The question of whether morality needs religion has been an age-old debate.

Ethics is the definition of

what is right and wrong guiding human actions, whereas religion believes in a higher power and usually
includes moral teachings. In the past, most societies connected ethics with religion, and the moral laws
were part of religious texts. For followers of a faith, these laws may create an illusion of divine
accountability promoting ethical conduct.

However, ethics can also exist independency of religion. Secular philosophers such as Immanuel Kant
and John Stuart Mill have argued that humans are capable of discerning morally what is right without
any divine influence. They stressed that principles such as justice and compassion are inherent and
universal. An example of this is secular humanism, which promotes ethics through empathy and human
rights rather than relying on religious belief.

Moreover the most central moral values, like honesty, fairness and aversion to violence are in a larger
extent shared by various cultures and religions, what suggests that religion is not the only source of
morality. It may be a case that religion motivates people to follow ethical norms indeed but it does not
mean that its role is crucial. Individuals of different or no faith can still develop decent conduct which
will be reasoned on reason, empathy, and shared human values. So ethics is not of the religion
dependent type rather it follows from universal human principles which provide guidance for moral
behaviour among diverse beliefs system.

Here are brief responses to each question:

1. **Are all pleasures commensurable?**

Not all pleasures are easily comparable. While some goods, like money, can be quantified, others, like
friendships, offer intrinsic, non-material value. Evaluating such different kinds of goods on a single scale
risks oversimplifying their importance and meaning.

2. **Mill’s higher pleasures**

Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures—such as those from literature, music, and deep
friendships—are “higher” than physical pleasures, which are more fleeting and less fulfilling on a
profound level.

3. **Higher pleasures and majority preference**

 The majority preference may not always distinguish higher pleasures. Ideally, a well-informed group
may lean toward more meaningful, “higher” pleasures, but social influences and personal biases may
also skew preferences.

4. **Utilitarianism and individual rights**

Utilitarianism does challenge individual rights if violating them increases the majority’s happiness.
However, protecting rights is essential to justice and stability, suggesting a need for limits on utilitarian
reasoning.

5. **Happiness as pleasure and avoidance of pain**

While happiness often involves pleasure and the absence of pain, not all actions are purely pleasure-
seeking. Many actions, like helping others or achieving goals, may involve sacrifices beyond immediate
pleasure.

6. **Are all pleasures comparable?**

Not all pleasures are ethically equal; some, like those derived from harmful behavior, are
objectionable. Pleasure does not justify harmful actions, such as sexist behavior, that infringe on others’
well-being.

7. **Basketball court vs. hospital**

Public resources should prioritize essential needs. While recreation is valuable, a hospital meets critical
health needs, suggesting it might deserve priority, even if fewer people need it at a given moment.

8. **Torture of suspected criminals**

Torture raises ethical and human rights issues, and its reliability as a method of obtaining truth is
questionable. The harm it causes often outweighs potential benefits, making it rarely justifiable.

9. **Essence of taxation**

Taxation is a system of redistributing resources to support public goods, such as infrastructure,

healthcare, and education, promoting societal welfare and equal opportunity.
10. **As a Filipino citizen, are you amenable to pay taxes?**

Yes, paying taxes supports essential services, helps reduce inequality, and contributes to national
progress. It's a responsibility that aids both the government and the community.

Here are responses to each question on natural law and related concepts:

1. **Other uses of "natural" to justify behavior**

People often use "natural" to justify behaviors that feel instinctual or biologically driven, such as
competitiveness or self-preservation. In some cases, “natural” is cited to defend social norms, like
traditional gender roles. Compared to Aquinas's view, which sees natural law as a rational alignment
with a divine purpose, these justifications may lack a moral or ethical basis and instead focus on human
inclinations without necessarily aiming toward a higher good.

2. **Human laws as extensions of natural law**

Human laws protecting life, like prohibitions against murder or theft, extend from natural law’s
emphasis on preservation and justice. These laws align with Aquinas’s idea of pursuing good and
avoiding harm. However, laws permitting actions like unjust discrimination might violate natural law, as
they go against the intrinsic dignity and equality of individuals.

3. **Other forms of harm as violations of natural law**

Yes, acts like psychological abuse, severe neglect, or exploitation could violate the natural inclination
to preserve one’s being, as they undermine a person's mental or emotional integrity. While not physical
harm, these actions damage a person’s well-being and security, challenging their ability to live fully and
healthily, which Aquinas would consider part of the natural law.

4. **Scientific developments challenging Aquinas's view of nature**

Developments in biology, like genetic engineering or artificial intelligence, challenge Aquinas’s

understanding by introducing new ethical questions about the natural order and human control over life
processes. These advancements provoke debates on what it means to follow a “natural” course, as they
allow for unprecedented alterations to human biology that Aquinas could not have anticipated.

5. **Natural law theory without divine belief**

It is possible to maintain a version of natural law theory without belief in the divine, as some theorists
argue that natural law principles can be derived from reason alone. These secular forms focus on human
flourishing and rights but may lack the teleological perspective (i.e., purpose-driven by God) that
Aquinas emphasized.

1. **If I were Michael, I would have a private conversation with Phyllis.** I would explain to her that
both Roger and Daniel are my friends, and I know about her relationships with both. I would encourage
her to be honest with Daniel about her relationship with Roger. I would not directly reveal the affair to
either Roger or Daniel but would let Phyllis know that this situation could harm all parties involved and
that it would be better for her to address it herself.

2. **Justification**

My chosen action respects the privacy of all parties involved while still addressing the ethical dilemma.
By talking to Phyllis privately, I avoid damaging both friendships by speaking behind anyone’s back,
while also giving her the opportunity to take responsibility for her actions. My goal would be to protect
my friends from further harm by encouraging transparency, without directly intervening in their
relationships.

3. **Fairness of the Decision**

I believe this decision is fair because it respects each person’s dignity and autonomy. Rather than
taking sides, I encourage accountability from Phyllis while giving her the chance to address the situation.
This approach minimizes harm, respects privacy, and avoids unnecessary betrayal of trust, making it fair
to all parties involved.