
objective in its sense. Meaning, the truth is not that which is
acceptable only to some but not to all. The truth is rather
universally acceptable to all human persons regardless of time,
space, and culture. How is it possible? It is intrinsically inscribe
within the nature of man to be able to recognize and distinguish
right from wrong. It is within his nature to tend to do good and
avoid evil. This natural tenet is universally upheld, regardless
of beliefs, customs, opinions and race.
This is the reason why we should have a norm or standard
of morality that is hopefully objective. A reasonable standard of
right and wrong in human acts. A moral norm that serve as an
ideal vision of a human person or an ideal stage or perfection
of his being. In other words, it is that which makes man more
fully and truly human.

Ethics and Morality. Though ethics and morality, by virtue of their

etymological meaning share the same meaning or relations, but the
two disciplines also have distinction (Sambajon Jr., 2011).

Relation Distinction
1. Both ethics and morality deal 1. Ethics pertains to the
with human act or human acquisition of knowledge of
conduct. what to study about; Morality
pertains to the application of
this knowledge in the
performance of human act.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 7
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

2. Ethics studies about morality. 2. Ethics provides learning about

the morality of a human
conduct; Morality provides ways
of practicing what is learned.

3. Morality gives ethics a perspective 3. Ethics is the ‘word’; Morality is

of what to study about - that is the ‘flesh.’
the rectitude of whether an act is
good or bad.

4. Morality provides ethics with a 4. Ethics indicates the ‘theory’;

quality that determines and Morality indicates the ‘practice.’
distinuguish right conduct from
wrong conduct.

Morality and other Phases of Human life. Morality is the basic

element of human life and cannot be separated from other phases of
human activity. (Montemayor, 1994).

a. Ethics and Education. Education develops the whole

aspects of man as a rational moral being. For this reason,
the primary objective of education should be the moral
development of man. Our Constitution mandates the
formation of moral character as the first and primary goal
of education.
b. Morality and Law. Morality and Law are intimately
related. Right and wrong, good and bad in human actions
presupposes a law or rule of conduct. There is however a
striking difference between what is moral and what is
legal. The legal only covers the external acts of man; The
moral governs even the internal acts of man, such as the
volitional and the intentional of the will and the mind
specifically man’s though and desires.
c. Ethics and Art. Ethics stands for moral goodness; art for
beauty. But as transcendental the beautiful and the good
are one. Evil always implies ugliness or defects and the
good is always beautiful since it is the very object of
desire and therefore, like beauty, pleases when perceived.
d. Ethics and Politics. Politics has often become very dirty
and the reason is precisely because it is separated from
ethics.
e. Religion and Ethics. This is the closest relation in the
phases of human activity. True ethics can never be
separated from God. What is the ultimate ground of right
and wrong should come from the God, the first Law giver.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 8
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

In Conclusion, according to Moga, “Life challenges us to

live in all areas, balancing a mature moral sensitivity with a
well-rounded involvement in other areas of life.”

Importance of Ethics. The importance of the study of ethics

follows immediately from the importance of ethics itself. The
following are the main reasons:

1. Ethics means right and good moral character; and it is in

good moral character that man finds his true worth and
perfection.
2. Education is the harmonious development of the whole
man particular the formation of reason and the will. Thus,
the primary objective of education is the moral development
of the will.
3. According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth
living.” As it is defined, ethics is the investigation of the
meaning of life. Likewise, Plato considers ethics as the
supreme science for it provides the supreme purpose of
human living.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.
Search Indicator

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

Sambajon Jr., Marvin Julian. Ethics for Educators. C & E Publishing Inc.
2011.

What is Ethics. (2010). Retrieved August 8, 2020 from

https://www.ethicssage.com/2010/12/what-is-
ethics.html#:~:text=The%20term%20ethics%20is%20derived,of%20right%20and%20wrong
%20behavior.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 9
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers on the space provided below every after each question.

1. Give two definitions of ethics and explain the terms found therein.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What does the word science mean as applied in Ethics?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Differentiate ethics and morality and how are both disciplines related.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

4. How important is Ethics to man?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

LET’S INQUIRE!
Activity 1. Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your
answer to each of the
questions below.

1. Is an act that is legal also and necessarily moral?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Is it possible to arrive at an objective standard of Morality? and why?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 10
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

3. Are all human experiences subject to morality? and why?

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

4. Should all areas of human existence be covered by ethics? Why and why
not?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

LET’S INFER!
Activity 1.

1. Look for an article or news in the net that deals with a particular
contemporary ethical issue. Present your conclusion why the issue is an
ethical one.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 11
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 2 The Human Person: A Moral Being

Lesson Title The Human Person: A Moral Being
Learning Outcome(s) Discuss the human person as a moral being.

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder
This section provides meaning and definition of the
terminologies that are significant for better understanding of the terms
used throughout the simplified course pack of Ethics. As you go through
the labyrinth of learning, in case you will be confronted with difficulty
of the terms refer to the defined terms for you to have a clear picture of
the learning concepts.

Person – is a substance imbued with the rational faculties of intellect and

free will. It has the activity of knowing and willing. It acts in freedom for
it is a free being.
Human Person – refers to a substance imbued with embodied rational
faculties and operations. He is a rational animal. To a believer, this
refers to a substance essentially composed of body and soul as created
in the image and likeness of God with rational faculties of intellect and
free will.
Brute – refers to lower animals.

Essential Content

The Human Person. The human person is an embodied person. They

operate with the faculties of intellect and free will within the confines of
their bodily existence. The human person has a body with all the
accompanying lower faculties, functions and operations similar to those
of a brute animal. In terms of his rationality, the human person has a
rational soul endowed with the faculties of intellect and free will. The
rational soul is a spiritual being whose operation are thinking, willing
and loving. The intellect as a rational faculty tends towards truth as its
object while the Free will tends towards the good as its object. The
human person is capable of reasoning, thinking and searching for and
knowing the truth because of his intellect. He is also capable of willing,
of doing good and of loving as the greatest kind of good because of his
free will.

Human Nature. Nature is that which makes a thing what it is from which
it acts accordingly. The nature of a being can be discovered through its

SCP-Ethics-108 | 12
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

action. No being can act beyond its nature, beyond that which makes it
what it is. An exception occurs when a supernatural power intervenes
enabling certain being to act beyond the limits of its nature. Various
beings may have similarities in actions may be because of similar
components of their nature. Nevertheless, one’s nature may become
essentially different when it has other essential constitutive ingredients
like in the case of man. Man is an animal, but he is a rational animal.
Thus, he is essentially distinct from brute animals.
Man is a person by reason of his rational soul. He is a human
person by reason of the existence of his human body and human soul.
In other words, the human person is an integration of both body and
soul without any one of which he is not a human person. The body and
soul co-exist in the human person. He is an “ensouled body” a
“embodied spirit.” The human person needs the human soul with its
faculties to know the truth and do what is good. He also needs the
human body so as to actually put into bodily order the acts of knowing
the truth and of willing the good.

Morality and Human Nature. The norm of morality determining and

distinguishing what is good to be done from what is evil to be avoided is
in harmony with the rational faculties of the intellect and free will whose
operations are to know the truth, do good, and avoid evil. Nevertheless,
since not infrequently, the mind and the will may be clouded and blinded
by circumstances that may otherwise impair their natural operations,
the norm of morality plays a significant role in making said faculties
tend toward its objects. Once the rational faculties, somehow conform
to what the norm of morality demands, which in the first place, is what
they should tend toward, the said faculties are guided and perfected.
This perfectly orders their operations to what they ought to tend – to do
good and avoid evil. Thus, the norm of morality perfects human nature
making man fully and more human.

The Human Person as a Moral Being. Man is a moral person by

reason of his innate and natural power to determine and distinguish
what is good from what is evil, and what perfects from what distorts
human nature as aided by the norm of morality. This innate and natural
power is guided by the knowledge of truth about the morality of human
conduct which its norms provides. And if man gets to know about it, he
upholds his innate power by choosing and opting to do what is good and
avoid what is evil. Choosing and opting presuppose the exercise of
human freedom. But what is human freedom? We actually have different
notions of freedom. However, human freedom is deeply embedded in
human nature as an essential character of human nature. Therefore, it
is logical to draw the meaning and purpose of human freedom from what

SCP-Ethics-108 | 13
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

human nature is all about and is for. The human nature’s inclination to
do good and avoid evil should also be what freedom consist of. It is for
this reason that the true meaning of human freedom consists in the
choice or option of conforming one’s action to his human nature that is,
to do good and avoid evil in the light of truth. St John Paul II simply
expressed it in this way. “Freedom consist not in doing what we like but
in having to do what we ought to do.” The human person as a moral
being is an individual who exercise his freedom to do good and avoid
evil. And, it is the knowledge of truth that widens the horizon of one’s
freedom towards the perfection of his nature.

The Dignity of the Human Person and Living a Moral life. The
dignity of man may be recognized through the existence of man’s
freedom. Man, by nature is a free being. Nobody can take away that
freedom. It is an essential element of human actions from which the
meaning of human existence proceeds. It is by freedom that man
achieves the fullness of life. To a Christian believer, the human person
is a dignified being on the grounds of his origin, meaning, and destiny
as revealed by Christ created according to the image and likeness of
God.
Living a moral is an affirmation of human dignity as it basically
consists in doing good and avoiding evil which is meant to dignify the
rational nature of man ordered to truth and goodness as an image of
God. In other words, human dignity necessitates living a moral life.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Carreira E. The Human Person: Nature, Ethical and Theological

Viewpoints. (2008). Retrieved August 16, 2020 from
https://metanexus.net/human-person-nature-ethical-and-theological-viewpoints/

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

Sambajon Jr., Marvin Julian. Ethics for Educators. C & E Publishing Inc.
2011.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 14
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is a human person?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. How is the interplay of human nature and morality works?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. How morality perfects human nature?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

4. What is true freedom?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. What makes man fully and more human?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. What do you mean by human person as an “ensouled body” and an

“embodied spirit”?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Elaborate the statement; Adherence to the objective norm of morality

makes man more and fully human.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 15
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

4. Kindly resolve the statement; living a moral life bears witness to the
dignity of the human person.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Create a slogan that would protect the dignity of the human
person.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 16
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 3 Morality of Human Act

Lesson Title Morality of Human Act
Learning Identify the morality of Human act.
Outcome(s)
LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Human act - refers to an act which proceeds from the deliberate

free will of man.

Act of man – refers to an act that does not proceed from the
deliberate freewill of man.

Agent – refers technically to the one performing the human act.

Essence – refers to the attribute (or set of attributes) that makes a

thing be what it fundamentally is. It is often called the “nature”
of a thing such that it possesses certain necessary,
metaphysical characteristics or properties in contrast with
merely accidental or contingent ones. It is often considered a
specific power, function, or internal relation (or set of relations)
which again makes the thing be the kind of thing that it is.

Essential Content

The Essence of Morality. Human acts are those of which a man is a

master, which he has the power of doing or not doing as he pleases.
While it is true that we are physically free to certain acts or to omit them
that is to do one thing or its contrary, to choose this act rather than
some other. But the question is, are we also morally free regarding all
such acts? Am I licensed to do what I want to do in all occasions? Our
reason would probably answer a No. It is even evident to a child that
some actions are good in themselves, morally good and others are bad,
morally bad in themselves. The good acts our reason approves and
commends which we call right while evil acts our reason disapproves
and blames which we call wrong. The ideas of right and wrong like those
of truth and falsity, cause and effect are primary ideas which are
common to all men which are trustworthy ideas. This implies that the
distinction existing in the mind between right and wrong corresponds to
a distinction existing objectively in human act (Coppens, 1895).

SCP-Ethics-108 | 17
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Human acts. Ethics deals with the study of man and particularly with his
actions. But not every act which proceeds from man is a human act as
used and understood in ethics. By human acts in ethics, we mean:
1. The human act that is voluntary (free).
2. Acts done with knowledge and consent.
3. Acts which are proper to man as a man. It is because of his
intellect and free will.
4. Acts which, we are conscious, under our control and for which
we are responsible.
5. Human acts are those of which man is master, which he has the
power of doing or not doing as he pleases.

Human acts, therefore, in order to be truly human, must be done

knowingly and willfully. The essential elements revolve around three
things namely: Knowledge, freedom and Voluntariness. Only human
acts have moral significance.

Acts of man. The Act of man refers to the act that is perform indeliberately
or without advertence. It is done without knowledge freedom and
voluntariness. This is in contrast with the human act that does not
require the employment of the rational faculties of intellect and free will.
The following are the examples: sleep taking, sleep walking, or
daydreaming. In other word, these are acts done among infants, those
in delirium, or in the state of unconsciousness. In addition, the
biological or physiological functions or processes which occur in man’s
body such as the circulation of the blood, the growth of the hair and
nails, the opening ang closing of the valves of the heart, breathing, etc.,
are not human acts so called. Therefore, they have no moral bearing or
significance.

Determinants of morality. To know whether an individual human act

is morally good, we must consider it with reference to these three things
which determine the moral character of the said acts:

1. The object of the act. The object of the act is the thing done.
In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself. We cannot act
without doing something and that something done is the
object of the act like for example of going, eating, praising,
etc. The act or object may be viewed as containing a further
specification for example of going to church, praising God,
eating meat. Now, an act thus specified may, when considered
in itself, be good, bad, or indifferent. Thus, to praise God is

SCP-Ethics-108 | 18
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

good in itself, to blaspheme is bad in itself, and to eat meat is

in itself an indifferent act. But that an individual act may be
good, its object, whether considered in itself or as further
specified, must be free from all defect. “it must be good, or at
least indifferent.”

2. The end, or purpose. It is about the intention of the agent.

The end here spoken of is not the end of the work, for that
pertains to the object, but the end of the workman or agent.
No matter how good the object of an act may be, if the end
intended is bad, the act is thereby vitiated. This means that
an act that is good may be spoiled by a bad intention. Thus,
to praise God is good in itself but if in so acting the intention
be is to play as the hypocrites do, the act is morally bad. And
this holds true whether the vicious end be the nearest, remote
or last end and whether it be actually or only virtually
intended. On the other hand, a good end, though ever so
elevated, cannot justify a bad act. In other words, we are never
allowed to do evil that good may result therefrom.

3. Its circumstances. The circumstances of time, place and

persons have their part in determining the morality of an
individual act. The moral character of an act may be so
affected by attendant circumstances, that an act is good in
itself may be evil when accompanied with certain
circumstances. For instance, it is good to give drink to the
thirsty, but if the thirsty man is morally weak, and the drink
is intoxicating, the act may be evil. Under the head of
circumstances certain effects of an act may be included. Not
such effects as are directly willed or intended, for these go with
the second class of determinants. But there may be other
effects which the agent foresees or can foresee so related to the
act, that, though he does not intend them, yet he consents to
their taking place, inasmuch as he wills the act which, to his
knowledge, is the cause or at least the occasion of these
effects. Thus, in ordering a city to be bombarded, a general
brings about, however reluctantly, the death of many non-
combatants. Such an effect, he is said to permit, or to will
indirectly.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 19
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

If besides the good effects directly intended in an act evil

effects are foreseen as likely to result, the act is not licit unless
it fulfills the following conditions:

1. That the evil effect be not directly intended;

2. That the good effect intended be not produced by

means of the evil effect, for we are never allowed to
do evil that good may come therefrom. The general in
the foregoing example does not kill the
noncombatants in order that by their death he may
destroy the combatants;

3. That the good directly intended exceed the evil

effects. No one could licitly bombard a city for the
sake of a slight advantage;

4. That the doer of the act be not under the obligation

of averting the evil consequences in question.

The external action commanded by the will derives its good

or evil character from the internal, elicited act of the will; hence,
outward action does not of itself increase the right or wrong of
the act. Indirectly, however, it may readily do so; because
outward action is apt to protract or intensify the inward
disposition of the will, and thus increase the moral good or evil
of the act.

In conclusion, the act that may be morally good should

necessarily have all three determinants be without a flaw. It is
according to the received axiom: "Bonum ex integra causa, malum
ex quocumque defectu," -- " A thing to be good must be wholly so;
it is vitiated by any defect." This is likewise a simple dictate of
plain common sense. Health for example, is a perfection. The
perfection here refers to completeness according to the highest
degree of perfection possible in things. So, to be truly healthy, it
must be in all aspect like physical as well as mental.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 20
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator
Coppens, S.J. Charles. A brief-textbook of Moral Philosophy. (1895). Retrieved
August 27, 2020 from https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/mp.htm

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

New World Encyclopedia. (N. D.). Essence. Retrieved August 29, 2020 from
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence

Sambajon Jr., Marvin Julian. Ethics for Educators. C & E Publishing Inc.
2011.

I
LET’S NITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers on the space provided below every after each question.

1. Concisely define human act.

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. Concisely define Act of man.

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Briefly elaborate the essence of morality?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

4. What are the various elements of human act?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 21
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. What makes an act truly human?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. What determines the morality of human act?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. How do we know whether one is morally responsible for his/her actions?

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

4. Distinguish human acts from acts of man.

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 22
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Make a list of specific actions (enumerate at least five) that can
be classified as human acts, as well as actions (enumerate at least five also)
that can be considered acts of man. Provide a justification for your list.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 23
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 4 The Morality of Human Act (Continuation)

Lesson Title Modifiers of human act.
Learning Identify the modifiers of human acts and its
Outcome(s) moral accountability.

At SJPIICD, I Matter!

LEARNING INTENT!
Words to Ponder

Modifiers of Human Acts are factors and conditions that affect to a

considerate extent man’s inner disposition towards certain
actions.

Human acts are acts done with knowledge and consent.

Act of man refers to an act that does not proceed from the deliberate
freewill of man.

Essential Content

Modifiers of Human Acts. Modifiers of Human act are also called

obstacles of human act that affects or prevents a clear knowledge of
the object of the act. It may impair the coming about of a human act
in its roots by diminishing or preventing the consent of free will.
These obstacles may increase, decrease or totally inhibit human
behavior from moral responsibility or liability. In other words, it
implies specific influence on the mental and/or emotional state of
person concerned to the point that the voluntariness involved in an
act is either increased or diminished. This is significant because the
moral accountability of the doer of the action is also increased or
decreased as the case may be. The following are the modifiers of
human acts:

1. Ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge

which a person in a given situation, who is performing certain
act, ought to have. Ignorance therefore is a negative thing for it
is a negation of knowledge. In short, it is the mere absence of
knowledge. There are two major types of ignorance namely:
SCP-Ethics-108 | 24
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

a. Vincible Ignorance. This is a type of ignorance which

can and should be dispelled. The agent could know
and should know. It can be cleared up if one is diligent
enough. The knowledge can be by ordinary effort but
was not acquired because of negligence or
intentionally not acquired.

Kinds of Vincible Ignorance:

1. Simple Vincible Ignorance. This is the kind of

ignorance which exerts certain but not sufficiently
enough effort to dispel his ignorance and obtain
knowledge. For example, one is doubtful whether
classes are suspended, ask his classmates who is
also doubtful, then decides not to go to class, is
culpable of not coming (absent) to class if there are
no suspension.

Principle for this kind:

-If one performs an objectively wrong act whose

wrongness one is unaware of because of simple
ignorance, the action is culpable. However, the
culpability is lessened by the presence of ignorance.

2. Crass/Supine Vincible Ignorance. This is the kind

of ignorance which the agent has the capacity but
does not exert any effort at all to dispel his
ignorance and obtain knowledge. For example,
Cristine, a fourth-year education student, does not
know about the schedule of practice teaching she
is required to perform. She can easily ask any one
of her classmates or check the bulletin board where
the schedule of practice teaching is posted. Yet, she
does not bother to do so.

Principle for this kind:

- In this kind of ignorance, it lessens the

imputability of an act but still makes one gravely
culpable if it concerns a matter of grave
importance.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 25
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

3. Affected Vincible Ignorance. This is the kind of

ignorance which the agent exerts positive effort to
deliberately foster his ignorance in order to escape
responsibility that knowledge may require. This is
the worst type of vincible ignorance because it is
willfully established by the agent himself as an
immediate excuse for any violation stemming from
it. For example, a student who does not want to read
the bulletin board or student manual, for he
suspects that a certain regulation posted or written
there in is opposed to his plans.

Moral principles concerning affected vincible

ignorance:

- In affected vincible ignorance, the person does

not excuse from his bad actions; on the contrary,
it actually increases their malice or their moral
responsibility.

b. Invincible Ignorance. This is a type of ignorance

which cannot be dispelled by ordinary diligence and
reasonable effort. In other words, he is ignorant of his
ignorance. Here, the person cannot be expected to
take steps to enlighten himself because he is unaware
that he is in need of enlightenment. The person has
no realization of his lack of knowledge.

Causes of invincible ignorance:

1. It may be impossible for the individual to remove

his ignorance because he has no way of suspecting
that he is ignorant. For example, a waiter who is
not aware of the poison on the food that he serves.

2. Although one may realize that knowledge at a

certain point should be acquired but it is
impossible for him to obtain the knowledge. For
example, a doctor who is assigned to cure an
impossible disease.

Moral principles concerning invincible ignorance:

- Invincible ignorance destroys the voluntariness

of an act. Thus, no objectively wrong act is
SCP-Ethics-108 | 26
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

culpable or responsible if it is performed in

invincible ignorance in as much as the element
of knowledge is not due to the fault of the agent.
In short, invincible ignorance eliminates
responsibility.

2. Passion or Concupiscence. It is a strong or powerful feeling or

emotion. It refers more specifically to those bodily appetites or
tendencies as experienced and expressed in such feelings as fear,
love, hatred, horror, sadness, anger, grief and the like. There are
two types of Passion or Concupiscence namely:

a. Antecedent Concupiscence or Passion. This

pertains to the occurrence of passions prior to
the act of the will and is not therefore willfully
fostered. It may happen that the person is
emotionally aroused to perform an act. For
example, the instant feeling of joy at the
immediate sight of an unexpected visit of a
cousin or friend or the quick occurrence of a
sexual urge at the unintentional sight of a naked
woman.

b. Consequent Concupiscence or Passion. This

pertains to the occurrence of passions as
deliberately fostered by the will. For example, a
man who willfully thinks about what may cause
him to be angry to arouse a decision to harm or
a woman who decides to submit for abortion
because she dislikes pregnancy.

Moral principles concerning concupiscence:

- Antecedent concupiscence diminishes the
voluntary nature of an act. Antecedent
concupiscence impairs both knowledge and
freedom whose full employment determines the
perfect voluntary nature of an act.
- Consequent concupiscence does not diminish
the voluntary nature of an act. It does not impair
knowledge and freedom, which both determine
the perfect voluntary nature of an act.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 27
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

3. Fear. It is defined as the disturbance of the mind of person

who is confronted by an impending danger of harm to himself
or loved ones. There are four types of fear namely:
a. Light fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil
threatening is present but slight or serious but remote.
b. Grave fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil
threatening is serious and severe.
c. Intrinsic fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil
threatening proceeds from within oneself.
d. Extrinsic fear. It is the type of fear in which the evil
threatening proceeds from outside of the self. It is of
two kind:
1. Necessary Extrinsic fear. It is that agitation
brought about by the outside forces of nature.
2. Free Extrinsic fear. It is the agitation that
proceeds from the free will of another person.

Moral principles concerning fear:

- Fear diminishes the voluntary nature of an act.

An act done out of fear or because of fear is in
one way simply voluntary and in another way
conditionally voluntary. The moral responsibility
is of a lower degree.

4. Violence. It is an external force (physical) applied by someone

on another in order to compel him to perform an action against
his will. There are two type of violence namely:
1. Perfect violence. It is the type of violence in which
the victim gives complete resistance to the application
of external force. This is of two types:
a. Physically perfect violence. This type is
that which the victim uses every possible
means of resisting at the command of his
will.
b. Morally perfect violence. This type is that
which the victim makes use of all powers of
resistance that can be employed.
2. Imperfect violence. It is the type of violence in which
sufficient resistance is not exerted despite the
available opportunity and capacity to terminate the
violence.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 28
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Moral principles concerning violence:

1. An act that is done from perfect violence is entirely

involuntary and so in such cases there is no moral
responsibility.
2. An act that is done under the influence of imperfect violence
is less voluntary and so the moral responsibility is lessened
but not taken away completely.

Other factors affecting the voluntary nature of human action.

Some authors do not anymore use this as idea of telling other
factors but immediately include habit as one of the modifiers
of human act. I do this only to make a little distinction. There
are two other factors listed namely:

1. Habit. It is an inclination to perform some particular action

acquired by repetition and characterized by decreased power of
resistance and an increased facility of performance. It is a
stable superadded to a faculty positively inclining a person to
act in a certain way. It is often referred to as second nature. It
is synonymous to addiction, dependency, fixation, obsession,
tradition, convention and pattern.

Moral principles concerning habit:

- Habit does not destroy the voluntary nature of

our acts. A person is at least in some way
responsible for acts done from habit as long as
the habit is consciously allowed to endure.
- In performing an act through habit, that
particular act may not be completely voluntary
in itself, but it is at least voluntary in a sense
that the habit was freely performed by the
repetition of several previous acts.

2. Temperament. It is a human person’ disposition. It is the sum

total of those qualities which mark an individual. It is both
heredity and environment that plays a part in forming a person’s
temperament.

Moral Principle concerning temperament:

- A person’s temperament can affect his will to the
extent of somewhat lessening the completely
voluntary nature of his actions.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 29
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

In conclusion, we must be cautious (careful) in rendering

moral judgement. Placing judgement upon objective morality of a
human act in the concrete, involves a consideration of all the
conditions which affect the morality of the human act (ignorance,
fear, passion, violence, habit and temperance), the nature of the act
itself, the purpose of the agent and the circumstances.
Everyone has a conscience, but everyone also has a duty of
enlightening his conscience. A particular caution must be given
regarding the judging of one’s own case.
In this regard, great wisdom is expressed in the old saying:
“No one is a judge in his own case.” When an important personal
moral problem presents itself, it is time to seek competent advice.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.
Search Indicator

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

Sambajon Jr., Marvin Julian. Ethics for Educators. C & E Publishing Inc.
2011.

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What are the various modifiers of human act?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What is the ethical principle regarding habit?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 30
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

3. What is the ethical principle regarding violence?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

4. What is the ethical principle regarding fear?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Which type of ignorance is forgivable? Why?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Which type of passion has moral accountability? Why?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Can one be held morally liable by acting out of fear because of violence?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

4. When does habit become voluntary?

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 31
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Cite a particular case where the person/s involved acted out of
ignorance. Point out what kind of ignorance is present. Then, asses the
moral responsibility of the person/s concerned.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 32
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 5 Law and Conscience

Lesson Title Law and Conscience
Learning Follow the law and Conscience
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Conscience – refers to a practical judgement of reason on the

goodness of an act that has to be done and the evil of an act
that has to be avoided.

Law -refers to an ordinance of reason promulgated by competent

Authority for the common good.

Divine law- refers to God as revealed in the Scripture.

Essential Content

Relevance of Law. A law is a precept that serves as a guide to

and measure of human action. Whether an action is good will
depend on whether it conforms to or abides by the relevant
law. Here we should recall from an earlier discussion about
human person, a human action is good or bad depending on
whether it conforms to reason. Thus, reason is the measure
by which we evaluate human acts. The laws that govern
human action are expressive of reason itself.
Why do we need to follow the law? One of St Thomas’
answer to this question follows Aristotle thinking that an act
is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or
deters us from our proper human end—the telos or final goal
at which all human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or
happiness, where “happiness” is understood in terms of
completion, perfection, or well-being. Achieving happiness
requires a range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable
us to understand the nature of happiness and motivate us
to seek it in a reliable and consistent way. In short, following
the law, until it becomes a virtue, makes us happy.
SCP-Ethics-108 | 33
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Definition of Law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, law is

an ordinance of reason promulgated by competent
Authority for the common good. He describes law as "a
certain rule and measure of acts whereby man is induced
to act or is restrained from acting."
Because the rule and measure of human actions is
reason, law has an essential relation to reason in the first
place to divine reason and then in the second place to
human reason, when it acts correctly, in accordance with
the purpose or final cause implanted in it by God.
Law is directed by its nature to the good, and especially
to the universal or common good. It is addressed not
primarily to private persons but to the whole people
meeting in common or to persons who have charge of the
community as a whole. The application of the law to those
to whom it is applied and the communication of this law to
them is essential to the nature of the law.

Kinds of Law. St. Thomas Aquinas recognizes four main

kinds of law: the eternal law, the natural law, the human
law, and the divine law. The last three all depend on the
first, but in different ways. If we are to arrange them in a
hierarchy, eternal would be at the top, then natural, then
human. The Divine law is not in conflict with natural law,
but it reaches human beings by a different route,
revelation.

1. Eternal Law. Eternal law is identical to the mind of

God as seen by God himself. It can be called law
because God stands to the universe which he creates
as a ruler does to a community which he rules. When
God's reason is considered as it is understood by God
Himself, in its unchanging, eternal nature.

2. Divine Law. Divine law is derived from eternal law as

it appears historically to humans, especially through
revelation. It appears to human beings as divine

SCP-Ethics-108 | 34
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

commands. Divine law is divided into the Old Law

and the New Law. The Old and New Law roughly
corresponding to the Old and New Testaments of the
Bible. When he speaks of the Old Law, Thomas is
thinking mainly of the Ten Commandments while the
New Law, the teachings of Jesus.

3. Natural Law. It is defined by St. Thomas Aquinas as

the participation in the eternal law by human beings.
We have a natural inclination to things. Reason has
the capacity to perceive what is good for human
beings by following ‘the order of our natural
inclinations’. These are: self-preservation; family life
and bringing up offspring, (shared by all animals);
and the goals of knowing God and living in society
(shared with all rational creatures). They are an
application of the basic principle ‘good is to be done
and evil avoided’. Also, preserving human life. A good
justification for moral or legal rule is that it promotes
the preservation of life. All living things possess an
inclination for survival. Sexual intercourse,
education of offspring and the life have a proper place
in human life, as in other animal life. Humans are
under an obligation to avoid ignorance, (to seek to
know God) and to avoid offending those among whom
one has to live. He does not like the idea of natural
law as a rule-book.

4. Human Law. Human law is often defined as a

‘positive law’. It is laws enacted and enforced in our
human communities. Laws which fall short of what
they should be, are not true laws at all which are not
directed to the common goon good. Promotion of
virtue is necessary for the common good, and human
laws are instruments in the promotion of virtue.
Thomas accepts Aristotle’s conviction that most
people are kept from crime by fear of the law. It is
good to codify and draw up laws. Deliberation is
important in designing laws and laws are necessary

SCP-Ethics-108 | 35
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

to guide judgment. All human laws must be directed

toward the common good. For St. Thomas, human
laws are particular determinations of natural laws;
Because natural law is with moral content, being
more general than human law. It deals with
necessary rather than variable or changeable things.
Natural law is more perfect than human law for
natural law is not variable. Human laws are
applications of natural law and cannot deviate from
the spirit of the natural law.

Kinds of Human Positive law. In its strict sense, a

law is possible to exist only in a perfect society
having full and perfect right to legislate and
exercise jurisdiction over its constituency. Both the
State and Church are perfect societies. To govern
their subjects both the State and the Church enact
laws namely:

1. State law (legal/Civil law) – refers to the

human positive law enacted by the State
through its legislation body of legislature for the
temporal common good.

2. Church law (Ecclesiastical law) – refers to the

human positive law enacted by the Church
through its ecclesial governing authority that is
ultimately geared towards the final end of man
which is God.

In conclusion, the natural law is promulgated by God:

"God has instilled it into human minds so as to be known by
them naturally." Divine and human laws can be
promulgated by word of mouth or, even better, by writing.
The eternal law is God himself.

Definition of Conscience – is a practical judgement of

reason on the goodness of an act that has to be done and
the evil of an act that has to be avoided.
SCP-Ethics-108 | 36
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Origins of Conscience. If the childhood story is to be believed,

conscience is an external voice speaking to us, in the form
of an anthropomorphised bug. While we may question the
necessity of it being a bug, the belief that conscience is an
external voice whispering to us can be found in the works
of St Augustine and Cardinal Newman.
St Augustine believed that conscience was literally the
voice of God, informing us of what is right and wrong, and
we receive this message intuitively. Augustine asserted
that all goodness comes from God and God knows our
actions and the choices behind those actions directly. He
maintained that hiding one’s actions and being unwilling
to confess them to God would lead to a distance between
God and man.
Cardinal Newman stated that our nature means we
have a conscience, which is a voice from God, telling us
what to do. Unlike Augustine, Newman took a less literal
approach, considering conscience to be a messenger from
God, rather than God literally speaking to us. For
Newman, conscience is a truth detector rather than a truth
inventor; but like Augustine, he takes an intuitivist
approach to conscience. Where humans differ from
animals is our capacity to reflect on our actions.
This is the basis of Joseph Butler’s position and this
capacity is God-given. Butler considered conscience to be
a process of intuitive judgement against conflicting
desires, rather than a rational reflection. This is distinct
from a direct instruction from God, as we are required to
make our own judgement. Conscience does not require us
to consult it as it “magisterially exerts itself” and has the
final say in moral decisions. The conscience is what
distinguishes us from animals and makes us distinctly
human in Butler’s thinking. This position is seen often in
the media where those who ignore their consciences, such
as orchestrators of genocides, are described as being less
than human.
Aquinas maintained that we have an inbuilt ability to
understand the difference between right and wrong, which

SCP-Ethics-108 | 37
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

was given to us by God, along with our natural inclination

to do good and avoid evil (something he termed the
‘synderesis rule’). Unlike Augustine, Butler and Newman,
Aquinas did not consider conscience to be intuitive, but
instead argued that conscience is a “rational power, since
it is not found in brute animals” and allowed a level of
human reasoning and phronesis (practical wisdom),
making it a much more rationalist approach.
Sigmund Freud’s position on the origins of
conscience is somewhat removed from those of the
philosophers and theologians. For Freud, conscience is
neither intuitive nor rationalist. Instead, it is a prerational
function of the unconscious mind. Freud’s contention was
that human personality and behaviour are determined by
three structures in the mind: the id, the ego and the
superego. The id is the selfish part of the personality,
which demands instant gratification. The ego is the part of
the personality which responds to the id, attempting to
satisfy its demands in socially acceptable ways. The
conscience is found in the superego and it is a punishing
force, punishing the ego with feelings of guilt, when it gives
into the id’s demands. Conscience is therefore, a construct
of the mind, responding to an externally imposed authority
by internalizing the disapproval of others. As a
developmental psychologist, Piaget wasn’t especially
interested in the origins of conscience. Piaget’s focus was
a broad one, looking at how children develop their thinking
from birth to approximately age 11. This is then applied to
morality, although Piaget didn’t focus on it explicitly.
Piaget argued that we do not develop the ability to think
abstractly, which includes thinking about morality, until
around the age of eleven and so until then we must rely on
others to tell us the right thing to do. Prior to the age of
eleven, we have what is termed a ‘heteronymous’ morality,
where ‘right conduct’ is enforced by the expectation of
punishment or reward. As our ability to think abstractly
develops, so we develop a more ‘autonomous’ morality,
which draws on social norms and an appreciation of
consequences, but it is autonomous because we now have

SCP-Ethics-108 | 38
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

the cognitive ability to think through the consequences

ourselves.
Fromm Another psychoanalyst, Fromm considered
conscience in two different ways, changing his ideas as he
changed the society he was living in. Originally, he
considered the conscience to be authoritarian, derived
from a fear of displeasing authority, which led to guilt,
causing a greater submission to authority. This fear was,
for Fromm, so strong that it leads people to blind, rigid
thinking, not all of which is correct. He saw this as the
Nazi’s method of manipulating conscience during their
years in power. It is possible to see the influence of Freud
here, with strong links to the superego and conscience as
a punishing force. Fromm’s later consideration of
conscience was a humanitarian one. His moving to
America to escape the Third Reich probably influenced this
change. In the 1950s Humanistic Psychology emerged in
the United States, which asserted that all human beings
have free will and the capacity and drive for self-
actualization. Fromm’s humanitarian conscience is closer
to this position, moving away from conscience as a fear of
authority figures. Instead he asserted that we all have the
ability to judge and evaluate our behaviour and ourselves
as people, making us our own authority figures.

Authority of Conscience. Conscience’s authority is, to a large

extent, dependent upon how conscience is defined. If, for
example, it is the voice of God speaking to you, then it may
have a higher level of authority than if it is an internalised
societal norm. Of course, how one defines ‘authority’ is
also an issue. Authority can simply mean it comes from an
authority figure, such as God or from a Government. It can
also mean that it is something you feel obliged to obey and
so where it comes from is, to some extent, almost
irrelevant. There can be conflicts between external
authorities and one’s conscience. St Paul wrote that “it is
necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of
possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience”
(Romans 13:5). If conscience is God-given, as Augustine

SCP-Ethics-108 | 39
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

argued it is, then conflicts can arise when conscience is

placed higher than an external authority. Freud, for
instance, saw conscience as an internalization of the
disapproval of society. While society might be considered
the authority here, it is the resultant guilt when one goes
against their conscience which makes us feel obliged to
obey it, not society itself. Similarly, Fromm considered the
authoritarian conscience to have authority for no reason
than because it came from an authority. This is not the
same as conscience being an authority in its own right. It
simply involves us fearing authority enough to submit to
its demands. Fromm does not think this conscience
should have authority over us as it can lead to wrong
actions as well as good ones, depending on the authority
figure’s demands.
In the modern era, claiming to hear a voice from God
guiding your actions could lead to a diagnosis of a
psychotic disorder. The Church has never simply accepted
people’s claims of hearing God speaking to them without
qualification. Usually the message being passed is the
determinant of divine, satanic or psychotic origin. If one
considers a true auditory message from God to be
impossible, then the voice cannot be real, nor can its
message have any authority. If this voice does come from
auditory hallucinations, which are, by definition, not
actually real, then one’s conscience has no authority
whatsoever, despite what it may feel like to the individual
concerned. If, however, a true auditory message from God
is possible, then the question of its authority is less easily
resolved. For many believers who consider conscience to
be the voice of God, they are not talking about a voice in
their head, as a result of a biochemical imbalance in the
brain. Augustine, for example, ascribes this voice to God
who is the witness to our actions. Similarly, Newman
considered God to be the inventor of conscience, with
conscience’s role being that of a messenger, designed to
detect the truth God imparts. Butler, too, considers the
authority of conscience to be divine, but he does not see
us experiencing this authority as a voice, as much as a

SCP-Ethics-108 | 40
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

principle of reflection. In this sense he is perhaps closer to

Newman; our conscience is a separate entity, “sacred in its
authority”.
In Sermons, Butler preached that God placed
conscience within us to be “our proper governor,” to direct
and regulate all other principles and passions, arguing
that “if it had power to match its obvious authority,
conscience would absolutely govern the world!” For
Aquinas, conscience is a natural phenomenon, which is
given by God. It is not, however, as infallible as Butler
might have claimed, for Aquinas saw it as needing our
reason and the application of practical wisdom. The
authority of conscience is from God, who gave us the
ability to use reason and the natural inclination to do good
and avoid evil. We sometimes make mistakes because we
misapply our reason, following apparent goods instead of
real goods. Conscience is something we need to engage
with and Aquinas appreciated that different societies will
have different perspectives on what ‘right behaviour’ was
because their experiences were different. He believed that
people should always follow their consciences, but that
didn’t mean that one’s conscience was always correct. This
rationalistic approach to conscience leaves open the
possibility of error, making it a more realistic view of how
conscience works. From the perspective of the
psychologists, the social construction of conscience
creates a form of authority which is hard to reject without
violating social norms, which are so firmly internalized
within our psyches. Considering conscience to have an
authority at all could be considered difficult because much
of its construction is an unconscious process according to
Freud. For Piaget, prior to the formation of conscience, our
‘conscience’ is others’ conscience and it is this which
imposes the authority. As we develop our capacity for
abstract thought and our conscience develops, the
authority becomes more obvious, although the social
norms which help inform our consciences remain
authoritative. For Fromm, the authoritarian conscience’s
authority comes from fear; especially the fear of

SCP-Ethics-108 | 41
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

displeasing authority, while the later humanistic

conscience’s authority comes from within us and our own
evaluation of our behaviour.

The Disobeying of conscience. Disobeying one’s conscience

usually leads to unpleasant feelings. Guilt is probably the
most common feeling an individual feels when they
disobey their conscience. Where this guilt comes from may
differ, but there are some startling similarities to be found
between the theologians and the psychologists. If social
norms dictate that homosexuality, for example, is wrong
and our conscience is developed by the internalization of
social norms, then our conscience might well say that
homosexuality is wrong. If, however, this is questioned, we
may opt to change our position on the issue, which would
lead to us disobeying our conscience. Of course, our
conscience would change as our thinking changes, but in
the initial stages, disobedience would be inevitable. The
same could be said about social norms in a more secular
setting, such as those in America in light of the Civil Rights
movement. Here, social norms were challenged and as
such, people’s consciences were changed to consider black
people as having equal rights to white people, where this
had previously not been so. Conversely, people could
prioritize Scripture over their conscience. So, using the
homosexuality example, our conscience may consider
homosexuality to be morally acceptable, however, as
Scripture takes the opposite view, we would defer to
Scriptural authority, thus, disobeying our conscience. If it
is considered that human beings are given free will, then
we have a freedom to choose to disobey our conscience or
at least not to follow it blindly. Aquinas argued that we
must use our reason and practical wisdom when we make
moral decisions. He did not consider that following our
conscience meant that we were always right. If our
reasoning was wrong, then our moral judgement would
therefore also be wrong. There are parallels here to the
thinking of the developmental psychologists, who consider
our reasoning to develop as we grow up. Following our

SCP-Ethics-108 | 42
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

conscience, for Aquinas, means that we apply our moral

principles to the situation as best we can using a
combination of reason and phronesis: a task which
probably gets easier as we get older. Butler, by contrast,
considered the deliberate disobeying of conscience to be
worse than the action which you disobeyed conscience in
order to do, as disobeying conscience is a deliberate
deviation from man’s true nature. As conscience is from
God, disobeying it is akin to disobeying God, which in
Butler’s thinking, is a wicked sin.
Newman’s contention was that because we feel
ashamed and are frightened when we go against what our
conscience tells us, there must be One we feel responsible
to and whom we fear. Fromm takes a similar position in
his authoritarian personality when he describes the
authority figure which we are fearful of displeasing. He
does not, however, ascribe this One to God specifically, as
Newman does, although is clear that the authority could
be applied to God. The Superego is probably the clearest
place to see guilt as a result of disobeying conscience.
For Freud, the conscience, found in the superego,
punishes the ego when it gives into the id’s demands and
this punishment is the feeling of guilt. If the superego
becomes too dominant, it can lead to neuroses, which can
make us feel guilty. This shame and fright comes as a
result of the internalization of the externally imposed
authority of society, rather than from God, although Freud
considered religion to be a sufficient authority.
For the developmental psychologists, it is not so much
the disobeying of conscience as such; it’s more whether we
have actually acquired one yet. Piaget considers young
children to have a heteronymous morality, where what
they consider correct behaviour is focused around reward
and punishment from an authority figure, often their
parents. At this point, there are probably unintentional,
parallels with Fromm’s authoritarian conscience. As
children grow older, their thinking becomes more
sophisticated and they begin to be able to think and reason
things out for themselves. They are able to think about

SCP-Ethics-108 | 43
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

their actions as autonomous beings. For Piaget, this starts

to develop around the age of eleven, although other
developmental psychologists believe it starts slightly later.

Formation of Conscience. To discover true conscience is to form

and inform one’s conscience. It is to undergo a process of
education and acquisition of knowledge about the morality of
an act if it is worthy or unworthy of performance. It is to accept,
internalize and live out the moral demands of doing good and
avoiding evil learned from the different moral laws and
principles in response to the various moral issues that may put
the state of consciousness into a dilemma. Its inviolability
necessitates proper formation into the knowledge of what is
objectively good to be performed and what is objectively evil to
be omitted so that it may become true and correct.

Moral Responsibilities for one’s conscience

1. When conscience is properly formed and informed, the

agent is morally obliged to obey it under all
circumstances. Each person has a moral obligation flowing
from a formed conscience.

2. A person should always act in conformity with his

certain conscience. Flowing from a firm conviction without
any fear of being in error, the agent, though his conscience
may be mistaken inculpably or invincibly, may still do what
it tells him.

3. It is never morally permissible to act with a doubtful

conscience. A doubtful conscience is present when there is
no sure judgement of whether an act is good or bad. There is
a need to dispel the doubt and ascertain the moral certitude
in order to be lawful.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

SCP-Ethics-108 | 44
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Aquinas On Law. (N. D.). Retrieved September 13, 2020 from

https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/302/aquinlaw.htm

A level religious Studies. (2015). Retrieved September 12, 2020 from

https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/204275-nature-and-role-of-the-
conscience-topic-exploration-pack.pdf

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thomas Aquinas: Moral Philosophy. (N. D.).

Retrieved Sept 12, 2020 from https://iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

Sambajon Jr., Marvin Julian. Ethics for Educators. C & E Publishing Inc.
2011.

Scotland, J., ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON LAW. (2016). Retrieved September 12,
2020 from https://www.schoenstatt.co.uk/st-thomas-aquinas-law/

I
LET’S NITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is a law?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What is conscience?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What is the relevance of the law?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

4. What are the moral responsibilities of one’s conscience?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 45
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Why do we need to follow the law?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Is a law of the State which runs counter to any precept of the natural
law binding in conscience? Justify your answer.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. In what way or ways a law may become unjust?

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

4. Are we morally obliged to obey an unjust law?

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 46
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Cite a particular law enacted by human communities wherein
it runs contrary to either Natural law or Divine law. Point out why it is
contrary to either the natural law or Divine law.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 47
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 6 Ethical Relativism Theory

Lesson Title Ethical Relativism
Learning Discuss the theory of Ethical Relativism.
Outcome(s)
Time Frame 3 hrs.

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Relativism - refers to the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and

morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical
context, and are not absolute.

Ethical relativism – the doctrine that there are no absolute truths

in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from
person to person or from society to society.

Theory – refers to a supposition or a system of ideas intended to

explain something, especially one based on general principles
independent of the thing to be explained.

Essential Content

The relationship of Culture and Morality. Cultures differ widely

in their moral practices. Societies make their moral choices
based on their unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in
fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the
values that exist in their own culture. Some anthropologists
point to a range of practices considered morally acceptable in
some societies but condemned in others, including infanticide,
genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and torture. Such
differences may lead us to question whether there are any
universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a
matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral practices across
cultures raise an important issue in ethics - the concept of
"ethical relativism."

SCP-Ethics-108 | 48
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Ethical Relativism. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that

morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is,
whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action
may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in
another. Each culture establishes the basic values and
principles that serve as the foundation for morality.
For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral
standards. There are no standards that can be universally
applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards
against which a society's practices can be judged are its own.
If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common
framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching
agreement on ethical matters among members of different
societies.
Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have
different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced
by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons
underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging
us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

Versions of Ethical Relativism. There are two versions of ethical

relativism namely:

1. Individual or Personal Ethical Relativism. Ethical

statements are relative to the individual. I have my ethical
views and you have yours, neither my views nor your views
are better or more correct. In a sense we are all equally
correct, insofar as whatever we believe is true, or looked at
differently, the idea of being more or less correct doesn’t
apply to moral beliefs, since that would assume that there
is some objective standard of right or wrong, independent of
what I might believe which would serve as a standard of
judgment, but that is exactly what relativism denies. This is
sometimes called ethical subjectivism.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 49
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

2. Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism. Ethical statements

are relative to a given society. Although societies may differ
or disagree as to what is right or wrong, for an individual to
decide what is right or wrong, one must simply look to the
norms of the society in which they live. Right and wrong
simply IS what a given society says it is. And although a
society may believe that its views are the correct ones,
cultural ethical relativism insists that no society’s views are
better or more moral that any other society’s beliefs. For this
reason, there is no objective standard independent of what
a society actually believes against which its views might be
evaluated.

Reasons (Supporting Arguments) for Ethical Relativism.

1. Diversity of Moral Views Argument. The actual fact that

People and Societies have and continue to disagree about the
moral issues, they continue to hold different moral beliefs.
For a Relativist, this fact is best explained by and is therefore
evidence for Ethical Relativism; otherwise we would expect to
find considerable moral agreement. In short, the fact of
disagreement and differences in moral beliefs is evidence for
the claim that there are no objective moral truths, only
subjective moral beliefs.
2. Moral Uncertainty Argument. Despite our best efforts, we
are often uncertain about what is the right thing to do,
especially in the context of a dilemma, our judgment seems
to be very subjective, a matter of personal opinion. There
seems to be no decisive way to settle many moral disputes,
in contrast with factual disputes. Relativism based on
epistemic uncertainty and/or skepticism. In short, the fact
that I do not know for certain (objectively) in a given situation
what is right, implies that there is no objective standard;
hence morality is relative and subjective.
3. Situational Differences Argument. The actual situation in
which people live are often very different, it is implausible to
believe that there could be one set of moral principles or rules
that are universally true for all persons at all times. In short,

SCP-Ethics-108 | 50
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

given the many differences in particular circumstances, what

we call morality must be relative to the particular situation
and no objective or universally valid moral norms exist.
4. Toleration of Differences Argument. People from different
cultures have different moral beliefs, one ought to tolerate,
i.e., not be critical of, these beliefs. One ought not to think
that one view is better or more correct than another, hence
one should adopt ethical relativism, which entails that all
moral beliefs are equally correct. In other words, Ethical
Relativism promotes Tolerance for differences and/or
Tolerance is consistent with ethical relativism.
5. The Psychological Argument. All of us human beings
acquire our moral beliefs by a process of psychological
conditioning. For this reason, if we have been conditioned
differently, we would have different moral beliefs. Hence, our
moral beliefs are neither true nor false, right or wrong, for
there is no such thing as objective truth in ethics. Moral
truth is relative to one’s own psychological upbringing,
nothing more, and nothing less. All of us, consciously or
unconsciously, have been subjected in one way or the other,
to some sort of a psychic manipulation by our Significant
Others. This argument seems a valid evidence that some
kind of Ethical relativism is true.

Arguments against the aforementioned reason for Ethical

Relativism

1. The Diversity of Moral Views Argument. The fact of

disagreement can prove nothing about the matter in
dispute. This is certainly the case in factual matters.
Disagreement does not entail that the matter is wholly
subjective, no matter how much disagreement there is.

2. Moral Uncertainty Argument. Uncertainty, even not

knowing, does not prove there is nothing to know. In a
complex moral situation, I may be uncertain about what is
the right thing to do. I may indeed have to simply act
according to my conscience, i.e., what I believe to be right.
But this does not prove that morality is wholly a matter of

SCP-Ethics-108 | 51
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

mere belief. That would be like saying; since I do not know

with certainty the correct answer to this problem therefore
there is no correct answer (the fallacy of appeal to
ignorance). The best I can say is that I do not know the
answer, not that there is no answer. Granted, such
situations may lead to Skepticism (I doubt that I can know
with certainty that x is true), but skepticism is not
equivalent to, nor does it necessarily imply, relativism.
Relativism assumes that I know something very significant
about moral claims, i.e., that they are all subjective and
relative and that there are no objective norms. But one
cannot draw a positive conclusion (about the nature of
morality) from a negative premise. At best, relativism is a
possibility.

3. Situational Differences Argument. Situational

differences seem to make objectivity, in terms of a common
or universal morality impossible. A Relativist insists that
moral norms cannot be objective universally true, because
circumstances vary too much. For example, a Relativist
might insist that given diverse circumstances, the
judgment that “lying is always wrong” cannot be absolutely
true. For instance, lying might be right in order to save a
life.
This argument confuses Objectivism with
Absolutism. Because Absolutism is one set of absolute
moral rules apply in all places and at all times. While
Objectivism admits some moral claims which are objective
and universal, but particular moral rules may vary.
The Objectivist agrees that Absolutism is too
simplistic, that is, one can know absolutely the truth or
falsity of every moral statement, but insists that moral
differences can be explained objectively by a
comprehensive moral theory, which will explain why
certain goods may take presence over other goods, when
they conflict. Hence, moral conflicts and situational
differences do not lead to the conclusion that all norms are
subjective and relative.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 52
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

4. Toleration of Differences Argument. Indeed, much of

contemporary relativism is not the result of a logical
argument but is a function of allegiance to a value
Tolerance. This position is contradictory. I might adopt
tolerance as a moral value, but if relativism is correct than
tolerance is only one value among many. Since no value is
more correct than another, I could just as easily adopt
dogmatism as my overriding moral belief. Moreover, if
relativism is true, why should I even bother to listen to
another person’s moral beliefs, since by definition their
beliefs cannot be better or more correct than my own
beliefs? Oddly enough, an ethical objectivist, who is not a
dogmatist, might insist that tolerance is an objective value
and trans-cultural, in that by being open to the beliefs of
others I am more likely to come closer to the truth about
morality.
5. The Psychological Argument. This argument is unsound
and invalid. How one acquires one’s belief does not
necessarily undermine its truthfulness or validity. Just
because something comes from a dubious source, it does
not necessarily follow that it is false or erroneous. It is quite
deceiving to believe that the matter of social conditioning is
all that there is in the person’s moral or ethical
development. We have our freedom as the existentialist
would insist. The person’s morality is a primary function of
his/her own volition. What one is doing/acting/deciding, is
nothing but the result of the decisions that he/she
constantly make. Therefore, one’s moral development or
formation is entirely a matter of decision, not conditioning.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 53
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Velasquez, M., et. Ethical Relativism. (1992). Retrieved September 23, 2020
from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-
making/ethical-relativism/

What is Ethical Relativism? (N. D.). Retrieved September 21, 2020 from
https://www.saintpeters.edu/faculty-
development/files/2013/03/Ethical-Relativism-Full-Analysis.pdf

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is Ethical Relativism?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. Which do you think, among the arguments that support ethical relativism
is the strongest? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Which among the arguments do you consider the weakest? Why?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Does the fact that cultures differ prove that ethical relativism is true and
valid ethical theory? Why? Or why not?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 54
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

2. If ethics is merely relative and subjective, does it mean that there is no

such thing as good and bad or right and wrong?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Enumerate five specific practices that are considered good or
right in one culture but not so in another.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 55
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Ethical Relativism Theory and the

Week 7
Ambivalence of Filipino Cultural Values
Ethical Relativism Theory and the Ambivalence
Lesson Title
of Filipino Cultural Values
Learning Evaluate Filipino Cultural Values
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Values - refers to basic and fundamental beliefs that guide or

motivate attitudes or actions. It also refers to what is good,
desirable, or worthwhile and the motive behind purposeful
action.

Filipino Culture – refers to the set of values that a majority of the

Filipino have historically held important in their lives. This
Philippine values system includes their own unique
assemblage of consistent ideologies, moral codes, ethical
practices, etiquette and cultural and personal values that are
promoted by their society. As with any society though, the
values that an individual holds sacred can differ on the basis
of religion, upbringing and other factors.

Ambivalence – refers to the simultaneous and contradictory

attitudes of feelings toward an action, person or object.

Essential Content

Culture. Culture can be regarded as a value, and its value is

premised on the inevitable absoluteness of the particular.
Culture may be the richest treasure that a country could have.
Part of it is the concepts like history, ethics, technology and
development, but culture is a value as regarded by many
thinkers. We have seen that this is the origin of what we are as
of today, it may be distorted or developed, yet, our point still
varies from the origin of our composition as humans. Hence,

SCP-Ethics-108 | 56
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

we have regarded that these are the essential things

confronting our contemporary issues as of today.

Philosophical Character of Filipino Value. The present

articulation or intellectualization says that Filipino thought is
more of a philosophy of life. It is concrete rather than abstract.
Being characterized as a philosophy of life, the domain of
Filipino thought is evidently rooted upon its culture. Hence, we
could say that values are derived from their culture or the spirit
of culture, era, and community manifested in its attitudes and
aspirations. “Every society has its own culture and every
culture bears the people’s philosophy of life and values”.
Filipino philosophy of life and value may be taken under
the concept of the Filipino culture, because culture may serve
as the basis for these values that we are taking. In addition, we
can say that a Filipino value is ingrained with their culture.
Culture interprets people’s perception of reality into a
comprehensive system.

The Filipino Cultural values. The Truth is that Filipino Values

are ambivalent in the sense that they are a potential for good
or evil, a help or hindrance to personal and national
development, depending on how they are understood, practiced
or lived. They can be used in good or evil context. For example,
pakikisama sa kabuktutan or sa kaunlaran. Filipino values
have both positive and negative aspects depending on the
context in which they are found (Salenga, 2015).

The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values. According to Prof

Emerita S. Quito, much has been said about so-called negative
Filipino traits. They have been blamed for the weak character
of the Filipino; they are the culprits, the scapegoat of our
failures, or at least, the explanation for lagging behind more
successful Asian neighbors. She proposed to take a second look
at these so-called negatives in the Filipino psyche to determine
whether there might be a positive aspect, a saving face, a silver
lining behind the dark clouds. In attempting to see an
ambivalence in our traits, she will use oriental yardsticks to
measure success or failure for it would be unfair to use Western

SCP-Ethics-108 | 57
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

standards to evaluate our Filipino traits. For example, is a

materially comfortable life with physiological ailments more
successful than a materially deprived life without physical
ailments? Is the image of Juan Tamad waiting for a guava to
fall such a reprehensible, if not scandalous, picture? Is the
similar image of Sir Isaac Newton, also resting under a tree,
more refreshing?
It is very Filipino to stress our minus points, to find fault
in our behavior, to compare us unfavorably with Westerners by
using Western standards. It is common to hear such names
as Bertong Bukol, or Ipeng Pilay or Huseng Ngongo.
It seems that we take pleasure in underscoring our
weaknesses, faults, defects, etc. Our standards are smallness,
averageness, mediocrity; grandeur or grandness is not in the
Filipino vocabulary. The West, in contrast, evokes: Alexander
the Great, Julius Caesar, Der Führer, Il Duce, El Caudillo,
Elizabeth Regina. We seem to enjoy being humble and meek,
or what Friedrich Nietzsche called "the morality of slaves."
There is something strange in the very way we look upon
success. A person is not supposed to exert effort at the expense
of sanity. We ridicule a person who teaches himself how to
think and label him Tasio, the philosopher. We warn persons
not to learn too much lest they be like Jose Rizal who was
executed at the Luneta in 1896.
Assertiveness is frowned upon because it smacks of pride
and ruthlessness. Success to the Filipino, must come
naturally; it should not be induced or artificially contrived. One
should not be successful at an early age because that would
mean exertion and hard work. Success must come very late in
life, if it is to come at all. Filipino traits must be understood in
the above context. Hence, they are considered negative only
according to other yardsticks. The following Filipino traits show
an ambivalence of positive and negative aspects.

1. Hiya (shame)
Negative, because it arrests or inhibits one's action.
This trait reduces one to smallness or to what Nietzsche
calls the "morality of slaves", thus congealing the soul of

SCP-Ethics-108 | 58
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

the Filipino and emasculating him, making him timid,

meek and weak.
Positive, because, it contributes to peace of mind and
lack of stress by not even trying to achieve.

2. Ningas-cogon (procrastination)
Negative, by all standards, because it begins ardently
and dies down as soon as it begins. This trait renders one
inactive and unable to initiate things or to persevere.
Positive, in a way, because it makes a person non-
chalant, detached, indifferent, nonplussed should
anything go wrong, and hence conducive to peace and
tranquillity.

3. Pakikisama (group loyalty)

Negative, because one closes one's eyes to evils like

graft and corruption in order to conserve peace and
harmony in a group at the expense of one's comfort.
Positive, because one lives for others; peace or
lack of dissension is a constant goal.

4. Patigasan (test of strength)

Negative, because it is stubborn and resists all efforts
at reconciliation. The trait makes us childish, vindictive,
irresponsible, irrational. Actions resulting from this trait
are leaving the phone off the hook to get even with one's
party line; stopping the engine of the car to prove that one
has the right of way; standing one's ground until the
opposite party loses its patience.
Positive, because it is a sign that we know our rights
and are not easily cowed into submission. It is occidental
in spirit, hence in keeping with Nietzsche's "will to power."

5. Bahala na (resignation)
Negative, because one leaves everything to chance
under the pretext of trusting in Divine providence. This
trait is really laziness disguised in religious garb.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 59
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Positive, because one relies on a superior power

rather than on one's own. It is conducive to humility,
modesty, and lack of arrogance.

6. Kasi (because, i. e., scapegoat)

Negative, because one disowns responsibility and
makes a scapegoat out of someone or something. One is
never to blame; one remains lily white and has a ready
alibi for failure.
Positive, because one can see both sides of the
picture and know exactly where a project failed. One will
never suffer from guilt or self-recrimination.

7. Saving Face
Negative, because, being closely related
to hiya and kasi, it enables a person to shirk
responsibility. One is never accountable for anything.
Positive, because one's psyche is saved from undue
embarrassment, sleepless nights, remorse of conscience.
It saves one from accountability or responsibility. This trait
enables one to make a graceful exit from guilt instead of
facing the music and owning responsibility for an offense.

8. Sakop (inclusion)
Negative, because one never learns to be on one's own
but relies on one's family and relatives. This trait stunts
growth and prevents a person from growing on one's own.
Generating a life of parasitism, this trait is very non-
existential. Blaring music, loud tones are a result of this
mentality. We wrongly think that all people like the music
we play or the stories we tell. This mentality also makes us
consider the world as one vast comfort room.
Positive, because one cares for the family and clan;
one stands or falls with them. This trait makes a person
show concern for the family to which he belongs.

9. Mañana or "Bukas na" (procrastination)

SCP-Ethics-108 | 60
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Negative, because one constantly postpones action

and accomplishes nothing. This aggravates a situation, a
problem grows beyond correction, a leak or a small break
becomes a gaping hole. This arises from an indolent
mentality that a problem will go away by itself.
Positive, because one is without stress and tension;
one learns to take what comes naturally. Like the
Chinese wu-wei, this trait makes one live naturally and
without undue artificiality.

10. Utang na loob (indebtedness)

Negative, because one overlooks moral principles
when one is indebted to a person. One who is beholden to
another person will do anything to please him, thinking
that by doing so he is able to repay a debt. One condones
what the other person does and will never censure him for
wrongdoing.
Positive, because it is a recognition of one's
indebtedness. This trait portrays the spirit behind the
Filipino saying, "He who does not know how to look to the
past will never reach his destination."

11. Kanya-kanya (self-centeredness)

Negative, because self-centered; one has no regard for
others. So long as my family and I are not in need, I do not
care about he world.
Positive, because one takes care of oneself and one's
family: "Blood is thicker than water."

Ethical Relativism and Filipino Traits and Values. Based from

the above observation and realization of Prof. Quito, the Filipino
traits and values can be methodically viewed from the lens of
ethical relativism. For every traits and values of the Filipino,
there is always something that is good or a positive aspect. It is
only a matter of appropriation and putting each particular
cultural value in proper perspective that would allow us to see
the good and positive side of the character.
Thus, there is always something that we can learn and do
as to “who we are” given our distinct (though diverse

SCP-Ethics-108 | 61
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

influenced) cultural identity. We discover that there is really

nothing “absolute” or “objective” when it comes to a given
specific trait of our character as a people. Filipino values in
particular are neither good nor bad in the absolute sense. They
are all relative. Their being good or bad, right or wrong, would
really depend on how each particular trait is used concretely in
a specific context.
It is therefore contingent on each of us individually
whether to make and turn these values and traits into good or
bad, right or wrong, moral and immoral. The decision is ours
to make. And the time is now.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Mintz, S. What are values? (2018). Retrieved Oct. 3, 2020 from

https://www.ethicssage.com/2018/08/what-are-values.html

Quito, E. The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values. (2008). Retrieved Oct.
1, 2020 from https://www.thefilipinomind.com/2008/11/ambivalence-
of-filipino-traits-and.html

Salenga, M. Today’s Filipino Values: Uncertainty and Split-level

Christianity. (2015). Retrieved September 31, 2020 from
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/sunstar-
pampanga/20151121/281818577735475

Santander, J. V. The Filipino Value Ethos. (N. D.). Retrieved September 30, 2020 from
https://www.academia.edu/33901713/The_Filipino_Value_Ethos_The_Ethics
_of_Kapangyarihan

SCP-Ethics-108 | 62
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is Filipino Culture?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What is the Philosophical Character of Filipino Culture?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What do mean by ambivalence of Filipino Culture?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Kindly give specific example or situation wherein the said values have
positive and negative effect in the society?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Do you honestly think that morality (what is good and what is bad) is
relative? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 63
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Come up with a list of other ambivalent Filipino cultural values
and traits aside from what are enumerative by Prof Quito. Show both the
positive and negative aspect of each trait and value.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 64
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 8 Natural law theory

Lesson Title Natural law Theory
Learning Discuss the natural law theory
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Law - refers to rule of conduct which governs, directs, or regulates

the free acts of men (Montemayor, 1994).

Natural law – refers to a theory in ethics and philosophy that says

that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our
reasoning and behavior. It maintains that these rules of right
and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society
or court judges. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws
that science aims to describe.

Essential Content

Understanding Natural Law. Natural law holds that there are

universal moral standards that are inherent in humankind
throughout all time, and these standards should form the basis
of a just society. Human beings are not taught natural law per
se, but rather we “discover” it by consistently making choices
for good instead of evil. Some schools of thought believe that
natural law is passed to humans via a divine presence.
Although natural law mainly applies to the realm of ethics and
philosophy, it is also used extensively in theoretical economics.
With this theory actions in conformity and support of natural
laws are morally correct. In other words, what is consistent
with the natural law is right and what is not in keeping with
the natural law is wrong.

Natural Law vs. Positive Law. The theory of natural law believes
that our civil laws should be based on morality, ethics, and
what is inherently correct. This is in contrast to what is called
SCP-Ethics-108 | 65
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

"positive law" or "man-made law," which is defined by statute

and common law and may or may not reflect the natural law.
The examples of positive law include rules such as the
speed that individuals are allowed to drive like in our case of
Davao city, we have speed limit. Ideally, when drafting positive
laws, governing bodies would base them on their sense of
natural law. So, the difference is that, "Natural laws" are
inherent in us as human beings. "Positive laws" are created by
us in the context of society.

Examples of Natural Law. The examples of natural law abound,

but philosophers and theologians throughout history have
differed in their interpretations of this doctrine. Theoretically,
the precepts of natural law should be constant throughout time
and across the globe because natural law is based on human
nature, not on culture or customs.
When a child tearfully exclaims, “It’s not fair [that]..." or
when viewing a documentary about the suffering of war, we feel
pain because we're reminded of the horrors of human evil. And
in doing this, we are also providing evidence for the existence
of natural law. A well-accepted example of natural law in our
society is that it is wrong for one person to kill another person.
In this view, humans have reasoning and the Laws of
Nature are discernable by human reason. Thus, humans are
morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws
are and then to act in conformity with them.
Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and
procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural law for
species to survive and procreate. Thus, activities in conformity
with such a law are morally good. Activities that work against
that law are morally wrong. As an example, consider that to
eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy is morally
wrong.

Examples of Natural Law in Philosophy and Religion.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 66
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

1. Stoics (first century BC). The early Stoics believed that

“human beings have within them a divine spark (rational
seed) that enables them to discover the essential eternal
laws that governed the whole universe/cosmos that are
necessary in the attainment of individual happiness and
social harmony. They equated nature with law and reason
and taught that what was important was to live according
to nature. They called this wisdom.
2. Aristotle (384–322 BCE). He considered by many to be the
father of natural law—argued that what is “just by nature”
is not always the same as what is “just by law.” Aristotle
believed that there is a natural justice that is valid
everywhere with the same force; that this natural justice
is positive and does not exist by "people thinking this or
that."
3. St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–1274 CE). According to
him, natural law and religion were inextricably connected.
He believed that natural law "participates" in the divine
"eternal" law. Aquinas thought eternal law to be that
rational plan by which all creation is ordered, and natural
law is the way that human beings participate in the eternal
law. He further posited that the fundamental principle of
natural law is that we should do good and avoid evil.
4. C.S. Lewis (1898–1963). He explained it this way:
“According to the religious view, what is behind the
universe is more like a mind than anything else we know…
it is conscious and has purposes and prefers one thing to
another. There is a 'something' which is directing the
universe, and which appears to me as a law urging me to
do right.” (Mere Christianity, pg. 16–33)

Philosophers of natural law often do not explicitly concern

themselves with economic matters; likewise, economists
systematically refrain from making explicit moral value
judgments. Yet the fact that economics and natural law are
intertwined has been borne out consistently in the history of
economics. Because natural law as an ethical theory can be
understood to be an extension of scientific and rational inquiry
into how the world works, the laws of economics can be

SCP-Ethics-108 | 67
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

understood as natural laws of how economies “should” operate.

Moreover, to the extent that economic analysis is used to
prescribe (or proscribe) public policy or how businesses ought
to conduct themselves, the practice of applied economics must
rely at least implicitly on some sort of ethical assumptions.

Examples of Natural Law in Economics. The following are the

example of natural law as applied in economics namely:
1. Early economists of the medieval period, including the
aforementioned Aquinas as well as the Scholastic
monks of the School of Salamanca, heavily
emphasized natural law as an aspect of economics in
their theories of the just price of an economic goods.

2. John Locke based his theories related to economics

on a version of natural law, arguing that people have
a natural right to claim unowned resources and land
as private property, thereby transforming them into
economic goods by mixing them with their labor.

3. Adam Smith (1723–1790) is renowned as the father of

modern economics. In Smith's first major treatise, The
Theory of Moral Sentiments, he described a "system
of natural liberty" as being the matrix of true wealth.
Many of Smith's ideas are still taught today, including
his three natural laws of economics: 1) The Law of Self
Interest—People work for their own good. 2) The Law
of Competition—Competition forces people to make a
better product. 3) The Law of Supply and Demand—
Enough goods would be produced at the lowest
possible price to meet demand in a market economy.

Conclusion. Natural Law Theory can be held and applied to

human conduct by both of the following:
1. The atheist uses reason to discover the laws governing
natural events and applies them to thinking about
SCP-Ethics-108 | 68
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

human action. Actions in accord with such natural law

are morally correct. Those that go against such natural
laws are morally wrong.
2. The theists believed that there is a God that created all
of nature and created the laws as well and so obedience
to those laws and the supplement to those laws provided
by God is the morally correct thing to do.

For atheists there is still the belief that humans have

reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are
discernable. For atheists who accept this approach to act in
keeping with the laws of nature is the morally correct thing to
do.
What are the laws of nature that provide guidance for
human actions? These would include: the law of survival, the
natural action for living things to maintain themselves and to
reproduce, etc.
It is a major problem for this theory to determine what
exactly those laws are and how they apply to human
circumstances. We will have more thorough discussion about
the strength and weakness of this theory in our part 2 of this
topic. That will be on our next weekly lesson (week 10).

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Chappelow, J. What is natural law? (2019). Retrieved Oct 6, 2020 from

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-
law.asp#:~:text=Natural%20law%20is%20a%20theory,by%20society%
20or%20court%20judges.

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Montemayor, Felix M. Ethics: The Philosophy of Life. National Book Store,

1994.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 69
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is a law?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What is the natural law theory?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Differentiate natural law from positive law.

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. In what sense is morality based on nature?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. “What is natural is always good.” Do you agree? Why? Or why not?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 70
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Make a list of specific actions/behavior that you consider as
“natural” and “unnatural.” Are you clear as to what “natural” and
“unnatural” mean?

SCP-Ethics-108 | 71
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 9 Natural law theory (Continuation)

Lesson Title Natural law Theory (Continuation)
Learning Discuss the natural law theory
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Doctrine - refers to a belief or set of beliefs, especially political or

religious ones, that are taught and accepted by a particular
group.

Naturalistic fallacy - refers to fallacy that involves the derivation

of ethical conclusions from non-ethical facts.

Essential Content

Introduction. St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristotelianism,

Stoicism, and Christianity to give the natural law its classic
formulation. In addition to Aristotle’s natural virtues, he added
the theological virtues faith, hope, and charity. And to earthly
happiness he added eternal beatitude. For Thomas, action in
accordance with human nature fulfills God’s eternal plan, and
Scripture’s commandments. Thus, the natural law is God’s law
known to human reason. Unlike the lower animals, we have the
ability to understand the laws of our nature, and the free will to
follow or disregard these laws. And how do we attain knowledge
of the natural law? It is not innate, intuited, or easily derived
from sense experience. Instead, we use reason to determine
the conformity of moral conduct and nature. Since fulfilling
natural needs makes us happy, the natural is the good. What
then constitutes the law? While all mature individuals know its
most general principles like do not kill the innocent,
controversy surrounds reasoned conclusions about its specific
applications

The Doctrine of Double effect (DDE). This doctrine is a

supplementary principle of the Natural Law Theory. Imagine

SCP-Ethics-108 | 72
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

someone considering suicide. Is this morally acceptable or not?

Recall, it is part of the Natural Law to preserve and protect
human life. Clearly suicide is not preserving and protecting
human life. It is therefore irrational to kill oneself and cannot
be part of God’s plan for our life; hence it is morally
unacceptable.
Imagine that someone is considering having an abortion
after becoming pregnant due to rape. The same reasoning is
going to apply. We ought to preserve and protect human life
and hence an abortion in this case is morally wrong.
However, as we will see, Aquinas thinks that there
are some instances where it is morally acceptable to kill an
innocent person and therefore there may be occasions when it
is morally acceptable to kill a fetus. But how can this be
correct? Will this not violate the primary precept about
preserving life? The answer is to understand that for
Aquinas, an action is not just about what we do externally but
is also about what we do internally (i.e. our motivations). With
this distinction he can show that, for example, killing an
innocent can be morally acceptable.
To make this clear, Aquinas introduces one of his most
famous ideas: the “Doctrine of Double Effect”. Let’s see how this
works.
Imagine a child brought up in a physically, sexually and
emotionally abusive family. She is frequently scared for her life
and is locked in the house for days at a time. One day when
her father is drunk and ready to abuse her again, she quickly
grabs a kitchen knife and slashes his father’s artery. Her father
bleeds out and dies in a matter of minutes. Do you think the
daughter did anything wrong?
Many people would say that she did nothing morally wrong
and in fact, some might even go as far as to say that she should
get a pat on the back for her actions. What about Aquinas?
What would he say?
We might think that given the Natural Law to “preserve
and protect life” he would say that this action is morally wrong.
But, in fact, he would say the daughter’s action was not morally
wrong (Aquinas discusses self-defense in the Summa
Theologica (II–II, Qu. 64)).

SCP-Ethics-108 | 73
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

So why is the daughter killing the father not in direct

contradiction with the primary precept? Aquinas asks us to
consider the difference between the external act — the fact that
the father was killed, and the internal act — the motive.
In our example, the action is one of self-defense because of
the daughter’s internal action and because of this, Aquinas
would think the killing is morally acceptable. This distinction
and conclusion are possible because of Aquinas’s Doctrine of
Double Effect which states that if an act fulfils four conditions
then it is morally acceptable. If not, then it is not.
1. The first principle is that the act must be a good one.
2. The second principle is that the act must come about
before the consequences.
3. The third is that the intention must be good.
4. The fourth, it must be for serious reasons.

This is abstract so let’s go back to our example. The act of

the daughter was performed to save her own life so that is good
— we can tick (1). Moreover, the act to save her life came about
first — we can tick (2). The daughter did not first act to kill his
father in order to save her own life. That would be doing evil to
bring about good and that is never morally acceptable. The
intention of the daughter was to preserve and protect her life,
so the intention was good — tick (3). Finally, the reasons were
serious as it was her life or her father’s life — tick (4).
So, given that the act meets all four principles, it is in line
with the DDE and hence the action is morally acceptable, even
though it caused someone to die and hence seems contrary to
the primary precept of preserving life.
We can draw a contrasting case. Imagine that instead of
slashing her father in self-defense, the daughter plans the
killing. She works out the best time, the best day and then sets
up a trip wire causing her father to fall from her flat window to
his death. Does this action meet the four criteria of the DDE?
Well, no, because the daughter’s intention is to kill her father
rather than save her own life — we must put a cross at (3).
We have already seen that suicide is morally impermissible
for Aquinas, so does that mean that any action you take that
leads knowingly to your own death is morally wrong? No.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 74
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Because even though the external act of your own death is the
same, the internal act — the intention — might be different. An
action is judged via the Natural Law both externally and
internally.
Imagine a case where a soldier sees a grenade thrown into
his barracks. Knowing that he does not have time to defuse it
or throw it away, he throws himself on the grenade. It blows
up, killing him but saving other soldiers in thier barracks. Is
this wrong, or right? Aquinas says this is morally acceptable
given DDE. If we judge this act both internally and externally,
we’ll see why.
The intention — the internal act — was not to kill himself
even though he could foresee that this was certainly what was
going to happen. The act itself is good, to save his fellow soldiers
(1). The order is right, he is not doing evil so good will happen
(2). The intention is good, it is to save his fellow soldiers (3). The
reason is serious, it concerns people’s lives (4).
Contrast this with a soldier who decides to kill himself by
blowing himself up. The intention is not good and hence the
DDE does not permit this suicidal action.
Finally, imagine that a woman is pregnant and also has
inoperable uterine cancer. The doctors have two choices; to
take out the uterus and save the mother, but the fetus will die;
or leave the fetus to develop and be born healthy, but the
woman will die. What would Aquinas say in this instance? Well
using the DDE, he would say that it is morally acceptable to
remove the cancer.
The action is to remove the cancer; it has the foreseeable
consequences of the fetus dying but that is not what is
intended. The action — to remove the cancer — is good (1). The
act of removing the cancer comes before the death of the fetus
(2). The intention to save the woman’s life is also good (3).
Finally, the reasons are serious as they are about the life and
death of the woman and the fetus (4).
So even though this is a case where the doctor’s actions
bring about the death of the fetus it would be acceptable for
Aquinas through his Natural Law Theory, as is shown via the
DDE.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 75
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Other supplementary principle of natural law.

1. Principle of Inviolability of life. This principle applies to
every human life, including the life of the unborn (fetus) that is
still in the process of developing in the womb of the mother.
The unborn, even in the earliest stages of growth does have all
the basic natural right to life that must be protected from any
harm. Life is sacred because it is created in the image and
likeness of God. Inviolability simply means that no innocent
human life can be directly killed and disposed. It gives every
life no matter how it is lived, an equal worth and dignity. This
means that the life of a criminal is as important as the life of
the upright person. Our status in society does not count also
when weighing the value of one’s life.
2. Principle of Forfeiture. This principle can be invoked in
certain real situation wherein a person’s life is mortally
threatened by the presence of another who is an aggressor.
Natural law thinkers are of the opinion that even though you
might have to kill your-would assailant, it is morally justified
since in the first place your-would be assailant has forfeited his
innocence (right to life) by threatening yours.
3. Principle of Totality. This principle refers to the view that
a part exists for the good of the whole. This is invoked when a
particular part or organ of a human body has to be cut off,
mutilated or removed because of infection that may put the
entire body at risk. It is morally permissible to do this only in
so far as the general well-being of the whole body requires it.
This principle considers immoral the mutilation or removal of
healthy organs for commercial purposes.
4. Principle of Stewardship. This principle has its basis on
the religious belief that all life comes from God, the supreme
creator and maker of all. This would imply that no individual
person could claim that he or she is the owner of anything in
the world and that of his or her own body. We humans are only
given the power to take good care of creation and do not have
sole authority to do whatever we want. Therefore, it is morally
wrong to commit actions such as suicide and euthanasia since
stewardship entails proper protection and responsible care of
what the almighty has given. It goes without saying therefore
that it is only God who has dominion over life and our bodies.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 76
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Our duty is to take care of them until God takes them back
from us in His own good time.
This principle is also applicable on issues concerning
natural environment. The earth and everything in nature as a
gift from God, has to be taken cared of and should not be
abused in any way.

Strength of Natural Law Theory.

1. Natural law theory affirms our basic belief in the infinite and
inherent worth and value of human life.
2. It gives a purposive direction and coherent explanation to all
realities in the cosmos.
3. It offers a clear and comprehensive guideline as to what are
the things that we ought to do and not to do.
4. It grounds morality in human nature that is discoverable by
reason.
5. It gives emphasis on the various human inclinations as
something good and should be promoted and enhanced.
6. It grounds morality on certain universal human values such
as the value of life, truth, and goodness.
7. It coherently integrates the significant role of conscience in
knowing what is right and what is wrong.
8. It explains in a systematic manner why things (nature) are
the way they are and their implications to human moral
action.
9. It provides a religious dimension to morality (a good
alternative to purely humanistic and secular ethical
theories).
10. It categorically rejects relativism and subjectivism in our
search for a valid moral principle that will govern our actions
and conduct.

Criticism against Natural Law Theory.

1. There are many things we might consider when thinking
through Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory. There are some
obvious problems we could raise, such as the problem about
whether or not God exists. If God does not exist, then the
Eternal Law does not exist and therefore the whole theory
comes tumbling down. However, as good philosophers we
SCP-Ethics-108 | 77
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

ought always to operate with a principle of charity and grant

our opponent is rational and give the strongest possible
interpretation of their argument. So, let’s assume for the
sake of argument that God exists. How plausible is
Aquinas’s theory? There are a number of things that we can
pick up on.
2. Aquinas’s theory works on the idea that if something is
“natural”, that is, if it fulfils its function, then it is morally
acceptable, but there are a number of unanswered
questions relating to natural.
3. We might ask, why does “natural” matter? We can think of
things that are not “natural” but which are perfectly
acceptable, and things which are natural which are not. For
example, wearing clothes, taking medication and body
piercing certainly are not natural, but we would not want to
say such things are morally wrong.
4. On the other hand, we might consider that violence is a
natural response to an unfaithful partner, but also think
that such violence is morally unacceptable. So, it is not true
that we can discover what is morally acceptable or not
simply by discovering what is natural and what is not.
5. Put this worry aside. Recall, Aquinas thinks that
reproduction is natural and hence reproduction is morally
acceptable. This means that sex that does not lead to
reproduction is morally unacceptable. Notice that Aquinas
is not saying that if sex does not lead to pregnancy it is
wrong. After all, sometimes the timing is not right. His claim
is rather that if there is no potential for sex to lead to
pregnancy then it is wrong. However, even with this
qualification this would mean a whole host of things such
as homosexuality and contraception are morally wrong. We
might take this as a reason to rethink Aquinas’s moral
framework.
6. There is, though, a more fundamental worry at the heart of
this approach (and Aristotle’s) to ethics. Namely, they think
that everything has a goal (telos). Now, with some things this
might be plausible. Things such as the eye or an acorn have
a clear function — to grow, to see — but what about
humans? This seems a bit less obvious! Do humans (rather

SCP-Ethics-108 | 78
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

than our individual parts) really have a telos? There are

certainly some philosophers — such as the existentialists,
for example Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) — who think
that there is no such thing as human nature and no such
thing as a human function or goal. But if we are
unconvinced that humans have a goal, then this whole
approach to ethics seems flawed.
7. We might raise questions about DDE. Go back to our
example about abortion. For Aquinas, it is morally
acceptable to remove the uterus even if we know that in
doing so the fetus will die. What is not morally acceptable is
to intend to kill the fetus by removing the uterus. On first
reading this seems to make sense; we have an intuitive feel
for what DDE is getting at. However, when we consider it in
more detail, it is far from clear.
8. Imagine two doctors who (apparently) do exactly the same
thing, they both remove the uterus and the fetus dies. The
one intends to take out the uterus — in full knowledge that
the fetus will die — the other intends to kill the fetus. For
the DDE to work in the way that Aquinas understands it,
this difference in intention makes the moral difference
between the two doctors. However, is there really a moral
difference? To put pressure on the answer that there is, ask
yourself what you think it means to intend to do something.
If the first doctor says “I did not intend to kill the fetus” can
we make sense of this? After all, if you asked her “did you
know that in taking out the uterus the fetus would die?” she
would say “yes, of course”. But if she did this and the fetus
died, did not she intend (in some sense) to kill the fetus? So,
this issue raises some complex question about the nature of
the mind, and how we might understand intentions.
9. We might wonder how easy it is to work out what actually to
do using the Natural Law. We would hope our moral theory
gives us direction in living our lives. That, we might think,
is precisely the role of a moral theory. But how might it work
in this case?
10. For Aquinas, if we rationally reflect then we arrive at the
right way of proceeding. If this is in line with the Natural
Law and the Divine Law, then it is morally acceptable. If it

SCP-Ethics-108 | 79
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

is out of line, then it is not. The assumption is that the more

we think, the more rational we become, the more
convergence there will be. We’ll all start to have similar views
on what is right and wrong. But is this too optimistic? Very
often, even after extensive reflection and cool deliberation
with friends and colleagues, it is not obvious to us what we
as rational agents should do. We all know people we take to
be rational, but we disagree with them on moral issues. And
even in obviously rational areas such as mathematics, the
best mathematicians are not able to agree. We might then
be sceptical that as rational agents we will come to be in line
with the Natural and Divine Laws.

Conclusion. Of course, the fact that, with the exception of the

Catholic Church, the theory of natural law has fallen into
disfavor doesn’t mean it is mistaken. If we believe that we can
philosophically demonstrate the existence of a source of values
and purposes for human beings and believe also that
knowledge of this source is accessible to human reason, then
one may rationally defend the theory. Furthermore, without
such presuppositions, moral thinking is likely futile. A number
of contemporary philosophers suggest that without some
ultimate, objective source for morality, notions like obligation,
duty, right, and good make no sense.
Nevertheless, natural law theory does rest upon a number
of dubious philosophical propositions. We should not forget
that, at least in the formulation of the Catholic Church, the
natural law ultimately comes from God. Like the divine
command theory, natural law ethics is open to all of the
objections of philosophical theology. Is there a God? Are there
any significant proofs for God’s existence? Why is God so
“hidden?” How do we know our reason is sufficient to
understand God’s natural moral laws? Moreover, a nontheistic
natural law ethics must answer the challenge of the
naturalistic fallacy. Why is the natural, good?
Whatever the conclusion, the gap between a
nonteleological, factual, and scientific account of human
nature and a teleological, ethical, and religious conception
constitutes the central dispute in contemporary culture. We do
SCP-Ethics-108 | 80
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

not know how to reconcile the two poles, or if one or the other
is bankrupt. But, as the historian of philosophy W.T. Jones
asserts: “The whole history of philosophy since the seventeenth
century is in fact hardly more than a series of variations on this
central theme.”

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Chappelow, J. What is natural law? (2019). Retrieved Oct 6, 2020 from

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-
law.asp#:~:text=Natural%20law%20is%20a%20theory,by%20society%
20or%20court%20judges.

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Messerly, J. Summary of Natural Law Ethics. (2017). Retrieved Oct. 16,

2020 from https://reasonandmeaning.com/2017/11/13/summary-
of-natural-law-ethics/

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is the Doctrine of Double Effect?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What are other supplementary principles of the natural law?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What do you think is the greatest argument in favor of natural law?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 81
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. What are the objections to natural law theory?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. How would you defend natural law theory from the various criticism
forwarded against it?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Write a short reflection on the issue of climate change by
employing the principle of stewardship of natural law ethics.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 82
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 10 Ethics of Utilitarianism

Lesson Title Ethics of Utilitarianism
Learning Discuss the Ethics of Utilitarianism
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Utilitarianism - refers to normative ethical theory that places the

locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences)
of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As
such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and
takes into account the interests of others.

Act utilitarianism - refers to the principle of utility is applied

directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The
right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best
results (or the least amount of bad results).

Rule utilitarianism – refers to the principle of utility is used to

determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A
rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the
consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will
and a world in which promises were binding. Right and wrong
are then defined as following or breaking those rules.

Essential Content
Introduction. Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most
influential moral theories. Like other forms
of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are
morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More
specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the
good and bad results that they produce.

The meaning of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory of

morality, which advocates actions that foster happiness or
pleasure and opposes actions that cause unhappiness or harm.
For this reason, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view
SCP-Ethics-108 | 83
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

that the morally right action is the action that produces the
most good. When directed toward making social, economic, or
political decisions, a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the
betterment of society as a whole. Utilitarianism would say that
an action is right if it results in the happiness of the greatest
number of people in a society or a group. In short, the right
action is understood entirely in terms of consequences
produced.
Further, Utilitarianism is a tradition of ethical philosophy
that is associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill,
two late 18th- and 19th-century British philosophers,
economists, and political thinkers. Utilitarianism holds that an
action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it
tends to produce sadness, or the reverse of happiness—not just
the happiness of the actor but that of everyone affected by it.
At work, you display utilitarianism when you take actions to
ensure that the office is a positive environment for your co-
workers to be in, and then make it so for yourself.
The Three Generally Accepted Axioms of Utilitarianism
State that:
• Pleasure, or happiness, is the only thing that has intrinsic
value.
• Actions are right if they promote happiness, and wrong if
they promote unhappiness.
• Everyone's happiness counts equally.

Understanding Ethics of Utilitarianism. Utilitarian ethics is a

normative ethical system that is primarily concerned with the
consequences of ethical decisions. Thus, it can be described as
a teleological theory or consequentialist theory, which are
essentially the same thing, both having a notion that the
consequence of the act is the most important determinant of
the act being moral or not. Teleological reasoning takes into
consideration that the ethical decision is dependent upon the
consequences (“ends”) of the actions. In teleological reasoning,
a person will do the right thing if the consequences of his or her
actions are good. Additionally, if an action by a person was an
act that was “not good,” but the consequences turned out to be
“good,” under some theories of teleological reasoning, the act

SCP-Ethics-108 | 84
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

may be deemed a good ethical act. This is also referred to as

“consequentialist moral reasoning,” where we locate morality in
the consequences of our actions.
As a result of the consequentialist nature of utilitarianism,
the means to get to the ethical decision (“end”) are secondary;
the end result is that which must be considered before
determining the morality of the decision. In short,
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the
locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences)
of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As
such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and
takes into account the interests of others.
For example, imagine that Pedro is an unemployed poor
man in Bucana, Davao City. Although he has no money, his
family still depends on him. His unemployed wife (Maria) is sick
and needs 1,500 pesos for treatment, and their little children
(Jun and Inday) did not anymore go school because they do not
even have food to eat. Pedro has no source of income and he
cannot get a loan. Juan (his friend and a millionaire) has
refused to help him. From his perspective, there are only two
alternatives: either he pays by stealing or he does not. So, he
steals 2,000 pesos from Juan in order to pay for Maria’s
treatment and to buy food for his children. One could say that
stealing is morally wrong. Therefore, we will say that what
Pedro has done which is stealing from Juan—is morally wrong.
Utilitarianism, however, will say what Pedro has done is
morally right. For utilitarians, stealing in itself is neither bad
nor good. What makes it bad or good is the consequences it
produces. In our example, Pedro stole from one person who has
less need for the money and spent the money on three people
who have more need for the money (2 children and wife).
Therefore, for utilitarians, Pedro’s stealing from Juan (the
“means”) can be justified by the fact that the money was used
for the treatment of Maria (his wife) and food for his children
(the “end”). This justification is based on the calculation that
the benefits of the theft outweigh the losses caused by the theft.
Pedro’s act of stealing is morally right because it produced more
good than bad. In other words, the action produced more

SCP-Ethics-108 | 85
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

pleasure or happiness than pain or unhappiness, that is, it

increased net utility.
Main Proponents of Utilitarianism.
11. Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy Bentham describes his
"greatest happiness principle" in Introduction to the Principles
of Morals and Legislation, a 1789 publication in which he
writes: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of
two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone
to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine
what we shall do."
12. John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill had many years to
absorb and reflect on Jeremy Bentham's thoughts on
utilitarianism by the time he published his own
work, Utilitarianism, in 1863. The key passage from this
book: "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals
utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions
are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by
unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."

Some Varieties (or Types) of Utilitarianism. We can, however,

distinguish between different types of utilitarianism namely:
First. We can distinguish between “actual consequence
utilitarians” and “foreseeable consequence utilitarians.” The
former base the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral
wrongness of actions on the actual consequences of actions;
while the latter base the evaluation of the moral rightness and
moral wrongness of actions on the foreseeable consequences of
actions. J. J. C. Smart (1920-2012) explains the rationale for
this distinction with reference to the following example:
imagine that you rescued someone from drowning. You were
acting in good faith to save a drowning person, but it just so
happens that the person later became a mass murderer. Since
the person became a mass murderer, actual consequence
utilitarians would argue that in hindsight the act of rescuing
the person was morally wrong. However, foreseeable
consequence utilitarians would argue that—looking forward

SCP-Ethics-108 | 86
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

(i.e., in foresight)—it could not be foreseen that the person was

going to be a mass murderer, hence the act of rescuing them
was morally right (Smart 1973, 49). Moreover, they could have
turned out to be a “saint” or Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther
King Jr., in which case the action would be considered to be
morally right by actual consequence utilitarians.
Second. We can make distinction between act utilitarianism
and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual
actions and says that we should apply the principle of utility in
order to evaluate them. Therefore, act utilitarians argue that
among possible actions, the action that produces the most
utility would the morally right action. But this may seem
impossible to do in practice since, for everything that we might
do that has a potential effect on other people, we would thus
be morally required to examine its consequences and pick the
one with the best outcome. Rule utilitarianism responds to this
problem by focusing on general types of actions and
determining whether they typically lead to good or bad results.
This, for them is the meaning of commonly held moral rules:
they are generalizations of the typical consequences of our
actions. For example, if stealing typically leads to bad
consequences, stealing in general would be considered by a
rule utilitarian to be wrong.
Conclusion. Let us conclude with the question: can the ends
justify the means? As far as utilitarianism is concerned the
answer to this question is in the affirmative. While the answer
is plausible and right for utilitarians, it is implausible for many
others, and notably wrong for deontologists (supporters of
another theory of Ethics). On a close examination
utilitarianism is less persuasive and less reasonable than it
appears to be when it is far away.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 87
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Abumere, F. A. Utilitarianism. (N. D.). Retrieved Oct 18, 2020 from

https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-
ethics/chapter/utilitarianism/
Cavalier, R. Utilitarian Theories. (2002). Retrieved Oct. 19, 2020 from
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. The History of Utilitarianism.

(N. D.). Retrieved Oct. 21, 2020 from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Utilitarian Ethics. (N. D.). Retrieved Oct 20, 2020 from

https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/
2-2-utilitarian-ethics/

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is Ethics of Utilitarianism?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What makes utilitarianism a consequentialist theory of morality?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What are the types of Utilitarianism?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 88
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Do you agree with the utilitarian view that the consequence of an action
is the only thing that matters in assessing its moral worth?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Do you think that pleasure or happiness is the supreme goal of life?

Why? Or why not?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Create a situation which explains Utilitarian Ethics. Give your
moral assessment of your own example based on the said theory.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 89
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 11 Ethics of Utilitarianism

Lesson Title Ethics of Utilitarianism (Continuation)
Learning Discuss the Ethics of Utilitarianism
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Good – refers to the good that at which human action should aim.

Philistinism – refers to the attitude or quality of

not caring about, understanding, or liking good art, music,
or literature.

Essential Content
Introduction. As previously discussed, Utilitarianism is a moral
principle that holds that the morally right course of action in
any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of
benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course
of action produces maximum benefits for everyone,
utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced
by lies, manipulation, or coercion.
Moreover, many of us use this type of moral reasoning
frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to explain why
we feel we have a moral duty to perform some action, we often
point to the good that will come from the action or the harm it
will prevent.

The principle of Utility. This is the heart of Utilitarian moral

theories. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (IPML), his major work of this early period, Bentham
described utility as “that property in any object” which “tends
to produce benefit, advantage, good or happiness” and the
utility principle as “that principle which approves or
disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the
tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in question” (Bentham,

SCP-Ethics-108 | 90
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

1970).In other words, the principle of Utility holds that an

action is good in so far as it tends to promote happiness for
moral agents. The good is that at which human
action should aim here is the happiness for the greatest
number in ethics of utilitarianism.Hence, actions should not be
considered good or bad in-and-of themselves, but only in
reference to their utility (i.e., usefulness in achieving
happiness).
John Stuart Mill defines this doctrine as follows: “The
creed which accepts as the foundations of morals ‘utility’ or the
‘greatest happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness. By happiness is
intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,
pain and the privation of pleasure.” Mill understood his essay
as continuing the tradition founded by his father and Bentham.

The Hedonic Calculus. It is a method of working out the sum total

of pleasure and pain produced by an act, and thus the total
value of its consequences. It is also called the felicific calculus
being sketched by Bentham. The major factors of sensations of
pleasure and pain resulting from an action as outlined by
Bentham are summarized by these variables.

The first four variables (intensity, duration, certainty, and

propinquity) show the value of the pleasure or the pain
"considered by itself." This phrase implies Bentham did not see
pleasure and pain as polar concepts or contraries.

The next two variables (fecundity and purity) are properties of

the event or action produced by the pleasure or pain-—not
properties of the pleasure or pain, itself..

1. Intensity (I)--How intense is the pleasure or pain?

2. Duration (D)--How long does does the pleasure of pain

last?

3. Certainty (C)--What is the probability that the

pleasure or pain will occur?

SCP-Ethics-108 | 91
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

4. Propinquity (nearness or remoteness) (N)--How far off

in the future is the pleasure or pain?

5. Fecundity (F)--What is the probability that the

pleasure will lead to other pleasures?

6. Purity (P)--What is the probability that the pain will

lead to other pains?

7. Extent (E)--How many persons are affected by the

pleasure?

Greatest Good for the Greatest number of people. This principle

can be traced to the writings of Jeremy Bentham, who lived in
England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Bentham, a legal reformer, sought an objective basis that
would provide a publicly acceptable norm for determining what
kinds of laws England should enact. He believed that the most
promising way of reaching such an agreement was to choose
that policy that would bring about the greatest net benefits to
society once the harms had been taken into account. His motto,
a familiar one now, was "the greatest good for the greatest
number as a measure of right or wrong." As such, it moves
beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account
the interests of others.
One thing to note is that the theory is a form of
consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in
terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes
utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the
relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to
maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others
as well as one's own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus,
were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to
maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number’.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 92
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and

agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When
one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered.
My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further,
the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same
reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not
peculiar to me.

Quality vs. Quantity. John Stuart Mill was troubled by some

criticisms of utilitarianism, and in his attempts to answer these
objections, Mill developed his own distinctive doctrine.
One of the objections to utilitarianism that most troubled
Mill was the charge that it is based on a low view of humankind.
It makes pleasure the measure of value, and it seems to put all
human pleasures—from philosophical contemplation to
drunkenness—on the same level. According to earlier
utilitarians, such as Bentham, it is the quantity, not the type
of pleasure, that matters. In The Rationale of Reward, Bentham
seems to relish the equivalence: “Prejudice apart, the game of
push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music
and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnished more pleasure,
it is more valuable than either.” Mill disagreed and set out to
justify higher human pursuits on utilitarian terms.
In order to defend utilitarianism against the charge of
philistinism, Mill develops a doctrine of higher pleasures.
“Human beings,” he argues, “have faculties more elevated than
the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them,
do not regard anything as happiness that does not include their
gratification.” The exercise of reason, the autonomous setting
and pursuing of one’s own plan of life, and the appreciation of
poetry are more important to human happiness than the
satisfaction of sensual desire. In fact, Mill argues that even an
unfulfilled capacity for higher pleasure contributes more to
happiness than sensual satisfaction. As he puts it, “It is better
to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to
be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” No human,
argues Mill, would exchange his higher capacities for a life of
swinish satisfaction, just as Socrates preferred his own death
to a life bereft of philosophy. Moreover, this is not a matter of
SCP-Ethics-108 | 93
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

subjective preference. According to Mill, we should accept

human judgment of Socrates on these questions because we
have experienced both sorts of pleasures and are therefore
qualified judges of the matter. By contrast “if the fool or the pig
are of a different opinion, it is only because they only know
their side of the question. The other party to the comparison
knows both sides.”
Another distinctive aspect of Mill’s utilitarianism is its
progressivism. In On Liberty, he writes: “I regard utility as the
ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility
in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of
man as a progressive being.” Mill believes that humans beings
are shaped by their experiences and education, and, therefore,
that they can augment their higher capacities. Thus, Mill’s
utility principle aims not only at the satisfaction of existing
desires, but also at human improvement.

The Strength of Utilitarianism. The following are the advantages

of the ethics of utilitarianism namely:
• Happiness -- It seems right that happiness is
given intrinsic value. How can happiness be a bad thing?
• Harm – Utilitarianism seems to be in line with
our intuitions that harming people is intrinsically wrong.
• Greatest good – It does follow from the above that the right
course of action is the one that leads to the
most happiness and least harm. It makes sense.
• Easy to use – Weighing up the positive and negative effects
of our actions is straightforward – we learn to do this from
our early childhood onwards. Anyone can apply the
principle of utility.
• Secular – Utilitarianism doesn’t rely on specific
beliefs about God.
• Democratic – The fairest way to run a country is to balance
everyone’s differing interests. We see this happening in all
modern democracies – governments use the principles of
Utilitarianism to determine what is right.
• Objective – The positive and negative consequences of our
actions can be measured. This gives us an

SCP-Ethics-108 | 94
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

objective, independent way of deciding on what is right

and wrong.
• Universal – The principle of utility, reducing harming and
increasing happiness, is universal, and applies in every
culture.

The Weakness of Utilitarianism. Like all normative theories of

ethics, utilitarianism cannot address all of the ethical
dilemmas we face. Sometimes using utilitarian principles may
be harmful to a group of people or to an individual. Some of the
major problems with utilitarian consequentialist ethics include
the following:
• Other goods – ‘Happiness’ is not the only thing that is
of intrinsic worth. For example, love, human life, freedom.
• The ends don’t justify the means – Imagine I killed
one healthy person and gave their organs to save 5
others. The balance of happiness over harm supports
doing this, but we know that it is not right.
• Unpredictable – You can’t actually know what is going
to happen in the future, so it is wrong to base our
ethical choices on what may or may not come about in
the future.
• Immeasurable – You can’t assign a value to an amount
of pleasure. It is impossible to compare the pleasure
of getting a new job with the joy of having sex or
the satisfaction of washing your car.
• People can’t be trusted – If you get rid of rules and
allow people to choose to act in the greater good, they
will actually act selfishly, then try to justify their actions
by claiming they were in the greater good.
• Wrong – Utilitarianism is just wrong about ethics. Eg.
a group of policemen passed around photos of an
abused woman for their own enjoyment. When it was
exposed, the consequences were very bad. But would it
have been right if no one else found out? It wasn’t the
bad consequences that made it wrong, it was the act itself.
• Subjective – We all have different definitions of happiness.
• Tyranny of the majority – For example, if most people feel
strongly against homosexuality, this would justify laws

SCP-Ethics-108 | 95
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

against practicing homosexuality. This is confusing what

is popular with what is right.

Evaluation. Overall, the weakness outweighs the strengths

because it (Utilitarianism) doesn't take into account the feelings
or happiness of the minority and also how can we measure
pleasure, you can’t add a value towards it.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Abumere, F. A. Utilitarianism. (N. D.). Retrieved Oct 18, 2020 from

https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-
ethics/chapter/utilitarianism/
Cavalier, R. Utilitarian Theories. (2002). Retrieved Oct. 19, 2020 from
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html
Estheexd. Strengths and Weakness of Utilitarianism. (2014). Retrieved Nov. 5, 2020 from
https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/strengths_and_weakness_of_utilitarianism

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. The History of Utilitarianism.

(N. D.). Retrieved Oct. 21, 2020 from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Utilitarian Ethics. (N. D.). Retrieved Oct 20, 2020 from

https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/
2-2-utilitarian-ethics/

SCP-Ethics-108 | 96
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is the principle of Utility?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. How does John Stuart Mill characterize the “higher pleasure?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. How does Mill’s utilitarianism differ with that of Bentham’s? Which do you
think is better?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Do you think Bentham’s ethics is egoistic? Why? And why not?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Is utilitarian ethics anti-Christian? Why? Or why not?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 97
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Make a list of particular pursuits and activities that give specific
pleasures or happiness to the mind/spirit/intellect. Describe the
experience and compare them with the pleasures that you get from the
pursuit of bodily/physical activities. Which one are “more pleasurable”?

SCP-Ethics-108 | 98
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 12 Deontological Ethics

Lesson Title Deontological ethics
Learning Discuss the Deontological ethics
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Deontology - refers to an ethical theory that uses rules to

distinguish right from wrong.

Maxim – refers to rule or principle.

Will – refers to the faculty of deciding, choosing, or acting.

Categorical Imperative – is a requirement in Kantian

deontological theory that we should act only according to the
maxims that can be regarded as universal laws, that is, we
should act only according to the maxims that all people will
follow.
Essential Content
The meaning of Deontology. The term deontology comes from the
Greek word deon, meaning duty or obligation. The theory of
deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance
with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome.
In religious deontology, the principles derive from divine
commandment so that under religious laws, we are morally
obligated not to steal, lie, or cheat. Thus, deontological theories
and duties have existed for many centuries. Immanuel Kant,
the theory’s celebrated proponent, formulated the most
influential form of a secular deontological moral theory in 1788.
Unlike religious deontological theories, the rules (or maxims) in
Kant’s deontological theory derive from human reason.
In other words, in deontological ethics an action is
considered morally good because of some characteristic of the
action itself, not because the product of the action is good.
Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally
obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
SCP-Ethics-108 | 99
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for

duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be
done though the heavens fall.”

Understanding Deontological Ethics. Based from its meaning,

Deontological (duty-based) ethics are concerned with what
people do, not with the consequences of their actions.
• Do the right thing.
• Do it because it's the right thing to do.
• Don't do wrong things.
• Avoid them because they are wrong.
Under this form of ethics, you can't justify an action by showing
that it produced good consequences, which is why it's
sometimes called 'non-Consequentialist'. This Duty-based
ethics are usually what people are talking about when they
refer to 'the principle of the thing'. It teaches that some acts are
right or wrong because of the sorts of things they are, and
people have a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the good or
bad consequences that may be produced.
Deontologists live in a universe of moral rules, such as:
• It is wrong to kill innocent people
• It is wrong to steal
• It is wrong to tell lies
• It is right to keep promises
Someone who follows Duty-based ethics should do the right
thing, even if that produces more harm (or less good) than
doing the wrong thing. Duty is superior than happiness. People
have a duty to do the right thing, even if it produces a bad
result. So, for example, the philosopher Kant thought that it
would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a
murderer.
If we compare Deontologists with Consequentialists, we
can see that Consequentialists begin by considering what
things are good and identify 'right' actions as the ones that
produce the maximum of those good things. Deontologists
appear to do it the other way around. They first consider what
actions are 'right' and proceed from there. (Actually, this is
what they do in practice, but it isn't really the starting point of

SCP-Ethics-108 | 100
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

deontological thinking.) So, a person is doing something good

if they are doing a morally right action.

Main Proponent of Deontological Ethics. Kant is responsible for

the most prominent and well-known form of deontological
ethics. He is the first great philosopher to define deontological
principles, the 18th-century German founder of critical
philosophy. Kant held that nothing is good without
qualification except a good will, and a good will is one that wills
to act in accord with the moral law and out of respect for that
law rather than out of natural inclinations. He saw the moral
law as a categorical imperative for example an unconditional
command and believed that its content could be established by
human reason alone. Thus, the supreme
categorical imperative is:
“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Kant considered that formulation of the categorical
imperative to be equivalent to: “So act that you treat humanity
in your own person and in the person of everyone else always
at the same time as an end and never merely as means.”
The connection between those two formulations, however,
has never been entirely clear. In any event, Kant’s critics
questioned his view that all duties can be derived from a purely
formal principle and argued that, in his preoccupation with
rational consistency, he neglected the concrete content of moral
obligation.
In addition, Kant’s moral theory is based on his view of the
human being as having the unique capacity for rationality. No
other animal possesses such a propensity for reasoned thought
and action, and it is exactly this ability that requires human
beings to act in accordance with and for the sake of moral law
or duty. Kant believes human inclinations, emotions and
consequences should play no role in moral action; therefore,
the motivation behind an action must be based on obligation
and well thought out before the action takes place. Morality
should, in theory, provide people with a framework of rational
rules that guide and prevent certain actions and are
independent of personal intentions and desires.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 101
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Kant’s ethics isn’t the only example of deontology. Any

system involving a clear set of rules is a form of deontology,
which is why some people call it a “rule-based ethic”. The Ten
Commandments is an example, as is the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.

Good Will. According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is

determined by the human will, which is the only thing in the
world that can be considered good without qualification. Good
will is exercised by acting according to moral duty/law. Moral
law consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical in nature
– we are bound by duty to act in accordance with categorical
imperatives.
Although Kantian ethics are usually spoken of in terms of
duty and doing the right thing, Kant himself thought that what
was good was an essential part of ethics.
Kant asked if there was anything that everybody could
rationally agree was always good. The only thing that he
thought satisfied this test was a good will: All Kant means is
that a good will alone must be good in whatever context it may
be found.
Other things that we might think of as good are not always
good, as it's possible to imagine a context in which they might
seem to be morally undesirable. Kant then pondered what this
meant for human conduct. He concluded that only an action
done for 'a good will' was a right action, regardless of the
consequences. But what sort of action would this be? Kant
taught that an action could only count as the action of a good
will if it satisfied the test of the Categorical Imperative.
Categorical Imperatives. Here we will share three formulations of
Kant’s categorical imperative.
1. The first formulation of the imperative. “Act only according
to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law without contradiction.”
Kant states that a true moral proposition must not be tied
to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person
making the decision. A moral maxim must be disconnected from

SCP-Ethics-108 | 102
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

the particular physical details surrounding its proposition and

should be applicable to any rational being. According to Kant,
we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in
logical contradictions.
Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on
pure reason but allow for interpretation regarding how they are
performed. Because these duties depend loosely on the
subjective preferences of mankind, they are not as strong as
perfect duties but are still morally binding. Unlike perfect
duties, people do not attract blame if they do not complete an
imperfect duty, but they receive praise if they complete it, for
they have gone beyond basic duty and
taken responsibility upon themselves. Imperfect duties are
circumstantial, meaning that one cannot reasonably exist in a
constant state of performing that duty. What differentiates
perfect and imperfect duties is that imperfect duties are never
truly completed.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative appears
similar to the Golden Rule: “Do not impose on others what you
do not wish for yourself.” Kant’s first categorical imperative
sounds like a paraphrase of the Golden Rule. However, the
Golden Rule is neither purely formal nor universally binding. It
is empirical in the sense that applying it requires context; for
example, if you don’t want others to hit you, then don’t hit them.
Also, it is a hypothetical imperative in the sense that it can be
formulated, and its “if-then” relationship is open for dispute.

2. The second formulation of imperative. “Act in such a way that

you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but
always at the same time as an end.”
This imperative states that every rational action must be
considered not only a principle, but also an end. Most ends are
subjective in nature because they need only be pursued if they
are in line with a hypothetical imperative. (A hypothetical
imperative is a demand of reason that is conditional. It tells us

SCP-Ethics-108 | 103
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

how to act to achieve a specific goal e.g. I must drink when I

need to slake my thirst.)
For an end to be objective, it would need to be pursued
categorically. The free will is the source of all rational action.
Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of
moral action, it contradicts the first formulation of the
categorical imperative to claim that a person is merely a means
to some other end instead of an end in him or herself.
Based on this, Kant derives the second formulation from the
first.
A person has a perfect duty not to use themselves or others
merely as a means to some other end. For example, someone
who owns slaves would be asserting a moral right to own a slave
by asserting their rights over another person. However, this
reasoning violates the categorical imperative because it denies
the basis for free rational action and disregards the person as
an end in themselves. In Kantian ethics, one cannot treat
another person as a means to an end. Under the second
formulation of the categorical imperative, a person must
maintain her moral duty to seek an end that is equal for all
people.

3. The third formulation of imperative. “Therefore, every

rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim
always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”
A truly autonomous will is not subjugated to any interest;
it is subject to those laws it makes for itself, but the will must
also regard those laws as if others are bound by the laws. If the
laws are not universal, they are not laws of conduct at all. Kant
suggests that people treat themselves and others always as ends
and never merely as means. People ought to act only by maxims
that harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. We have a
perfect duty not to act by maxims that create incoherent or
impossible states of natural affairs when we attempt to
universalize them, and we have an imperfect duty not to act by
maxims that lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of
affairs for all parties involved.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 104
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any

maxim and discover whether it is morally permissible under
deontological ethics. Let’s take, for example, the act of picking
flowers from the local park. The flowers are very pretty, and one
may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires
adopting a maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to
do. Using the formula of the universal law (categorical
imperative), there are a few irrationalities and contradictions
that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone
were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and
the act contradicts the original motive for picking the flowers.
The better option is to go to a shop and order or plant one’s own
flowers.
There are a few acts that are always forbidden, such as
lying, which negatively affects trust between people and the
meaning of truth. This rule remains the case even when lying
has advantageous or even morally admirable consequences.
Imagine a psychotic criminal wants to kill your colleague. If you
lie about the whereabouts of your colleague, then an innocent
life will be saved. It seems moral duty forbids you from lying.
However, a higher moral duty trumps the duty not to lie. That
is, the obligation not to kill or help others in killing, is a higher
moral duty that we should follow.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Duty-based ethics. (N. D.). Retrieved Nov. 10, 2020 from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 105
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Kantian Duty Based (Deontological). (2013). Retrieved Nov. 9,

2020 from https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/kantian-
duty-based-deontological-ethics/
Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. Deontlogical ethics.
(N. D.). Retrieved Nov. 7, 2020 from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is Duty Ethics?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What is categorical imperative?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What is meant by a Good will?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 106
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Do the consequences of actions have any moral significance in Kant’s

Ethics? Why? Or why not?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. In what sense does rationality play a central role in Kant’s ethical

Philosophy? Explain.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Make a list of particular duties (for example, as a daughter, son,
student, citizen etc.) that you consider to be “absolute.” Point out the
specific reasons why you have to obey them “exactly” aside from simply
obeying them (for obedience’s sake).

SCP-Ethics-108 | 107
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 13 Deontological Ethics

Lesson Title Deontological ethics (Continuation)
Learning Discuss the Deontological ethics
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Ends - refers to purpose or goal.

Means - refers to ways to achieve something in relation to human

being.

Essential Content
Introduction. Here, we will expound the understanding of
Categorical imperative. As previously discussed, Kant's version
of duty-based ethics was based on something that he called 'the
categorical imperative' which he intended to be the basis of all
other rules (a 'categorical imperative' is a rule that is true in all
circumstances.) The categorical imperative comes in two
versions which each emphasize different aspects of the
categorical imperative. Kant is clear that each of these versions
is merely a different way of expressing the same rule; they are
not different rules.

Moral rules must be universalizable. This first formulation of

categorical imperative emphasizes the need for moral rules to
be universalizable. Always act in such a way that you can also
will that the maxim of your action should become a universal
law. To put this more simply: Always act in such a way that you
would be willing for it to become a general law that everyone
else should do the same in the same situation.

This means at least two things:

• if you aren't willing for the ethical rule you claim to be
following to be applied equally to everyone - including you
SCP-Ethics-108 | 108
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

- then that rule is not a valid moral rule. I can't claim that
something is a valid moral rule and make an exception to
it for myself and my family and friends.

So, for example, if I wonder whether I should break a

promise, I can test whether this is right by asking myself
whether I would want there to be a universal rule that says 'it's
OK to break promises'.

Since I don't want there to be a rule that lets people break

promises they make to me, I can conclude that it would be
wrong for me to break the promise I have made.
• if the ethical rule you claim to be following cannot logically
be made a universal rule, then it is not a valid moral rule.
So, for example, if I were thinking philosophically I might
realise that a universal rule that 'it's OK to break promises in
order to get one's own way', would mean that no-one would ever
believe another person's promise and so all promises would
lose their value. Since the existence of promises in society
requires the acceptance of their value, the practice of promising
would effectively cease to exist. It would no longer be possible
to ‘break’ a promise, let alone get one’s own way by doing so.

Moral rules must respect human beings. Kant thought that all
human beings should be treated as free and equal members of
a shared moral community, and the second version of the
categorical imperative reflects this by emphasizing the
importance of treating people properly. It also acknowledges
the relevance of intention in morality. Act so that you treat
humanity, both in your own person and in that of another,
always as an end and never merely as a means. Kant is saying
that people should always be treated as valuable - as an end in
themselves - and should not just be used in order to achieve
something else. They should not be tricked, manipulated or
bullied into doing things. This resonates strongly with
disapproving comments such as "he's just using her", and it
underpins the idea that "the end can never justify the means".

SCP-Ethics-108 | 109
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Here are three examples of treating people as means and

not ends:
• treating a person as if they were an inanimate object
• coercing a person to get what you want
• deceiving a person to get what you want

Kant doesn't want to say that people can't be used at all; it may
be fine to use a person as long as they are also being treated as
an end in themselves.

The importance of Duty. Kant thought that the only good reason
for doing the right thing was because of duty - if you had some
other reason (perhaps you didn't commit murder because you
were too scared, not because it was your duty not to) then that
you would not have acted in a morally good way.
But having another reason as well as duty doesn't stop an
action from being right, so long as duty was the ‘operational
reason’ for our action. If we do something because we know it's
our duty, and if duty is the key element in our decision to act,
then we have acted rightly, even if we wanted to do the act or
were too scared not to do it, or whatever. Hence, do the right
thing for the right reason, because it is the right thing to do.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Kant’s Moral Theory. Here, I

will share the strength and weakness of duty ethics.
Strengths
1. Not consequentialist – Kant easily shows the fatal flaw of
Utilitarianism – a bad act can have good consequences. Kant’s
theory doesn’t make this mistake.
2. Universal – Kant’s theory provides moral laws that hold
universally, regardless of culture or individual situations.
3. Clear – Kant’s theory gives us a system that a child could
understand. “Would you like it if someone did that to you? No?
Then don’t do it to someone else.”
4. Autonomy – Kant has the greatest respect for human dignity and
autonomy.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 110
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

5. Rational – Kant is not swayed by emotion. His theory does not

allow us to show favouritism for friends. It is a purely rational
theory.
6. Human Rights – Kant’s theory provides a basis for Human
Rights. In 1948, the UN Declaration of Human Rights was agreed
by 48 countries & is the world’s most translated document,
protecting humans around the globe.
7. Equality and Justice – Kant’s theory provides the foundation for
modern conceptions of equality and justice.
8. International Law – Kant’s ethical theory underpins most UK and
many international laws. When Jack Kevorkian tried to defend
his killing of Thomas Youk, the judge limited the evidence he
could introduce, saying it didn’t matter if he intended to help Mr
Youk, or if Mr Youk wanted to die. What was important was the
act itself.
9. Objective – Kant’s theory gives objective standards, independent
of our own interests, cultural bias etc.
10. Duty – At first, it may seem better to act out of compassion.
However, it is possible to make bad choices out of love. Acting
out of duty is always right.
11. Reliable – A system of rules works, and everyone knows what
their obligations are. If you allowed people to break rules
because of consequences, or out of love, the legal system would
be a mess, and no-one would know what they ought to do.
12. Authority – It doesn’t make sense to say we ought to break
promises – if that was so, promises would mean nothing. This
makes Kant’s rules logical and reasonable, giving them a real
authority.
13. Ends in themselves – Kant’s respect for human life is being
challenged by changes in medical ethics, but many hold this as
the most important aspect of his theory.

Weaknesses
1. Consequences – There are some occasions when consequences
are so severe that many think it is better to break a rule than
allow awful things to happen.
2. Inflexible – You should be able to break an unhelpful rule if the
individual circumstances warrant it.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 111
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

3. Lack of motivation – Realizing that something is irrational (like

illegally downloading music, for example) doesn’t give any
motivation to do the right thing
4. Conflicting duty – Sartre described a pupil torn between looking
after his mother in France or going to England to fight with the
Free French Forces. “I find myself drawn into a vicious circle.”
Which of the duties do I follow?
5. Absolute duty – Ross thinks we have an absolute duty when all
things have been considered, but individual duties cannot be
absolute – sometimes we have a duty to break a promise.
6. Moral Law – Some philosophers question the existence of the
moral law. Why should we believe that there is objective
morality?
7. Anthropocentric – According to Kant, non-human animals (and
certainly any non-rational creatures) have no intrinsic value.
Many environmentalists see this as dangerous and wrong.
8. Too vague – It is not clear how broad our application of the
Categorical Imperative should be. For example, my council
wants to collect rubbish every 2 weeks. I think this is contrary
to the will, as no rational person would want to have smelly
rubbish sitting around for so long. Is this really morally wrong?
9. Difficulty forming maxims – Mark ask if you have Jews hiding in
your attack. Which maxim are you universalizing? “Do not tell
lies” or “Do not expose others to violence”?
10. A priori – Some have criticized the claim that we work out our
duty a priori. Surely, we need to refer to experience to work out
what is right, particularly in modern medical ethics.
11. Unrealistic – Kant asks us to follow maxims as if they were
universal rules, but just because we act this way, it doesn’t mean
others will. For example, pacifism makes sense as a law of
nature, but if we chose to be pacifist, we would be a sitting duck
for any non-Kantians.
12. Unforgiving – Kant believed in retributive justice, ‘an eye for an
eye’. It doesn’t allow for mercy. Bentham believed punishment
should be rehabilitative – that it should make things better
rather than just get revenge.
13. Every situation is unique – Universal rules aren’t helpful in the
real world where every situation is different. If no two situations
are the same, morality should be relativist not absolutist

SCP-Ethics-108 | 112
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

Duty-based ethics. (N. D.). Retrieved Nov. 13, 2020 from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml

Fernadez, Apolinar Henry. Ethics: Deciding what’s right and wrong. SMKC
PrintShoppe. 2018.

Kantian Duty Based (Deontological). (2013). Retrieved Nov. 16,

2020 from https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/kantian-
duty-based-deontological-ethics/

Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. Deontlogical ethics.

(N. D.). Retrieved Nov. 14, 2020 from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Strengths And Weaknesses: Kant. (2009). Retrieved Nov. 17, 2020 from
https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/strengths-and-
weaknesses-kant/

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is the importance of Duty?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What do you mean by the first formulation of categorical imperative?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What do you mean by the second formulation of categorical imperative?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 113
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Which of the Strengths of the said theory mentioned do you find very
valid? Why?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. Which of the weaknesses of the said theory mentioned do you find most
convincing? Why?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Cite a particular situation where two conflicting duties or
obligation are present. Which of these two opposing duties do you think
should be followed given the situation? Why?

SCP-Ethics-108 | 114
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 14 Virtue Ethics

Lesson Title Virtue ethics
Learning Discuss the Virtue ethics
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Virtue - refers to attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that

enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential.

Essential Content
Introduction. For many of us, the fundamental question of ethics
is, "What should I do?" or "How should I act?" Ethics is
supposed to provide us with "moral principles" or universal
rules that tell us what to do. Many people, for example, read
passionate adherents of the moral principle of utilitarianism:
"Everyone is obligated to do whatever will achieve the greatest
good for the greatest number." Others are just as devoted to the
basic principle of Immanuel Kant: "Everyone is obligated to act
only in ways that respect the human dignity and moral rights
of all persons."
Moral principles like these focus primarily on people's
actions and doings. We "apply" them by asking what these
principles require of us in particular circumstances, e.g., when
considering whether to lie or to commit suicide. We also apply
them when we ask what they require of us as professionals,
e.g., lawyers, doctors, or business people, or what they require
of our social policies and institutions. In the last decade,
dozens of ethics centers and programs devoted to "business
ethics", "legal ethics", "medical ethics", and "ethics in public
policy" have sprung up. These centers are designed to examine
the implications moral principles have for our lives.
But are moral principles all that ethics consists of? Critics
have rightly claimed that this emphasis on moral principles
smacks of a thoughtless and slavish worship of rules, as if the
moral life was a matter of scrupulously checking our every

SCP-Ethics-108 | 115
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

action against a table of do's and don'ts. Fortunately, this

obsession with principles and rules has been recently
challenged by several ethicists who argue that the emphasis on
principles ignores a fundamental component of ethics that is
virtue. These ethicists point out that by focusing on what
people should do or how people should act, the "moral
principles approach" neglects the more important issue that is
what people should be. In other words, the fundamental
question of ethics is not "What should I do?" but "What kind of
person should I be?"

The meaning of Virtue Ethics. Virtue ethics is a broad term for

theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue
in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or
acting in order to bring about good consequences. It is a
philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It
is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character.
This character-based approach to morality assumes that we
acquire virtue through practice. By practicing being honest,
brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an
honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by
honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice
when faced with ethical challenges.

Understanding the Virtue Ethics. According to "virtue ethics",

there are certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the
common good, toward which we should strive and which allow
the full development of our humanity. These ideals are
discovered through thoughtful reflection on what we as human
beings have the potential to become.
"Virtues" are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits
that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this
potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted.
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity,
fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.
How does a person develop virtues? Virtues are developed
through learning and through practice. As the ancient
philosopher Aristotle suggested, a person can improve his or

SCP-Ethics-108 | 116
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

her character by practicing self-discipline, while a good

character can be corrupted by repeated self-indulgence. Just
as the ability to run a marathon develops through much
training and practice, so too does our capacity to be fair, to be
courageous, or to be compassionate.
Virtues are habits. That is, once they are acquired, they
become characteristic of a person. For example, a person who
has developed the virtue of generosity is often referred to as a
generous person because he or she tends to be generous in all
circumstances. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues
will be naturally disposed to act in ways that are consistent
with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical
person.
At the heart of the virtue approach to ethics is the idea of
"community". A person's character traits are not developed in
isolation, but within and by the communities to which he or
she belongs, including family, church, school, and other private
and public associations. As people grow and mature, their
personalities are deeply affected by the values that their
communities prize, by the personality traits that their
communities encourage, and by the role models that their
communities put forth for imitation through traditional stories,
fiction, movies, television, and so on. The virtue approach urges
us to pay attention to the contours of our communities and the
habits of character they encourage and instill.
The moral life, then, is not simply a matter of following
moral rules and of learning to apply them to specific situations.
The moral life is also a matter of trying to determine the kind
of people we should be and of attending to the development of
character within our communities and ourselves. In short,
Virtue ethics is person rather than action based. It looks at the
moral character of the person carrying out an action.

The Nature of Virtue. Ethics is not merely a theoretical study

for Aristotle. Unlike any intellectual capacity, virtues of
character are dispositions to act in certain ways in response to
similar situations, the habits of behaving in a certain way.
Thus, good conduct arises from habits that in turn can only be

SCP-Ethics-108 | 117
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

acquired by repeated action and correction, making ethics an

intensely practical discipline.
Each of the virtues is a state of being that naturally seeks
its mean {Gk. μεσος [mesos]} relative to us. According to
Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate
state between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency: too
much and too little are always wrong; the right kind of action
always lies in the mean. (Nic. Ethics II 6) Thus, for example,
with respect to acting in the face of danger courage is a mean
between the excess of rashness and the deficiency
of cowardice.
Notice that the application of this theory of virtue requires
a great deal of flexibility: friendliness is closer to its excess than
to its deficiency, while few human beings are naturally inclined
to undervalue pleasure, so it is not unusual to overlook or
ignore one of the extremes in each of these instances and
simply to regard the virtue as the opposite of the other vice.
Although the analysis may be complicated or awkward in some
instances, the general plan of Aristotle’s ethical doctrine is
clear: avoid extremes of all sorts and seek moderation in all
things. Not bad advice, surely. Some version of this general
approach dominated Western culture for many centuries.
Achieving Happiness. Aristotle rounded off his discussion of
ethical living with a more detailed description of the
achievement of true happiness. Pleasure is not a good in itself,
he argued, since it is by its nature incomplete. But worthwhile
activities are often associated with their own distinctive
pleasures. Hence, we are rightly guided in life by our natural
preference for engaging in pleasant activities rather than in
unpleasant ones.
Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since
this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Thus,
Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral
activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and
complete. (Nic. Ethics X 8) In intellectual activity, human beings
most nearly approach divine blessedness, while realizing all of
the genuine human virtues as well.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 118
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Weakness of the Will. Doing the right thing is not always so

simple, even though few people deliberately choose to develop
vicious habits. Aristotle sharply disagreed with Socrates’s
belief that knowing what is right always results in doing it. The
great enemy of moral conduct, on Aristotle’s view, is precisely
the failure to behave well even on those occasions when one’s
deliberation has resulted in clear knowledge of what is right.
Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the
will that prevents them from carrying out actions in conformity
with what they have reasoned. (Nic. Ethics VII 1) This may
appear to be a simple failure of intelligence, Aristotle
acknowledged, since the akratic individual seems not to draw
the appropriate connection between the general moral rule and
the particular case to which it applies. Somehow, the
overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure seems to
obscure one’s perception of what is truly good. But this
difficulty, Aristotle held, need not be fatal to the achievement
of virtue.
Although incontinence is not heroically moral, neither is it
truly vicious. Consider the difference between an incontinent
person, who knows what is right and aims for it but is
sometimes overcome by pleasure, and an intemperate person,
who purposefully seeks excessive pleasure. Aristotle argued
that the vice of intemperance is incurable because it destroys
the principle of the related virtue, while incontinence is curable
because respect for virtue remains. (Nic. Ethics VII 8) A clumsy
archer may get better with practice, while a skilled archer who
chooses not to aim for the target will not.

The Principle of Virtue Ethics. Virtue ethics teaches:

• An action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous
person would carry out in the same circumstances.
• A virtuous person is a person who acts virtuously
• A person acts virtuously if they "possess and live the
virtues"

SCP-Ethics-108 | 119
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

• A virtue is a moral characteristic that a person needs to

live well.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics. Here, I will

share the strength and weakness of Virtue Ethics.

Strength:

1. Holistic view of human nature. Reason is applied

through phronesis or practical wisdom, but unlike Kant, the
emotions are not ignored, as virtue ethics
is holistic (includes emotion in the building of character). To
Aristotle personal and social flourishing (eudaimonia) is the
final rational goal, and reason tames and moralizes the
desires and appetites of the irrational part of our soul.
2. Character-based. Habits of character are central, developed
through training…we need heroes who are moral role
models as well as “virtuous = skillful” footballers. The
present age is “instrumental” in the sense of things being a
means to an end, and pragmatic, in that we tend to “bend
the rules”. Behind action lies character.
3. Morality as a social construct. Virtue Ethics sees morality
as grounded in a view:
a. of human nature (to Aristotle the rational and irrational
sides in conflict) and
b. the social concept of the “good life” (the life fulfilled)
which differs from society to society
(see relativism weakness).

Modern Philosophers have placed too much emphasis on

action and reason without emphasizing socially agreed
virtues, also too much stress on the language of morals:
what do we mean by saying “stealing is wrong”?

4. Partiality. Both Kant and Mill require impartiality for their

ethical viewpoints, for example, Mill says “utilitarianism
requires the moral agent to be strictly impartial, as a
disinterested and benevolent spectator”. James Rachels
SCP-Ethics-108 | 120
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

comments: “it may be doubted whether impartiality is really

such an important feature of the moral life…some virtues are
partial and some are not. Love and friendship involve
partiality towards loved ones and friends; beneficence
towards people in general is also a virtue…what is needed is
not some general requirement of impartiality, but an
understanding of how the different virtues relate to each
other” (2007:173-4)

Weakness:

1. Relativistic: we cannot agree what the key virtues are,

which differ from culture to culture for example, Al Qaeda
thinks it is virtuous to be a suicide bomber. One person’s
terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter and hero…so
goodness must depend on something else. Perhaps we
can escape this problem by defining what, for me or for my
society, are the virtues which will make me (or us) flourish.
“Aristotle saw pride as a special virtue, Christians see it as
a master vice”. Rachels (2007:166). So, this theory in itself,
fails to avoid relativism.
2. Bourgeois. Bertrand Russell argued that Aristotle’s
virtues were bourgeois virtues ie Victorian suspicion of
extreme passion and emotion (doctrine of the mean = be
sensible, child) and “there is a complete absence of
benevolence and philanthropy” ie desire to sacrifice
yourself for others.
3. Decisions are difficult. “It is not obvious how we should
go about deciding what to do” Rachels
(2007:176) Anscombe argues we should get rid of the idea
of “right action” altogether and just use virtue words eg
“unjust”, “dishonest”. William Frankena has argued
“virtues without principles are blind.” Rachels argues that
virtue ethics is incomplete because it can’t account for the
fact that “being honest” implies a rule, so “it’s hard to see
what honesty consists in if it is not the disposition to follow
such rules”, Rachels (2007:177).
4. Conflicting virtues. What happens when virtues conflict,
for example, when honesty and kindness conflict, or

SCP-Ethics-108 | 121
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

honesty and loyalty to one’s friends? “It only leaves you

wondering which virtue takes precedence”, concludes
Rachels. Pojman comments “virtue ethics has the problem
of application: it doesn’t tell us what to do in particular
instances in which we most need direction” (2006:166).

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Ethics and Virtue. (1988). Retrieved Nov. 27,
2020 from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-
making/ethics-and-virtue/

Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Virtue Ethics. (2016). Retrieved Nov. 28, 2020
from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics. (N. D.). Retrieved Nov. 30, 2020 from
https://books.openedition.org/obp/4421?lang=en

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is Virtue Ethics?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. Why is virtue a habit?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. Why is a moderate life a virtuous life?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 122
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. Can we live a virtuously in a very bad circumstance? Why or why not?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. How can the golden mean apply to the practice of humility?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

I
LET’S NFER!
Activity 1. Identify a member of your own community whom you think
possesses a virtuous character. Describe specifically the kind of life that
this person is living.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 123
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Week 15 On Making Ethical Decision

Lesson Title On Making Ethical Decision
Learning Apply the methods on making ethical decisions
Outcome(s)

LEARNING INTENT!
Terms to Ponder

Ethical decision-making - refers to the process of evaluating and

choosing among alternatives in a manner consistent with
ethical principles. In making ethical decisions, it is necessary
to perceive and eliminate unethical options and select the best
ethical alternative.

Essential Content
Introduction. Decisions about right and wrong permeate everyday
life. Ethics should concern all levels of life: acting properly as
individuals, creating responsible organizations and
governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical.
As we all know now that Ethics provides a set of standards for
behavior that helps us decide how we ought to act in a range of
situations. In a sense, we can say that ethics is all about
making choices, and about providing reasons why we should
make these choices. There are many systems of ethics, and
numerous ways to think about right and wrong actions or good
and bad character.

Frameworks for Ethical Decision-Making. Making good ethical

decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a
practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision
and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice
of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision
making is essential. When practiced regularly, the method
becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically
without consulting the specific steps. This is one reason why
we can sometimes say that we have a “moral intuition” about a
certain situation, even when we have not consciously thought

SCP-Ethics-108 | 124
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

through the issue. We are practiced at making ethical

judgments, just as we can be practiced at playing the piano and
can sit and play well “without thinking.” Nevertheless, it is not
always advisable to follow our immediate intuitions, especially
in particularly complicated or unfamiliar situations. Here our
method for ethical decision making should enable us to
recognize these new and unfamiliar situations and to act
accordingly.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more
we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about
the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided
by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we
make good ethical choices in such situations.

Three Frameworks. Based upon the traditional normative ethical

theories discussed in our weekly lessons, it makes sense to
suggest three broad frameworks to guide ethical decision
making: The Consequentialist Framework; The Duty
Framework; and the Virtue Framework.
While each of the three frameworks is useful for making
ethical decisions, none is perfect—otherwise the perfect theory
would have driven the other imperfect theories from the field
long ago. Knowing the advantages and disadvantages of the
frameworks will be helpful in deciding which is most useful in
approaching the particular situation with which we are
presented.

The Consequentialist Framework. In the Consequentialist

framework (ethics of utilitarianism), we focus on the future
effects of the possible courses of action, considering the people
who will be directly or indirectly affected. We ask about what
outcomes are desirable in a given situation and consider ethical
conduct to be whatever will achieve the best consequences. The
person using the Consequences framework desires to produce
the most good.
Among the advantages of this ethical framework is that
focusing on the results of an action is a pragmatic approach. It
helps in situations involving many people, some of whom may
SCP-Ethics-108 | 125
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

benefit from the action, while others may not. On the other
hand, it is not always possible to predict the consequences of
an action, so some actions that are expected to produce good
consequences might actually end up harming people.
Additionally, people sometimes react negatively to the use of
compromise which is an inherent part of this approach, and
they recoil from the implication that the end justifies the
means. It also does not include a pronouncement that certain
things are always wrong, as even the most heinous actions may
result in a good outcome for some people, and this framework
allows for these actions to then be ethical.
The Duty Framework. In the Duty framework (Deontological
ethics, Natural law Theory and Ethical Relativism), we focus on
the duties and obligations that we have in a given situation and
consider what ethical obligations we have and what things we
should never do. Ethical conduct is defined by doing one’s
duties and doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the
correct action.
This framework has the advantage of creating a system of
rules that has consistent expectations of all people; if an action
is ethically correct or a duty is required, it would apply to every
person in a given situation. This even-handedness encourages
treating everyone with equal dignity and respect.
This framework also focuses on following moral rules or
duty regardless of outcome, so it allows for the possibility that
one might have acted ethically, even if there is a bad result.
Therefore, this framework works best in situations where there
is a sense of obligation or in those in which we need to consider
why duty or obligation mandates or forbids certain courses of
action.
However, this framework also has its limitations. First, it
can appear cold and impersonal, in that it might require
actions which are known to produce harms, even though they
are strictly in keeping with a particular moral rule. It also does
not provide a way to determine which duty we should follow if
we are presented with a situation in which two or more duties

SCP-Ethics-108 | 126
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

conflict. It can also be rigid in applying the notion of duty to

everyone regardless of personal situation.
The Virtue Framework. In the Virtue framework (Virtue ethics),
we try to identify the character traits (either positive or
negative) that might motivate us in a given situation. We are
concerned with what kind of person we should be and what our
actions indicate about our character. We define ethical
behavior as whatever a virtuous person would do in the
situation, and we seek to develop similar virtues.
Obviously, this framework is useful in situations that ask
what sort of person one should be. As a way of making sense
of the world, it allows for a wide range of behaviors to be called
ethical, as there might be many different types of good
character and many paths to developing it. Consequently, it
takes into account all parts of human experience and their role
in ethical deliberation, as it believes that all of one’s
experiences, emotions, and thoughts can influence the
development of one’s character.
Although this framework takes into account a variety of
human experience, it also makes it more difficult to resolve
disputes, as there can often be more disagreement about
virtuous traits than ethical actions. Also, because the
framework looks at character, it is not particularly good at
helping someone to decide what actions to take in a given
situation or determine the rules that would guide one’s actions.
Also, because it emphasizes the importance of role models and
education to ethical behavior, it can sometimes merely
reinforce current cultural norms as the standard of ethical
behavior
Putting the Frameworks Together. By framing the situation or
choice you are facing in one of the ways presented above,
specific features will be brought into focus more clearly.
However, it should be noted that each framework has its limits:
by focusing our attention on one set of features, other
important features may be obscured. Hence it is important to
be familiar with all three frameworks and to understand how

SCP-Ethics-108 | 127
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

they relate to each other—where they may overlap, and where

they may differ.
Because the answers to the three main types of ethical
questions asked by each framework are not mutually exclusive,
each framework can be used to make at least some progress in
answering the questions posed by the other two.
In many situations, all three frameworks will result in the
same—or at least very similar—conclusions about what you
should do, although they will typically give different reasons for
reaching those conclusions.
However, because they focus on different ethical
features, the conclusions reached through one framework will
occasionally differ from the conclusions reached through one
(or both) of the others.
Applying the Frameworks to Cases. When using the frameworks
to make ethical judgments about specific cases, it will be useful
to follow the process below.
1. Recognizing an Ethical Issue. One of the most important
things to do at the beginning of ethical deliberation is to
locate, to the extent possible, the specifically ethical aspects
of the issue at hand. Sometimes what appears to be an
ethical dispute is really a dispute about facts or concepts.
For example, some Utilitarians might argue that the death
penalty is ethical because it deters crime and thus produces
the greatest amount of good with the least harm. Other
Utilitarians, however, might argue that the death penalty
does not deter crime, and thus produces more harm than
good. The argument here is over which facts argue for the
morality of a particular action, not simply over the morality
of particular principles. All Utilitarians would abide by the
principle of producing the most good with the least harm.
2. Consider the Parties Involved. Another important aspect to
reflect upon are the various individuals and groups who may
be affected by your decision. Consider who might be harmed
or who might benefit.
3. Gather all of the Relevant Information. Before taking
action, it is a good idea to make sure that you have gathered

SCP-Ethics-108 | 128
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

all of the pertinent information, and that all potential sources

of information have been consulted.
4. Formulate Actions and Consider Alternatives.
Evaluate your decision-making options by asking the
following questions:
a. Which action will produce the most good and do the
least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)
b. Which action respects the rights of all who have a stake
in the decision? (The Rights Approach)
c. Which action treats people equally or proportionately?
(The Justice Approach)
d. Which action serves the community as a whole, not just
some members? (The Common Good Approach)
e. Which action leads me to act as the sort of person I
should be? (The Virtue Approach)
5. Make a Decision and Consider It. After examining all of
the potential actions, which best addresses the situation?
How do I feel about my choice?
6. Act. Many ethical situations are uncomfortable because we
can never have all of the information. Even so, we must often
take action.
7. Reflect on the Outcome. What were the results of my
decision? What were the intended and unintended
consequences? Would I change anything now that I have
seen the consequences?
Ethical Decision-Making Examples. Let's take a look at a few
ethical decision-making examples, to give you a better
understanding of how to act if anything like this happens to
you.
1. Your team misses an important deadline, and you're
tempted to tell your boss you reached it anyway.
It might seem like a good idea to tell your boss your team
is on-track, and then work quietly to make sure that becomes
a reality, but in the long-run this will only hurt you and your
team. First, if you don't examine why your team missed the
deadline, you won't know how to fix the problem moving
forward. Additionally, your boss is meant to be a helpful
resource for you and could help you combat the issue. Lying

SCP-Ethics-108 | 129
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

could destroy your reputation as a leader and employee if your

team or boss finds out, and it will be difficult to then prove your
integrity. Figure out the guidelines or steps you need to take
and follow those.
2. Your coworker is giving her sister a major discount on
your product.
It makes sense because family is important, after all. But
it's not fair or ethical if some of your customers are receiving
discounts simply because of who they are and can even be seen
as a form of discrimination. If the public finds out you don't
follow fair rules when it comes to pricing and discounts, your
entire company's integrity is at risk. Either mention to your
coworker that you don't feel it's fair or report the issue to your
team leader.
3. You're close to finalizing a deal when you find out some
of the information you've provided the client isn't true.
You've worked so hard to form a relationship with your
client and provide them with persuasive and helpful
information, and you've finally reached the end. Just when
they're ready to sign the deal, though, your coworker takes a
look at your slides and lets you know some of the information
is outdated and is no longer applicable to the deal. It's
especially difficult because your job relies on you hitting
quotas, and you know your boss and team will be incredibly
impressed with this deal when you close it.
Unfortunately, you could get into legal trouble for lying in
a contract, and you don't want to set a precedent of lying and
essentially stealing from clients to close deals. Be upfront and
own up to the misinformation, and then work with the client to
create a new deal. Ideally, the client will appreciate your
honesty. If not, at least you didn't win a deal through false
measures, which might've gotten you into bigger trouble down
the road.

The process of making ethical decisions requires:

SCP-Ethics-108 | 130
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

• Commitment: The desire to do the right thing regardless

of the cost.
• Consciousness: The awareness to act consistently and
apply moral convictions to daily behavior.
• Competency: The ability to collect and evaluate
information, develop alternatives, and foresee potential
consequences and risks.
Good decisions are both ethical and effective:
• Ethical decisions generate and sustain trust;
demonstrate respect, responsibility, fairness and caring;
and are consistent with good citizenship. These behaviors
provide a foundation for making better decisions by setting
the ground rules for our behavior.
• Effective decisions are effective if they accomplish what
we want accomplished and if they advance our purposes.
A choice that produces unintended and undesirable
results is ineffective. The key to making effective decisions
is to think about choices in terms of their ability to
accomplish our most important goals. This means we have
to understand the difference between immediate and
short-term goals and longer-range goals.

Conclusion. Making ethical decisions requires sensitivity to the

ethical implications of problems and situations. It also requires
practice. Having a framework for ethical decision making is
essential. We hope that the information above is helpful in
developing your own experience in making choices.

SELF-SUPPORT: You can click the URL Search Indicator below to help you further understand the lessons.

Search Indicator

A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions. (2011). Retrieved Dec. 1, 2020 from
https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-
studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

SCP-Ethics-108 | 131
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

Forsey, C. How to Practice Ethical Decision Making at Work (N. D.). Retrieved Dec.
2, 2020 from https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/ethical-decision-
making#:~:text=Ethical%20decision%20making%20is%20the,unethical%
20solutions%20to%20your%20problem.

May, D. STEPS OF THE ETHICAL STEPS OF THE ETHICAL DECISION DECISION

-MAKING PROCESS MAKING PROCESS. (N. D.). Retrieved Nov. 30, 2020
from
https://research.ku.edu/sites/research.ku.edu/files/docs/EESE_Ethica
lDecisionmakingFramework.pdf

LET’S INITIATE!
Activity 1. Let us try to check your understanding of the topics. Write your
answers to the space provided below every after each question.

1. What is Ethical Decision making?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2. What are required in the process of making ethical decision?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

3. What is a good decision?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

SCP-Ethics-108 | 132
 ST. JOHN PAUL II COLLEGE OF DAVAO
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
Physically Detached Yet Academically Attached

I
LET’S NQUIRE!
Activity 1. In this activity, you are required to expound your answer to
each of the questions below.

1. What are the steps to ethical decision making?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2. How can you combine all framework to make ethical decisions?

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

LET’S INFER!
1. Activity 1. Think of a recent ethical decision you have made.
Using the model or framework of your choice, discuss how you
went through the process of making a sound ethical decision.

SCP-Ethics-108 | 133