Francis Julius N. Evangelista Napoleon M. Mabaquiao Jr. a 8 soe oaEth Theories and Applications Copyright © 2020 Francis Julius N. Evangelista Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr. ‘Anvil Publishing, Inc. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher. Published and exclusively distributed by ANVIL PUBLISHING, INC. 7th Floor Quad Alpha Centrum 125 Pioneer Street Mandaluyong City 1550 Philippines Telephones: (+632) 8477-4752, 8477-4755 to 57 Fax: (+632) 8747-1622 anviltextbooks@anvilpublishing.com | anvilsalesdepr@anvilpublishing.com weww.anvilpublishing.com Cover Design and Lay-out by Zymon Peter Q. Bergania ISBN 978-971-27-3575-2 Printed in the Philippinesee ee the past. Internet communication, artificial intelligence, Se dimn tedintllens He pangineering—these are just some of the things brought Heal a decree, a oe of humans for their perusal. Technology can be ‘ € do not set limits on how we utilize it. Thus, as human bility broadens, the more the “Is j issible t is?” cae the moral question “Is it morally permissible to do this? or ma lo we on to do and not do?” becomes significant. The onset of pluralism in these postmodern times coupled with the declining influence of tradi ional authorities and institutions has led to greater uncertainties on what moral ground in which one should stand, Moreover, today’s consumerist culture hhas made a great impact on people's moral values. This makes éthics more than ever a valid concern of humanity. Wellaware of he kind of reality today’scollegestudentsare facing, the Commissionon Higher Education (CHED) has mandated a course on ethics to be part of the new General Education curriculum in college. The Commission has aptly recognized that amidst this globalized, technology-driven world order, students need to develop the “ability to reflect on moral norms and imperatives” and to internalize the “principles of ethical behavior at the level of the person, society, and in interaction with the environment and other shared resources.” This book, Ethics: Theories and Applications, is primarily meant to address this need of young people today. However, the intention is not to make students conform to certain moral beliefs and practices nor to lay down answers to the various moral questions and issues that they confront in these contemporary times. The goal of this book is to provide the students with the tools to recognize and articulate ethical questions, identify moral issues in their personal and social life, analyze the different elements of moral problems, and make sound, rational judgments and decisions in ‘moral matters. The book employs both a theoretical and practical approach in achieving this goal. The former will lead students to a clarification and analysis of key ethical concepts such as right, good, personhood, accountability, justice, relativism, etc. It will also discuss the various theories and principles in making moral judgments which articulate decision frameworks to guide moral action. Understanding the ethical concepts and theories will equip students with the proper knowledge and perspective in dealing with moral problems. On the other hand, the latter approach will bridge theory and practice. Echical issues in various fields (healthcare, business, and environment) are examined and deliberated upon as avenues for students to reflect on and apply the principles, theories, and frameworks of moral reasoning and decision-making, However, the discussions of shies Theos and Appicaons| ibut mere illustrations of cale treatments fied and the ways the my i h ¢ can be ident low, Oral book, college students will learn hove 0 be ‘Om : ‘| i ing with moral i independent yet responsible and m pin dating wth mor sue se to the moral dimensions of the events and circumstances around them, and guideg j 4 sound moral principles and standards in making moral judgments. y ethical cases are not intended to be full-s¢ the various cthical dimensions of the cas issues can be resolved or addressed. “The authors hope that th rough thi ature enoug! Francis Julius N. Evangelista, Ph.D. Napoleon M, Mabaquiao, Jr, Ph.D. ie [PreiceTable of Contents Unit I: ETHICS AND THE MORAL PERSON Chapter 1: Ethics: Basie Concepts and Issue 1 A. What is Ethies?., 2 Ethics and Morality 2 Ateas of Ethics., a B. Nature of Moral Statements, 5 Moral Statements as Normative Statements. 5 Moral Statements and Moral Standards. 7 C. Morality and the Other Normative Subject 9 Morality and Eriquette 9 Morality and Law. 10 Morality and Religion, tt D. The Issue of Ethical Relativism uv The Attractions of Ethical Relativism. a4 The Challenges of Ethical Relativism. 16 Chapter 2: Moral Personhood and Accountab = 2) ‘A. Moral Personhood. 7 Moral Persons and Righ ial Moral Agents and Patients. 24 Criteria for Moral Personhoo: 26 B. Moral Accountability. 30 Accountability and “Responsibility”. - 31 Moral and Legal Accountability. . 33 Conditions for Moral Accountability. - 33 Unit If: ETHICAL THEORIES Chapter 3: Consequentialism.. A. Understanding Consequenti A Theory of Ethics. Intrinsic and Instrumental Goo B. Varieties of Consequentialism. Hedonism and Non-Hedonism. Agent Relativity and Neutrality Complex Forms and Representatives...C. Utilitarianism... Basic Elements of Utilitarianism Hedonistic and Non-Hedonistic Urilicari ‘Act and Rule Utilitarianis Complex Forms of Utilitarianism. janism. Chapter 4: Deontology.. ‘A. Divine Command, God’s Will as the Basis of Moral Lat Criticisms on the Divine Command Theory. he Concept of God in Morality Importance of th B. Natural Law... Basis of Right Action. The Notion of Nature eG Moral Absolutism and the Qualifying Principl ces Issues Challenging the Natural Law Theory. i : 7 C. Categorical Imperative. The Good Wil ‘Acting From Dut The Categorical Imperative Evaluating Kant's Ethics. D. Conditional Deontology.. Situating Rossian Ethical Theory. Distinguishing between Prima Face and Actual Duties. Determining Prima Facie and Actual Duties... Chapter 5: Virtue Ethic 89 A. Aristotelian Ethics. . 89 Eudaimonia.. . 90 Concept of Virtus 91 The Doctrine of the Mean. - 92 Evaluating Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, 94 B. Eastern Virtue Ethics. 7 Confucian Ethics. 97 Buddhist Ethics. 106 C. Distributive Justice. 17 Foundations of Distributive Justic 7 123 Theories of Distributive Justice.D. Ethics of Care. A Different Voice. Alternative Theory of Moral Developmen Natural and Ethical Caring. Person or Principle.. Unit Il: APPLIED ETHICS Chapter 6: Bioethics. A. Overview of Bioethics. B. Some Bioethical Issues... Beginning-of-Life Issues. Sustenance-of Life Issues. End-of-Life Issucs... Information and Research Issues. Chapter 7: Business Ethics. ‘A. Business Ethics: Why Does it Matte Moral Features of Business Acts Objections to Business Ethics: Replies. B. Some Ethical Issues in Busines Individual Issues.. Chapter 8: Environmental Ethics. ‘A. Foundations and Directions.. B. Theoretical Frameworks in Environmental Ethics ‘Anthropocentrism. Sentientism.. Biocentrism. Ecocentrism. C. Some Issues in Environmental Ethics. Sustainability Issues Nonhuman Interest Issues.. Environmental Justice Issues..1" ETHICS AND THE _ MORAL PERSON W; cannot but encounter moral questions and issues in our life, since the actions that we do are bound to affect ourselves and other people either positively or negatively. We inevitably face choices that may benefit or harm other people. Our actions may promote the welfare of other people, just as they may infringe on their rights and violate their dignity. Everyone of us at one time or another has experienced asking about what the morally right thing to do is, or more generally about what things should be valued. Some of our moral questions may be straightforwardly practical (Should we take away a scholarship grant from an underprivileged student due to a low grade she incurred? Is i right to deceive a friend to spare him from a certain risk?) or more abstract (What is the ultimate good? What is justice? Is morality relative?) Some moral questions we have may concern our own actions (Should I reveal the truth? Should I give to this charity?) or deal with the actions of others (Was it morally permissible for the President to make those remarks? Should the government legalize divorce?) These questions, which vary in kinds, are the concerns of a particular branch of philosophy called ethics. This philosophical discipline basically deals with humanity's inquiries about right conduct, the good life, moral values, and other related issues. ‘As rational beings, we are capable of acting freely rather than merely driven by instinct. Our actions are preceded by an understanding of the value of such acts, their consequence, and their rightness or wrongness. And because of our rationality, we are inclined to think about and try to understand the basis of what we believe in, or what we should pursue in life, We do not want to simply depend on what authorities say or what social conventions and norms prescribe as right and wrong. As Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is statement, it can also be said that the not worth living.” In the same spirie of this cla morally examined life is truly worth living, It is, indeed, worthwhile to engage in ethics for it provides us with the opportunity to look into the reasons and justifications behind our own actions and the actions of others, the bases and principles of our decision-making, and the goals of our moral life in order to find clearer answers to the various moral issues and problems that we encounter in life. However, before we tackle the practical questions of ethics, we must first clarify the fundamental concepts and issues we often encounter in moral discourses. Before we venture into analyzing and resolving particular moral problems and cases, we need to be chica Theovies and Applications | Unit 1 1moral views and judgments; Wha tis derlie our : srr wil we know 2 Are moral pring 1 individl 2 Ade in questions that un clear regarding certain questions o : i e the nature of morality? What is che BO | abjective, or are they relarive 10 morality have with religion, laws ah trea basic framework for understanding then ean we proceed co profitably discuss our world today. A. What is Ethics: Ethies has been understood by Peo with morality, as these two conceP| Thus, it is important chat we first cla differs from morality, what particular ques areas are under ot overlap with ethics. Ethies and Morality ual decision? What relationshj ‘ley dressing these questions wil] Pro, cg jon and structure of morali Vide 7 - 0 ral issues affecting our fgg” fe ang erent ways. It is also sometimes conf, oosely interchanged with each ae means 50 that We Can see hoy ised in ethics, and what subjeq ple in Ss are often fy what ethics tions are Fal Let us first attempt to inquire on the ality. When we speak of morality, we refer to the set of standards a person has about what is right and wrong, How we judge whether an act is good or bad, whether someone cous or not, whether we ought to do this or hot depends largely on these standards. Ici fo cis reason can say that people can have different morality, that is, we can have different standards, views, or perspectives by which ave understand what is right and wrong, Such differences eT can be attributed to how our moral standards originate. ‘As a child, each person has been taught and influenced by histher family, friends, and elders to accept some actions of behaviors as right and some as wrong, The church and the school the person went to, the books he/ ff she read, the films he/she watched, the organizations he/ she joined, contributed to the formation of one’s basic ideas of morality. Since people vary in cerms of the social influences that we have i life, wealso differ in the morality wwe espouse. Some people think that homosexual marriage i ‘should be allowed, while others believe ic is wrong. Some ‘Mother rang ther chilies regacd death penalty as immoral while others chink iis morally justfed. Our judgments and belief; on these matters are influenced by the moral standards that pervade in our life. ‘Morality, however, pertains not just to a persor's standards, but to a particular societys standards of what is right and wrong, As a social, cultural, or religious group, people share certain standards of actions or behaviors that guide them in what they accept or practice. In Islamic societies, Muslims refrain from eating pork; in some European societies, homosext relationships are aceprable; in Eskimos communities, infanticide is permissible, There ae social norms that pervade in every society that serve as the basis of its members to decide on what it right or wrong. meaning of moral 2 Chapter 4 | Ethics: Basic Conceps and InesGiven this understanding of what morality is, how does ethics differ from morality? Although sometimes used to refer to one’s set of moral beliefs and practices, strictly speaking, ethics is the discipline that examines the moral standards of an individual or a society. In a sense, ethics isa study of morality. It looks into the soundness, reasonableness, and appropriateness of the moral standards a person or a society espouses. It is one thing to accept or adopt a set of moral standards, i is another thing to reflect on and examine these standards. Thus, a person engages in ethics when he/she reflects on the moral standards he/she has imbibed from his/her family, church, and friends, and asks: “Are these standards reasonable? Are these practices morally permissible? Are we justified to do this or thar?” ‘As mentioned above, morality begins to form in childhood, which is a time when we usually unquestioningly and mechanically accept what is taught co us with regard to what is right and wrong, Thus, itis importanc that, as we mature in reason, we subject our moral beliefs and practices to a reflective analysis, We ought to question those moral standards that we simply acquired in the past without any critical inquiry. We need to espouse only those standards which are supported by good reasons. It is here where the enterprise of ethics comes in. Just as what other philosophical disciplines do, it invites us to exercise self-awareness and self-criticism with regard to our own fundamental views and beliefs about morality. In guiding us in evaluating our own moral beliefs and standards, ethics aims to shed light on the basic questions such as what is right conduct, what principles should govern our moral decision-making, and what basically is a good life. Ethics is not limited to particular moral actions and practices, but it concerns itself with the whole of moral ideals and behaviors. Areas of Ethics Asa branch of philosophy that examines and reflects about morality, ethics is usually categorized into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethies, and applied ethics. Metaethics, also known as analytic ethics, looks into the nature, meaning, scope, and foundations of moral values and discourses. The term “meta” means after or beyond; and, thus, metaethics involves an abstract and detached way of thinking philosophically about morality. It attempts to shed light on the basic ideas, concepts, and assumptions that underlie our moral beliefs and judgments. If the other two areas focus directly on the question what is moral, metaethics focuses on the more fundamental question what morality itself is in the first place. For this reason, metaethics is also occasionally referred to as “second-order” moral theorizing, to distinguish it from the “first-order” level of normative theory. The first part of this book is devoted to metaethics as it inquires about fundamental queries on morality—What is the nature of moral claims? How is morality distinct from other normative standards? Is morality objective or relative? Who have moral rights? What does it mean to be morally accountable? Metaethical positions respond to these questions by examining the basic meanings, ideas and connotations involved in moral discourse. They shed light on issues pertaining to the status of moral beliefs and judgments, the conditions of moral personhood and accountability, and other concepts that lie underneath the subject of morality. Ethics: Thoties and Applicaions | Unie 1 3is cd with the i Ad part of the books is concerned with the mor [Normative eticseackled im i re dit Ic involves the — of moral standards to determine right from ind of actions: ee Baan van of if sa ee cen thar we should purse THEO re broad eter 7 rs of an action thay © that we on sy all nt EE oe che he ast on dae ae an) tice THES PTT nes ( WOM nes) 8 consequence een judging a 008 Tr ofthe pewson paforning i . the rule it follows (or violates) and the isthe subject ‘the tied parcoFthis book “hed are fects pled sna ands sere ae maf thnar ino cain the purl isusin DO TT sofethics ses philosophic meth, mon judgment. Focusing the more PCE Me ves By wing the concgest to determine the moral permissbilty of ot cempsto aly cay, and shed nu wasofraacthisand noma chi a agent. Some career oon various ethical issues with the goal of guiding eee, ne Speciltins ig : i i eae he public policy and professions. jcne, environmental polices, lay, and applied ethics have arisen in diverse fields: business m k the media, Other isues focus on personal co! everyday life, such as those pertaining yo ncemns in life, health, sex, and relationship. Before we delve into the basic one Ha a a sudy of morality known sox ene a nr people think about right and wrong, how they Bebav TE eames ethics, Ke tach, it incorporates researches from the fields of anthropology: sys °8): sociology, and history as part of the process of understanding the moral norms thar people follow or believe in. But it is not considered a philosophical study of ethics since it does not aim ce etablish what sould be the case—what people ought £0 do, what moral standards should regulate human acts, how we should view ‘morality. Rather, descriptive ethics aims sro ablch what the case is Ie attempts © describe oF explain the world rather than prescribe what the world should be. For examples anthropologists tell us that some tribes in India practice throwing babies from the temple roof 30 to 50 feet high to be caught ina blanket held by a group of men on the round. But anthropology, as such, does not ry to desermine whether it was morally right fr these tribes to endanger the lives ofthese babies by throwing chem fiom the temple roof. Ethics, on the other hand, tres to answer the question of whether such practice i right or wrong, It is not descriptive but normatie—i asks how people should live, anthropology asks how people in fact liv. Like anthropology, sociology i interested in morality in so far as it wants to find out the set of motal beliefs and practices that a particular group or society follows. It may even compare the moral beliefs of one culture to that of another. But it does not seek to esablsh whether his or that moral belies sound or not, Psychology studies morality in cerns ofits being a component of human development. Ie acempts to describe how the en tora pons by devon. But while it explains how a person makes eal aca ee affect it, it does not tackle the correctness, cogency, oF thics in cis chapter itis important ro descriptive ethics however, this is not 4 Chapter | Ethie Basie Concept and IesesB. Nature of Moral Statements To better understand ethics’ normative character as a study of morality, it is important to understand the nature of claims that pertain to morality which we will label moral statements, Such clarification is important in understanding how these statements should be justified or how they should be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. This will also shed light on the difference of morality from law, etiquette, and religion. Moral Statements as Normative Statements Moral statements are categorized as normative statements rather than factual statements, A normative statement expresses a value judgment, a kind of judgment that claims that something ought to be the case as distinct from a factual judgment that claims that something és the case. As such, when one makes a normative statement, he/she presents an evaluative account of how things should be rather than what things are. Thus, we assess the correctness of normative statements by looking at certain criteria, standards or norms instead of focusing on empirical data. However, as can be seen in the examples below, aside from moral statements, there arc various kinds of normative statements that have their corresponding basis of assessment: You ought to return the excess change to | Moral standard the cashier. There should be unity, balance, and ‘Aesthetic standard contrast in your painting, You ought to use the preposition “in” | Grammatical standard rather than “on.” Ieis illegal to make a U-turn there. Legal standard Cover your mouth when you laugh. Standard of etiquette As mentioned above, since a factual statement expresses a claim that something és the case, its claim can be empirically assessed as true or false based on either research, observation, or experiment. For example: puternice ‘The Philippine Independence day was | Historical research declared on June 12, 1946. Some tribes in India practice cannibalism, | Observation ‘The cause of the fish kill in the river is | Scientific research ollution from agricultural biotoxins. ‘A blue litmus paper will turn red when | Experiment dipped in an acid solution. chic Theos and Applistions|Uaitl 5arements in the way they are justify jaeds when we deal With normarye ve results of research, experiment, o : a 5. It can be noticed on the above example f ot only those pertaining 0 moral ne eof etiquette, religion, ete, 9 ee the standards of visual ats BMT fs equate liom me Some perta ion of moral statements from these 01 stateineng ion of f re normative nature of moral claim, elaborate on the d ments : j ve will focus mainly 0° in the next section. Here, we will focu or pc rather than 2 factul ONC, cannoy Since a moral starement is anormacive Seah ato n be justified by merely appealing (0 facts, empirical ee ae Providing facts may be significant in justifying @ moral claim, der the following argument: ; ‘adg to a study fen counties shar enforce the death penaiy te af criminliy in these countries went down affer it has been enforced. Therefore # ly right t0 enforce the death penalt : The ee supporting the above moral claim isa oe of ae ses statement is established by gathering statistical data t0 arrive at 2 factual cl ae < to makea does conclusion thatimposingche death penalty right neadsmoredhan merely providing 2 factual statement or information. There is a need to connect the faccual statement with the moral conclusion by supplying certain moral standards or principles such as “An act is right if it promotes the greater good of the people” Thus, the moral argument shouldbe Imposing the death penalty will lower the rate of criminality in our: society and thus will be beneficial to the greater number of people. ‘An act is right if it promotes the greater, good of the greater number. Therefore, imposing the death penalty is right. ; The moral principle (second statement) added as a premise in the argument is not pealing to research or experiment. But rd, the fact that death penalty has brought down the rate cannot suffice to justify chat death penalty from factual st | to cert: stat peal toh ive starements differ We appeal other hand, we @PI val statement! with fact 5 various kinds, ‘Normati confirmed, oF assessed. statements. On the observation when we d that normative staremen this factual by nature, Ie was not derived from ap} without citing this moral standai of criminality in countries that have imposed it, should be imposed. This point can be explained more by stating that though some people may also accept or agree with the fact that death penalty can reduce the rate of criminality in our society, they still hold that it is morally wrong to impose the death penalty as they believe that the right to life of a human being is sacred and inviolable. Thus, despite the greater good to sociery that the imposition of death penalty may bring about, others would stil regard it as morally unacceptable. \. By People expresng tei stand on the ine of death penalty 6 Chapter 3 | Ethics Base Concepe nd‘We can see here that determining the rightness or wrongness of imposing the death penalty does not lie only on establishing certain facts but deciding what moral standards or principles to follow—pursuing the greater good or respecting the human rights of individuals. One accepts a moral claim not by looking at the facts alone. One agrees or disagrees with a moral claim on the basis of the moral standard he/she follows or believes in. Such distinction of factual and moral statements suggests that factual statements are easier to settle than moral statements, since the basis of the latter (for being true or false) is objective, That is, if there is a disagreement between two people whether the rate of criminality had gone down this year compared to last yeat, or whether a drug can cure a particular disease, the results of scientific research can clearly determine who is correct and who is mistaken. However, it is said that disagreements on moral claims—whether we should allow homosexual marriage or not, whether euthanasia is permissible or not—are more difficult, if not impossible, to settle or to be given any final resolution. It is for this reason that moral claims are said to be relative and their acceptability lies on one’s personal opinion or cultural beliefs. ‘Although this question of whether moral claims are relative or not will be extensively discussed in a later section of this chapter, it is worth mentioning at this point that it is a mistake to think that moral statements are always difficult to justify, and their acceptability is always subjective to the individual. The claim “It is morally wrong to torture a person for fun” or the assertion “It is morally right to give aid to typhoon victims” is not difficult to justify. It is also incorrect to think that issues dealing with factual claims are always easy to resolve or uncontroversial. Certain factual statements like “Humans evolved from primitive primates,” “Imposing the death penalty will deter murder.” and “Aliens from other planets have visited the earth’ are controversial and their truth (or falsity) is not easy to establish. Therefore, we cannot distinguish moral and factual statements in terms of the degree of difficulty disagreements about them can be resolved. What is clear, however, is the basis by which we determine the acceptability of these starements—for factual statements we appeal to empirical data through research and observation; for moral statements, like other normative statements, we appeal to norms and standards, Moral Statements and Moral Standards ‘After distinguishing moral from factual statements, it is now easier to understand the difference of moral statements from other normative statements. We have seen earlier that aside from moral statements, there are other statements that are normative, that is, those that are justified and accepted based on standards rather than facts. However, the standards used to justify normative statements are not moral standards. The standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, the standards of law by which we judge an action to be legally right or wrong, the standards of language by which we judge ‘what is grammatically right and wrong, the standards of aesthetics by which we judge good and bad art, and the athletic standards by which we judge how well a basketball or a football game is being played—these standards are not moral standards. So how can we distinguish moral standards from non-moral standards? Addressing this question can shed Fshica Theorie and Appicatons| Unit 7re from other nO and religion. por of characteristics that speak of the nature of, hharacteristics MAY not be unique t0 moral stang ‘oral err geandards from non-moral standard ed, think can seriously harm or benef Fig cheating, lying, and killing deg mative statements, ag * 25 Wl % a ‘0 how different moral starements Nee from exiquettes 1% istinct morality how ic have identified a num standards. Although each of these ¢°? if taken together, they can distingtis mo! moral standards deal with mae iar sh fig The comer le dosnt =a vrork conditions are safe or dangerous, and products oF aa ir er ceimenea vont health are matters that affect human well-being. The stand i conde ral standards. , dads ‘exe uiveral vais Thy 207 all who ating relevantly similar situation. If it is morally wrong or perso ro do act X, then q 2 This characteris is exemplified imilar t0 ‘rong to do X for anyone relevancy sim! vhe moral ule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto yo,” If we believe that killing a person is morally wrongs chen we expect that people in ge places follow the same belief, regardless of their culture or eligon. In comparison, oh trandards are only valid to a particular group governed by sucl foe The rule on fasting at certain times is observed in some ¥ ions but not to other religions oF to non, believers. Eiquettes such a5 not wearing red in a funeral or taking off your shoes whe a acticed in some cultures but not to others. centering a house are pr ght to have a particularly over, Third, moral standards are generally thou importance, that is, people feel they should prevail over other values. A violation of ty: revel rule agains klling or stealing is more important chan a violation of the rule - etiquette or of grammar. Similarly, a moral judgment weighs more than an acsthet judgment. Moral claims are also more important chan claims pertaining to lav. Thus, la dre questioned when they are thought to be unjust or are contrary to moral standards Moreover, legislators determine what laws to enact on the basis of certain moral pring le such ns common good, respect for human dignity, fairness, and justice. This poine wile elaborated more in the next section when we discuss morality and law. Fourth, moral standards are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodi nor ate they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition. While laws and] al standards are established by the authority of the legislature, religious beliefs and ae are taught by the Church fathers and scholars, rules of etiquette emanate from tallies snd eareneus, moral sandards, however, ae not established by a particular authori. Instead, the validity of moral standards lies on the adequacy of reasons that st me justify hem, So long as these reasons are adequate, the standards remain valid = ne Gaided by these charac of moral standards, let us look into hows in particular, ienlly ies casey and religion. These three are often identified with /, re also institutions and custot i cecoutat hana eeeirmes ae ‘Chapter | Ethics Base Concept and lesC. Morality and Other Normative Subjects Morality and Etiquette Friquette refers to the set of rules or customs that determine the accepted behaviors in 4 particular socal group. Following these rules makes us show respect and courtesy 10 ares. In eating out, for example, one should wait until ll che people on the table have been served before he/she starts eating, Of course, there are vatious arcas in our socal life where our courtesy to others is expected. Aside from dining, we have etiquette at certain ‘occasions such as baptism and funeral, we have etiquete on riding a public transportation, doing business, and even communicating (thus, we need to also observe certain rules in the more modern ways of communicating such as sending emails and posting in social redia.) But these so-called rules of eriquette vary from one culture to another. What may be an accepted behavior in one culture may not be in another, Etiquette is different from morality in that the former is concerned with proper behavior while che latter with right conduct. Etiquette is also more arbitrary and culture- based than morality. To get others approval of our action, to be thought of wel by people, and to show respect to them, we try to observe common rules of etiquette. Violating the rules can lead society to consider you il-mannered, impolite, or even uncivilied—but noc necessarily immoral, Making loud slurping sound when taking noodles or not closing your mouth as you chew your food may result to being called impolite or being perceived as lacking in manner, but they are not bass for claiming that one is acting immorally. In the same way, it doesnot necesarly mean that following what eciquere demands is acting moray. Shaws (2002) pointed out that scrupulous observance of rules of etiquette can camouflage moral issues. Before the laws against racial discrimination were enacted in the ‘America, it was thought that i is bad manners for blacks and whites to eat rogether or to sit side by side in a bus. But for one who believed that such rule of eiquere is rooted in racial discrimination and human degradation, promoting or simply conforming to such rule docs not amount to doing the moral thing. Such was the point shown by a 42-year-old black woman named Rose Paks when she was asked to give up her seat fora white man and reused, Though she may not comply wth the social expectation, she stood her ground knowing that she has not done anything immoral On the contrary, she believed she was doing the morally tight thing to doasshefoughe fr equality and fines, Though morality and etiquette are not synonymous with each other, there is a relationship berween the two since both concern human action. For example, disregarding or scorning etiquette can be considered immoral in certain circumstances, There can be different ways of greeting a person among various cultures. In Japan people greet each other by bowing, and their bows differ in angle and duration depending on the person they are greeting, In Oman, men greet each other by pressing their noses together. In Thailand, people greet cach other by pressing their hands together in the fashion of a prayer and slightly bowing their heads. But as pointed out by Pojman (1999), once the custom is adopted, the practice takes on the importance of a moral rule, subsumed under iio: Tecsené Appiains| Unie 9Je. In Islamic societies, standards of mag rly her chest. Thus, some Muslim yy, sty, the he: eck and falls below the level of the shouige : Muslims who follow this practice believe that it pro, ers : | Although there is nothing immoral for g es Jothes, appearing in such an oui i or skimpy ¢ ppearne ae haclel inse os cia marly nsenSENE OF end ‘showing Fes the wider principle of rover her body call for a woman (0 ¢ swear hijab ora scart that cove to cover the upper chest 3 vomen's dignity and promor Muslim woman to wear slecre a Muslim community may "¢ ad and Jess blouse Il be so offe ch is why i s often confused ys, eal nother person, or take what a f al imperat ho ave because hese acts are moral jell cee ail kil ee eth ee Teal pera 7 le. Fe and mora eer are diferent: Breaking ten ae immoral and morality, howeseh nt, Brea! “che Levi jseas following the law isnot neccesary doing WF al mot pckand she needed bene® sa repaint, Suppose your mother iT fn tek to the hospital immediately. Yo eee er 0 the hospital diving ou iu cook her im YOUr Ti Law co drive at more than 60 rs - ata speed of 100 kph. ‘Although you ae prohibited by i kph op that road, it does nor seem morall right for you © follow the law and drive at thar speed ling knowing that doing so will jeopardize the life of} ther. Driving the car at chat speed may break the law, but is morally right ‘ Tecan also be said thac an action that iS legal can be morally Wong abortion may be legal in 2 particular counc' bre che question whether itis morally ih, Nome of its citizens May stage a proce aoorinmnie an abortion remains an issues US : “he righe to life of the unborn. Or whey sy Development Assistance the state to respect ind behind the Priori ‘ight to self-incrimination, thus evading the oliticians who were involved Morality and Law ae Like etiquette, law also regulates human morality. We ought not (© XP ly and morally wrong. For instancy Janet Napoles, the Fund (PDAF) scams, repeatedly invo! questions and being mum on in corruption. It may be legal jeopardizes truth and justices that certain actions may be in accordance Despite their differences, how are law and mot that in many cases, laws are based on morality. We determine what laws to adopt or enact on the basis of certain moral principles. RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 which prohibits people from smoking in public places is based on the moral principle of the greater good for the greater number Since law is derived from morality, people tend to equate what is lawful with what is moral Toa significant degree, law codifies a sociey’s tessa ideals and values. But we should not see what is Jawfal and what is moral as identical for as pointed out by Shaw (2002), “law cannot cover the wide variety of possible individual and group conduct, and in many situations it is too blunt an instrument to provide moral guidance” (p- 6). Laws may be enacted, amended, or repealed by legislacors to protect their aoe ee and may noe realy be beneficial to the general welfare. One may wondet ration of politica why the Anti-Political Dynasty bill which aims to remove the concent he knew about the p or aher than co cell the eruth, but such ac 0 sis mally questionable. Tn those cases, iis ce to che law, but not morally right. tality related co each other? We can say to remain sile 10 Chapter 1 | this: Basie Concept and suespower within a particular clan has been proposed in the Philippine Congress several times already, but has not gotten the nod of the legislators. Ie can be surmised that enacting such law will be detrimental to the interests of those political personalities in che Congress. Morality and Religion Despite their difference, morality is often identified with religion. In various societies around the world, religion has so much influenced the moral life of the people so as to be seen as indistinguishable from morality. A Christian forgiving those who offended him/ her mindful of Christ's commandment of love; a Jew preparing and consuming food based on the law of Kosher; a Muslim giving alms to the needy according to the fourth pillar of Islam—these moral practices of most of humanity throughout the ages are testaments to how morality has become identified with conformity to God's command. Indeed, religion, like law, is related to morality. But unlike law which is often based on morality, religion is generally perceived to be the basis of morality. People tend to think that what is right can be derived from religious beliefs and teachings. Because this line of thinking is anchored on the idea that God is the source of goodness, living a moral life, then, is achieved by adhering to God’ will, while acting immorally is basically disobeying God. But should morality be based on religion? This question was asked in as early as Plato's the Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks the pious Euthyphro, “Do the gods love goodness because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it?” Following the point of question raised by Socrates, we want to know whether God commands what is good because it is good, or whether the good is good because God commands it. Although religion gives moral basis and direction to people, thinking that morality depends on religion raise some problems. First, the moral directives given by the world’s great religions are general and imprecise. People encounter moral dilemmas in particular situations or contexts that demand specific moral precept. For example, Christianity teaches its believers “Thou shale not kill.” However, even with such directive, there remains a disagreement among Christians whether imposing death penalty is morally justified, or whether legalizing abortion is morally permissible, or whether administering euthanasia to patient in an irreversible vegetative state is morally right. These moral situations cannot be resolved by a general moral admonition not to kill. There are certain specific issues and factors that must be considered which have a lot of ‘weight in determining whether an act is good or bad. The Bible fails to give unambiguous answers to specific moral problems humanity confronts, What do religions say regarding more complex yet specific moral issues of today’s world such as artificial reproduction, genetic engineering or the use of animals in research? We will remain inquiring what God expects us to do, Second, can we really be certain what God wants us to do? We know that there are different religions the world over. These religions may vary in terms of their moral doctrines and practices. There are cases when they have conflicting answets to certain moral questions. If one depends on the moral teachings of the religion he/she belongs to, how can he/she deal with the moral beliefs of people from other religions especially uhicaTheoves and Applicions| Unie] 111 belief? There should be a basis of ry out an objective rations iy or on i wn mora when they conflict with hither oe fest we fail 0 62" sus boundaricss that transcends religious gions. “seer 7 discussion with people from other eligions surselves a disservice if we simply s : gs we are ; Third, as rational beings We ar oe eigion dictates. We ought not eg gyi Mr i what ot ; judge of ight 3 ONE OI ching of the Church We meray p i ality is depen 7 issue and conform to j a reason anymore if mor aa s about a certain moral issue anc Fad ‘0 it, But ate to know what our reli a ewe view morali 2 What is our faculty of reqo Me is how ¥ suaead when we find ourselves in certain Himes wie, whe Mapes conform cothechurh tad on they he persecution of heretics, the Crusade moyg he MJeven by its own members. [ts view on home leading a rational This point becomes more pron we believe to be right (or wrong past, the Catholic Church’s stand on € siti jones see and the Inquisition have been questio' Seen * ae and artificial contraception may not find suppo! olics, Al i jatters are unsoun ‘ough sree not saying tha the Chueh’ teachings on these aN 2% Mason mee i important o understand cha an authenl sense OF MOM RY DUAN) Merely ey religion. Indeed, religion can guide us in making a 2 i; aiiabe ofa PB & moral life, but morality should transcend religion. Ultimately, it rather a mere adherence to religion. The Issue of Ethical Relativism ‘As mentioned in the previous section, the moral beliefs and practices of people are grea, influenced by the environment that surrounds them. How the individual was broughe and the social and cultural elements that the person was exposed to contribute to higher understanding and judgment of what is right and wrong. Given such phenomena, can ye conclude that morality is relative, chac is, what is right varies from one person to another or from one culture to another? Or is morality objective, that is, what is right is based on 2 universal principle that applies to all people regardless of culture, religion, ot ideology This is one major meta-ethical issue in philosophy which this section will address, The view which holds that all moral principles are valid relative to a particular society o individual, is called eehical relativism. Ics to be distinguished from ethical skepticism —which claims that there are no valid moral principles at all (or at least we cannot know whether there are any)—and from ethical objectivism which asserts that there are universally valid moral principles binding on all people. According to the relativist perspective, the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the moral norms of society or the moral inclinations of the individual, and no absolute standard exists by which differing rules or inclinations can be judged. So, what is morally right fora Chinese society may be morally wrong in an American society, just as what is morally right for Pedro might be morally wrong for Juan. From this description, we can infer that there are two forms of ethical relativism: cultural ethical relativism and individual ethical relativism, According to the former, aso known as ethical conventionalism, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society's norms. According to the latter, also known as ethical subjectivism, the rightness or wrongness of an action lies on the individual’s own commitments. Of the two, 12 Chapter | Eahics: Basic Concepts and suescultural ethical relativism has been considered the more acceptable and reasonable version and it will be the main focus of this section. But let us briefly say something about individual ethical relativism, and why it has gained little support. Individual ethical relativism holds that the basis of what is morally right or wrong ultimately lies on the person's own standard, and there is no objective standard outside the individual’s perspective by which his/her moral belief or standard can be judged. According to this view, a moral judgment or claim merely implies an attitude, opinion, preference or feeling held by someone. Although social and cultural factors can come to play in the formation of one’s personal attitudes and preferences, what the theory recognizes is that they constitute the individual’s notion of what is morally right and wrong, In the end, the individual is left with a personal standard of morality. In individual ethical relativism, an act is morally right or wrong depending on the approval or disapproval of the person of interest. In this line of thought, deceiving customers to gain profit from a business may be morally right for one but morally wrong for another. But objectively, it is neither right nor wrong, It is different from one individual to another. In a way, this form of relativism follows the view of Protagoras, expressed in his famous statement “man is the measure of all things,” which holds that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are subjects in the world. Though individual ethical relativism stands on basic arguments that also support cultural ethical relativism, the former encounters strong resistance from different camps, even from cultural relativists themselves, due to its radical stance on the subjectivism of morality. Often, those who oppose this view would say that treating moral judgments like taste or aesthetic judgments which are relative to the individual renders morality a useless concept, since little or no interpersonal criticism or judgment is possible. Suppose you heard a news of a policeman killing a suspected teenage drug-user, and were repulsed by such act. Following individual ethical relativism, you cannot condemn the officer if his ethical belief is that it is permissible to kill people who have become dependent on illegal drugs to solve the drug problem in our society. In the same way, we are not in a position to judge Adolf Hitler's obsession to annihilate the Jews as morally wrong. In fact, on the basis of ethical subjectivism, Hitler could be considered as moral as Gandhi, so long as each lived by his own standards. Each individual person is the measure of moral judgment. But such view is difficult for a rational mind to accept since it contradicts the very concept of morality it is supposed to characterize. Morality has co do wich resolving interpersonal dispute or conflict among individuals in order to promote the good life. It aims to prevent a Hobbesian state of nature wherein life is “solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short.” However, in individual ethical relativism morality cannot do this for there is no interpersonal basis by which to judge whether an act is morally good or bad, right or wrong. Conventionalism is different from subjectivism since it recognizes the social nature of morality. Although it rejects the existence of universal moral principles, it claims that there are valid moral principles justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance. The rightness of wrongness of an act is based on the cultural or social norms of the people in which it is done and judged. The Muslim’s practice of polygamy, for instance, should be judged thew Theovies and Applicaions| Unle1 13ans. What distinguishes this me, “ y nor lief and norn of morality does not simply, hig ie iti thet ie aha the bas only within ¢ i heb jectivism, howe se peyond it. The moral 7 view from subjectivis™ v jnelinations but goes beyon ios stands, nt ial i son ¥ 7 ‘ individual's moral raion ie can the act may still be morally ya tx hich the act is done. Given yp ™8if jective basis of judging Moral, Soci ethical subjectivism, In ghe tn, Sect 'n, me orms Oo the social norm c , be done in cases 0 i ‘ ane Mform with the socl agreement principle it holds, een i aery makes i overcome the OBIE ei wre wll ook closely into the strength: justify this theory: f rape or incests standards in W" an intersubj ed agains “onventionalism and the 7 argue, jativism jvism for several reasons. We will focus amely the Diversi th namely the Divers drgiya s of Ethical Rel Jeural ethical relat People are drawn to cul | relat see remain arguments co suppor’ this particular do: nt, and the Tolenation Argument. 7 beliefs and moral rules vary from culture to alee Anchropolegit have obse, f range of practices considered morally acceptable panes ; " fil condemned j, chars. As mentioned above, Muslim socierits practice polygamy, while the Chrigign cwnsider i wrong. Some cultufes accePt homosexual union, while other cul, condemn it. Abortion is permissible in some countries, but is not acceptable in othe, countries Te is interesting to note certain practices of the Eskimo people: Eskimo custom, ‘allow infanticide which is condemnable most cultures; they also leave old peo : see are roo feeble to contribute to i, family out in the snow co die. But co tay anthropologists, there is nothing particu surprising about the Eskimos. Given the observation of various societies around the world, they have been accustomed to the idea that conceptions of right and wrong differ from culture to culture. What is good : east of the river may be bad west of the river imo peple These different practices illustrate the diversity of moral beliefs in various cultures; even in the same culture moral view and practices vary over time. In the Philippines, Filipino women were not allovel to vote in national elections before, but today it is wrong to deny them of the right to suffrage. In the United States, slavery is now viewed as immoral whereas just ove Societies over the world have greatly altered their and ces The Attraction: al a hundred years ago, it was not. moral views on various matters such as abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, sexuality as well. For the relativists, the only adequate way to explain che differe of a beliefs and practices across culture and across time is to accept that morality is relative. 14 Chapter 1 | Ethics: Basie Coneepe and leuesFrom the fact of moral diversity, the relativists derive the Dependency Argument which fies on the view that moral beliefs are true or valid only relative to certain groups. An individual's cultural norms, of which religious traditions are a part of, affect his/her views of right and wrong, Hence, one’s moral beliefs are basically products of his/her particular social environment. According to Pojman (1999, 29), “morality does not exist on a vacuum; rather, what is considered morally right or wrong must be seen in a context, depending on the goals, wants, beliefs, history, and environment of the society in question.” The point here is that we cannot see things from an independent, noncultural view point. We are simply culturally determined creatures. This line of reasoning leads to the assertion that all knowledge and understanding are relative, Harris, however, clarifies that there are two versions of such assertion. In its strongest version, this position claims that all truth, even in the natural sciences, is relative to the culture and conceptual framework within which it is expressed. In some cultures, magic occupies the place that science occupies in our society. Strong relativists would claim that we cannot say that science is right and magic wrong; rather, each is appropriate to, and to be judged only in terms of, the culture in which it is situated. The moderate version of relativism makes a slightly more modest claim. It says that the meaning of human behavior is always relative to the culture in which it occurs. Eating dog is Part of the culture of the people of Sagada, a town in the Philippines’ Mountain Province, and is widely practiced in the country’s Cordillera region. However, other societies—even within the Philippines—consider killing dogs as cruelty to animals and is, thus, morally wrong. In most societies, killing cows is acceptable, but in India such act is a sacrilege. The meaning of the act is different, depending on the society. Consequently, the relativist argues, the moral dimension of our actions is similarly dependent on cultural context for meaning. Morality is basically just the set of common rules, habits, and customs that have earned social approval over time. Every morality depends on a level of social acceptance. Cultural ethical relativism is also justified by the view that acknowledging the differences among various societies in terms of their moral beliefs and practices leads to respect, social harmony, and peaceful co-existence among the different cultural, religious, and social groups. This is what is known as the soleration argument. According to this reasoning, relativism may be the right way of looking at morality since it offers the promise of tolerance and understanding, attitudes that most of us value highly. Early anthropology was absolutist, measuring the entire world in terms of its own standards and generally finding the rest of the world lacking. Thus, anthropologists in the past would often refer to the peoples they studied as “barbarians” or “primitive societies.” But as time went on, the discipline made progress as it moved towards a mote relativistic stance recognizing that societies different from ones own are not necessarily primitive or inferior. Each society is to be judged in terms of its own standards, rather than in terms of other people's ethnocentric expectations. Given the many forms of conflicts among various cultures, religions, and ideologies today that often result to violence and oppression, the tolerant, non-judgmental attitude of respecting and recognizing the validity of cultural beliefs other than one’s own has become more relevant. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict states this idea forcefully at the end of her influential work Patterns of Culture, when she expresses her hope that, on the basis Fehice Thesis and Applcatons|Unie1 15research she has described, “we shall ative ata more, ial faith, accepti bas ol alist, al Fait i 1d as new bases for tolerance the coexist, soci , accepting as grounds of hope an erage te : ia ally valid patterns of life which mankind has cra fuses? (546, 257). Benedict, in fact, takes the argument 7 a ae arguing rt the relativistic outlook she champions can be positively beneficial in helping to con, bigotry, racism, chauvinism, and other forms of prejudice. The Challenges of Ethical Relativism “ Despite the arguments advanced by relativists, their theory seg a been Strongly ctiticized by some philosophers (Pojman 1999; Shaw 2002). Cne o Te Pein tag to refute itis the illogical flow of the relativist argument. Acco ing © the theory, gi, that people have different moral beliefs and practices, we can conclude that morality i relative. The problem in this line of reasoning is that even if the premise is true, 44, conclusion cannot be inferred to be true. Diversity of and disagreement in moral begs do not prove that morality is relative. To illustrate this point, consider people's belie boy, the sun and the earth. There was a point in time when some people believed that the sun revolves around the earth. Some believed, however, based on their scientific study, such as Copernicus and Galileo Galilee, that the earth is the one revolving around the sun, Can we say that, because people disagree about this matter, there is no objective truth in geography? Can we just dismiss the matter as a case of relativism, and need not correct others’ geocentric notion that the sun and other planets simply revolve around the earth? cis clear here that there can be cases when members of some societies may simply be mistaken of their beliefs. It is possible that people may be misinformed about a particular moral matter, or may have distorted beliefs about a particular practice. Thus, we cannot accept differences or disagreements in moral beliefs and practices as justification for the relativism of morality. The second point raised against ethical relativism has to do with the negative implications of accepting such theory. One implication of accepting ethical relativism is that itis senseless to criticize a particular cultural or social group's belief or practice however abhorrent or inhumane it is. Suppose a group of people carried out suicide attacks based on theit religious belief that killing their enemies is in accordance with God's will. Though such act resulted to the deaths of many innocent victims, we cannot judge their action as immoral nor even correct their misdeed, since their action must be judged according to their own moral doctrine as relativism would claim. However, we know that we cannot turn a blind eye to such violent action and regard it as a matter of culeural difference that ‘must just be accepred. We ought to express our objection and condemnation to certain cultural practices that mar human dignity (Madison, 2003). Another implication of regarding social normsas the basis of the rightness or wrongness of our actions is that we simply have to conform to the norms of our own society to know what action ought to be done. If I am a member of a society that believes that racial or st pacts ate morally permissible, then I must accepe those practices as morally right ugh my reason tells me that abortion is morally wrong, I cannot diverge from the Societal norms if it docs not regard abortion as immoral. We may recall the same point of the sort of anthropological 16 Chapter | Ethics: Basie Concepts and Tsues‘we raised earlier against equating morality with religion. We do not live up to our status as a rational being if what is right or ‘wrong simply depends on one’s social ot cultural norms. Moreover, moral progress will also be compromised if we follow the thesis of ethical relativism. If the rightness or wrongness of actions is judged solely on the basis of a culture's norms, how then [ can members of that society criticize these pay) SMS Me norms on moral grounds? How can they Afr ale proesing sar oncon th Caribbean argue that the existing norms should be and of Higa changed? We know that certain social changes are needed for the betterment of society as we acknowledge certain inadequacies in our moral traditions. For society to achieve moral progress, it has to be self-critical and put its own social norms into question. In many societies, the soundness of practices and laws that discriminate against women, such as honor killing or child martiages must be challenged. This can only be done if social norms themselves can be subjected to critical scrutiny, rather than regarded as the ultimate basis of morality. Our ability to question our social norms has made us overcome the inhuman practices of slavery in pre-Civil War United States, apartheid in South Africa, and che unfair denial of Right to Suffrage for women in the Philippines. The third point raised against ethical relativism, and perhaps the strongest argument to refute it, lies on the assertion that despite the fact that some moral beliefs and practices vary among cultures, there are still universal moral standards that exist. Though people have different cultures, customs, traditions, religions, and ideologies, they still have something in common emanating fom theit shared humanity. Respect for life, pursuit for truth and justice, desire for peace, to cite some, are values that all human persons, no matter how primitive or sophisticated their culture or civilization is, would recognize and acknowledge as worth pursuing, Imagine what it would be like for a society to place no value at all on truth tellings communication would be extremely difficult. How could any group or tribe survive if there is no regard to the preciousness of life or no prohibition on murder? Suppose society does not refrain people from killing others, No one wil fel safe in such society and eventually, such society wil collapse. In relation to this, critics of relativism claim that indeed, societies may differ in their cultural practices, but the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. Consider the Buddhist practice of refraining from eating the meat of animals. It seems their moral values differ from non-Buddhist people. But itis important to look into the reason why they do not consume animals, Suppose it is because they believe chat after death the souls of humans inhabit the bodies of animals so that i is possible chat their loved ones may be in those animals, Can we say their moral values are different from those of non-Buddhists? No. The difference lies in their religious beliefs, not in their moral values. Everyone, Buddhist and non-Buddhist, believes that it is wrong to eat our loved Ethien Theorles and Appicions|Unit). 17,ee ar 1 of us as humans. We simply differ in our religious, cul ‘ones. It is common to all o! ere ; for the nat ; co dee . there are cern things we can Fearn fom is ean open mind in terms on eate ee m5 of jug ic Thy lt fmm aaa acer by bor especie eure which if fom each othe, Ta is deeply influence beliefs to others as they may De UE Own, caltunt cannot just impose our own erspectives or outlooks. Instead of ick I tain pt ‘J pe JUdg, others’ beliefs, the reasons for our own beliefs and practices. » OF Summary In this chapter, we clarified the meaning of Morality refers tothe set of raat closely related, they are two different concepts. Jies, en the ther baer ‘ ve right and wrong, Ethics, er hand, ig person or a society has about what is right th, ic Is the study of moc discipline that examines these moral standards. As such, itis #6 snug oF moray it looks into the basis, soundness, and validity of our views an‘ hes roy, Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, has three subject areas: metaetiics, rarmatiee ig, and applied erie, Meraethics looks nto the nature, meaning, scope an foundations of ‘moral values and discourses. Normative ethics deals with the moral standards thar sry as the basis in judging the rightness or wrongness of an act. Hire ethics examines and sheds light on particular ethical issues, both in the personal and social spheres, tha are matters of moral judgment. ae To understand the notion of ethics as a normative rather than a descriptive study of morality, we distinguished moral statements from factual statements. Moral statements are normative claims that express value judgments which are assessed based on certain norms or standards. Factual statements are claims that are assessed for their truth. value based on observation, research, or experiment. Although moral statements ate normative claims, they differ from other normative claims in that the standards used in assessing them are moral standards that differ from other standards. Moral standatde are characterized by the following features: 1) they deal with matters chat we thiak can seriously harm or benefit human beings, 2) they have universal validity, 3) thy are generally thought to have a particularly overriding importance, that is, they prvi over other values, and 4) they are not established by the decisions of authoritarian bodies nor are they solely determined by appealing to consensus or tradition, but they are accepted based on the adequacy of the reasons that support or justify them. Based on these distinct features of moral standards, morality can be differentiated from other normative subjects like etiquette, law, and religion, morality and eis. Along thy. The theory of ethical relativism raises a contentious issue in metaethics. Ie argues the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the moral (cultural) or the person's moral inclinations (individual) exists by which differing rules or inclinations can be judged. a norms of society and no absolute standard . There are various reasons 18 Chapter | Ethie: Buic Concepts and lsuesgiven to support the theory as expressed in such arguments known as dependency argument, diversity argument, and toleration argument, However, the theory has been rejected based on the following points: the fallacy of inferring relativism from the fact of diversity, the negative implications of the theory on the validity of moral judgment and the idea of moral progress, and the claim that universal moral standards exist. [Review Questions 1 2. 3. 4, 5. Distinguish ethics from morality. Identify and differentiate the three general subject areas in ethics. How does ethics differ from other studies about morality? Define ethical relativism and discuss three arguments that support this theory. Identify and explain the points raised against ethical relativism. cussion Questions . Think of moral beliefs that you have held on from childhood but come to question when you grew older. What were the sources of these beliefs? What made you question these beliefs as you mature in life? Cite specific socio-political issues in our society today. Which among these would you consider as moral issues? Explain. . Should our laws be always founded in morality or only to a certain extent? Explain. Does morality vary from one culture to another? Should it be based on the social or cultural norm of the society? Defend your answer. Consider certain practices that are accepted in one religion, but rejected in another. Is the difference a matter of religious belief or of moral principle? Explain. shies Theoiesand Applictions| Unie 19,