uy Se ete Cee eee cate reasrbideppamnyientmiergs) ayes ee es on ty neha wo ego in ad ale. Dee | Se ee ts to re] oe TE ee te) Ce ea he eer ene] open apart fox Scion ee a Ce od ETHICS Marc Oliver D. Pasco Ae VTS CUR O MONON ESM Jack see peor ea a cease ‘oeorETHICS Mare Oliver D. Pasco V. Fullente Suarez Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez Wee Serva CORE CME Publishing, Ine, 20184 © m8 by C4 Paige Mr Or DP, V Palate Sar, at Aewcn Marla Bode ‘ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No prt of hiepalation Imoy be reproduce, soe tetra mater, ot TPansmited in aay form o by aay sane leo, Tareas, photocopying, recording or otherwie ‘iat the por writen prin ofthe publ ‘hur Rens Cy: CLE range, Omk Tio gy tn dock Dol: Fat Ants eon Dea a ta De Table of Contents PREFACE GENERAL INTRODUCTION ‘The Study of Ethics and Cul ‘of the Good What is Ethics? ‘The Moral Act rom the Act to the Person al Conceptions PART: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Introduction Gait and Gawa and Habitution Ethics ond Ethos Pluto's insight Into the Good ‘Chapter I: Virtue Ethics: Aristotle. Introduction Ethics as the Art of Living Well. Eudaimonia The Soul Virtue, the Mean, and Practical Wisdom Contemplation and Philosophical Knowledge Conclusion Study Questions Exercises Relerence 5‘Chapter I: The Natural Law: St. Thomas Aquinas Introduction Btsi Deus non davetur Conscience and Natural Law ‘Three Contemporary Questions ‘The Relational and Perfection of Love in Aquinas Conclusion Guide Questions Bxercise References Chapter Il: Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant Introduction ‘Autonomous Reason, Goodwill, and Duty Obligation is Understood 1s "Man as an End in Himself/Hergelt,” ‘Autonomous, and Universalizable Kantian Ethics and Religion Conclusion Study Questions Exercise Referen ‘Chapter IV: Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill. Introductio “The Greatest Happiness Principle Replies to Objections To the objection that happiness is unattainalle To the objection thet Utilterian morality is incompatible with self-sacrifice ‘To the objection that social concern is rare motive for action. ‘The Ultimate Sanction 4s 45 a7 si 2e8 s4eeg Ses or or n 80 al 82 ene aml Conclusion ai 8 Study Questions . «gba 36 Exercises boat dg o.opaed®) areal) 87 Reference . sibel sie A5 Chapter V: Asian Ethical Traditions .............88 Introduction an 88 ‘The Vedas and Upanishads ‘ Dy Buddhism “ 4 Chinese Philosophy and Confucian this UNV ver 08 Conclusion “ 102 Study Questions 4 news = 108 Exercises 2108 References 1 42104 Chapter VI Discourse Ethics... . sess 106 Introduction 106 Competing Conceptions of the Good 110 “Legislating” for Autonomous, Rational Beings 13, Shared Opinion and Will Formation +19 Conclusion 135, Study Questions 16 Exercise . 17 References a CL vemna PART Il: SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS . 129 Introduction : 190 ‘Chapter Vit: Environmental Ethics 132 Introduetio 132 ‘Various Approaches to Environmental Ethies 135 Peter Singer and Tom Regan ‘on the Ethical Trentment of Animals 135‘Chapter X: Biomedical Ethics... -.. 192 Introduction aul Taylor and Biocentrism ae 138 : -. a Aldo Leopold's Land Ethie - 2140 By Perscnalst Biomedical Care 193 ‘imate Change and Sustainable Development. «142 BY, Exhics of “Prenatal Personhood” 193 ‘Kohék and the Human Being as Dweller soit Ectopic Pregnancy and the Principle of Double Effect . . 195 Gpetabon 09 psi ; ug Cail Besring Enhancement, ‘Study Questions: . . 150 SelFImprovement, sted General Well-being 197 asl Extraordinary Means, Euthanasia, yaaa 3. 6 ” and the Significance of a Meee ‘Will ey sae fl dae References - 151 ‘Goalies a 9 Chapter Vi: Business Ethics «ev ee veer ee 152 Study Questions i a Introduction . 152 Exercise ot thi Fo Normative Theories of Business Ethics 155 References is The Stacthotier Theory « 2186 conciuelio wanaines. ied The Stakeholder Theory... = + « oust ‘The Social Contract Theory 159 ual (207 Reidenbech and Robin's Conceptual Model ‘THE AUTHORS of Corporate Moral Development 161 The Stages of Organizational Morel Development. . 103 ‘Conclusion . 167 Study Questions 168 Exercises i 109 References 109 ‘Chapter IX: The Question of Women tend their Emancipation .....e e022 e0eeeee e170 Introduction é coucrenaaat aI ‘Why Feminist Bthis? 113 Equality and Discrimination m7 How We Can Work Toward Emancipation... . . 182 Conclusion " 188 Study Questions 189 190 References 190Paul Toylor ond Biocentrism ‘Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic Climate Change and Sustainable Development ‘Kobk and the Human Being as Dweller Conclusion Study Questions Exercises References CChopter Vi Business Ethies 2... Introduction Normative Theores of Busnes Ethie ‘The Stockholder Theory ‘The Stakeholder Theory ‘The Social Contract Theory Reidenbach and Robin's Conceptual Model of Corporate Moral Development ‘The Stages of Organizational Moral Development ‘Conclusio Study Questions Exercises. References Chapter IX: The Question of Women ‘and their Emancipation . . .- « Introduction ‘Why Feminist Ethics? Equality and Discrimination . . - How We Can Work Toward Emancipation Conclusion Study Questions Exercise. References 2138 140 ua a4 us 150 150 “151 152 152 2155 155, 137 159 161 163 167 168, 169 169 170 170 a3 iw 182 188 189) 190 190 Chapter X: Biomedical Ethics Introduction Personalist Biomedical Care Ethics of “Prenatal Persoubood” . . Ectopic Pregnancy and the Principle of Double Etfect Child-Bearing Enhancements, Self-Improvement, and General Well-being. Extraordinary Means, Buthanasia, ‘and the Significance of a Living Will Conclusion Study Questions. Bxercise References CONCLUDING REMARKS INDEX. THE AUTHORS 192 192 193, 193, 195, 197 199 201 202 208 208 205 207PREFACE This is a course about being human. It is a reflection fon what it means to exist as a person, who is rational. and free and seeks to do the good. Its aim isto help each student lunderstand the implications of human freedom and the basis for acting in a way that recognizes and honors that freedom, However, in order to truly understand what it means to live as a free human being, the various conceptions of the good ‘where actions are based should be explored. ‘This means engaging in a dialogue with certain philosophers and studying the philosophical traditions, Thus, ths text will give a guided tour of some of the most important and often used theories of ethical reflection, showing that different people from different ‘traditions understand ethical human behavior differently, that present conceptions of ethical behavior developed over time ‘and built upon other traditions, and that an awareness of the various traditions gives a person a broader perspective of creative and insightful human bebavior. Although the authors make a stand that the good is not arbitrary, they recognize ‘that in any society, competing and evolving conceptions of the {good exist. I is hoped that this course wil guide the students in their quest for understanding authentic human behavior and live it ‘There are two major sections in this work ‘The first Section discusses the different academic traditions based fu the theories of major philosophers. In the Philippines ‘and most Western influenced scademic institutions, the Standard philosophers considered aa basis for ethical thinking fre Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kent, and the Usilitarian philosophers. Depending on the preference of the teacher, Asian traditions, such as the Confucian and Buddhist ‘traditions, are also discussed. ‘The fist part reviews these‘theories to acquaint the students with various disciplined reflections on how to articulate the basis of the good and bow to discern the reasonability and ethical viability of some actions, Bach of these philosophers gives very carefully reasoned ground for living as an ethical being that is worth studying and conskering for one's own discernment. ‘The second part covers particular areas of ethical ‘thinking that have arisen in the last century. Among these ‘re feminism, ecology, and business and medical ethics ‘They emerged in the 20th century from the developments of modern society brought about by new social forms and technologies, as well as economic systems and forms of life that have challenged the traditional ethical systems to focus ‘on the particular questions they are faced with and apply and broaden the traditional frameworks. The course takes a quick survey of these and indicate how students can embark on these questions and their resources for deeper reflection ‘The authors hope that this will be « genuinely useful guide for studenta to think about the complex question ff what it means to be good and what it means to live as fgocd persons. The question has become more complex as wwe discover new ways of being human. And thus, we are presenting here some examples of how people have tried to come up with the student's own guide to living a good, human life, We present these discussions of earlier thinkers Decanse they were able to think these questions through in a vray that is both profound and useful to our lives. We hope ft the students wie this opportunity to reflect along. with the thinkers and not simply memorize what they have said. General Introductio The Study of Ethics and Cultural Conceptions of the Good Why is there a need to study ethics at all as a subject in college? Clearly, only a few, if there are any at all, of the students in this course are philosophy majors and are Interested in philosophical questions academically. In fact, ‘most students in an ethics course probably think that such endeavor is a waste of time and distracts them from their ‘major. Why thon is it important to take a course in ethics? Does not everyone already have a sense of what is good and bad behavior? Does not everyone have an instinct about what ‘one ought to do, and what one's duties are? Why is there a ‘eed to spend time thinking about what is alrsdy inherent in everyone's mind? Firstly, it is true that thete are traditions that guide ‘one’s actions. It is impossible for anyone not to have growin up with some sense of good. and evil, proper and improper, the ought and ought not. People mostly think that they know exactly their basis of the good and that it is reasonable. However, a person's understanding of the good hardly ever ‘goes unquestioned, especially in today's world. Devoting one's life to one’s parents’ noeds seems perfoctly logical until one's ‘wife, who grew up in a differont tradition, questions it, The contractualization of labor for greater profit seems the most ‘easonablo courae of netion until one encounters the sufferings ‘of people who have to face the end of their contracts every five months. The subtle harassment of women, such as ogling fand throwing lewd jokes, seems harmless until a woman files a case agaiPeople like to think that their traditions are already clear and unquestionable to serve as basis for how they should act. ‘This is becouse people grow up with traditions. Traditions fon part of entre, Culture ie a system of codes that gives the world meaning and shapes the behavior of people. Tt also determines proper behavior, This includes what we eat, and how we prepare food, how we talk and what language we tise, what we make and how we make and utilize things, how ‘we understand the meaning of life and death, and how we recognize the ultimate meaning of life. Culture is our code that shapes how we understand, what life is worth living, and what it means to be human. ‘These are some of the ways culture shapes the way people act. In the province of Pampanga, penitents line the streets during Holy Week to whip themselves. For them, it is a way to participate in Christ's sacrifice and by doing so, they cleanse themselves of their sins and are spared from punishment. Mostly, people who engage in these practices ftome from the more traditional communities influenced, by Spanis-style Catholicisin and the so-called animistic world view. Other Catholics who are educated in more Westerized ‘modern systems, do not feel the need to engage in such practices and even judge the flagellants as “backward” However, the flagellation ie perfectly natural and acceptable to those who practice it because in their culture, flagellation is @ way to participate in Christ's existence and, in a way, ‘participote in His being and power. In come cultures, engaging in sexual activities. for excitement and fun is amoral. Sexual partners may not flways have serious relationship with each other and merely “hook-up” for fun, and thet is perfectly acceptable fas long as contraceptives are used and partners protect themselves against diseases. Thus, the meaning of sexual activity in these cultures i not necessarily connected to Generac intRoouerion Jove and procreation,’ lineage’ propagation, and property ‘tansmission. In other cultures, which are more agricultural ot where the transmission of property is Important, perhaps sex ‘88 leisure activity is less acceptable, Also, in cultures where ‘monogamy js associated with romantic love and personal Flourishing, sex is often related to committed relationships, although not always to marriage. Among these people, their system of meanings coded by their culture shapes how they understand sex and acceptable sexual behavior, Some people cannot even conceive of sex as a leisure activity because in their cultuge, the idea or set of behaviors related to it doos ot exist, The experience of sex as fun is not even a real ‘experience for them because itis not part of the experiences ‘that their culture provides. Wi ating ie acter Kind of beat sexually avernine, in some cltares where the sats of Wore ie that of property oe sghy-entvalicderoue of the Importance of eagle eytomery that ramen sccept their aban’ athe, rob othe wily and sre ll thie need‘, women can be fred to ove sot with their hosbands Women accept the fact that they ennnot Inova pble without a male chaperone, that they canst nn el estate a nv hey cnn evel tt 9 Male fly members prio, a they cant bento fo Whatever eo ts husbands de right without rere to aty el Tn other cultures whure women's happoee fd fue ace vale above those of the clan or the fomuunity, al of the aforementoned cts ate considered lees, vision obs gs and ene, People fom Eater wove women are ote “berated eaunet begin to Understand tow women of the now-“nateeuars sept tech abe. But becase the culture afte nowlberata™ Women shae thir prsapios of the raonhipe erween When and women, thir rights and tog, and tht ngsGenenat IntRooUCTION regarding the “strictness” oftheir husbands, it is possible thet they do not feel abused or violated, Tt ean, therefore, be noted that the conception of the good is shaped by culture as i is the very basic eystem of codes that shapes human behavior. This could be dangerous in a way because not all cultures and their conception of the good reflect the good or what ought to be. Some cultures can be Aestructive to human beings. Por instance, some cultures tend to encourage war and eclonial plunder. Others encourage overconsumption and exploitation of the poor for profit cause of these people's cultures, they are orlented toward violent behavior and do not even realize that they do violence toward their neighbors. Most corrupt government officials do ‘ot think that they are doing harm because they were formed in a culture where self-interest allows for the violation of rules ‘of governance and the common good. Thus, one cannot rely solely on one’s culture to come to # genuine understanding of the good. There is always the possbility that one’s cultural conception of the good can lead to destructiveness and violence. ‘Bat whose conception of the good is “the good"? Usually, the good is defined by @ dominant system or group. The food is defined by what has worked for people to flourish, People value cooperation over conflict because it makes human survival easier, People value arranged marriages to build alliances. ‘Thus, what people usually believe to be the ood is usually what is useful and effective for survival and Flourishing, Rut people aze aot only concerned about the ‘useful and effective. People also seek to realize what they ‘consider to be ethical acts thot load to human flourishing. How does one know what is actually the good that genuinely leads to human flourishing? Thus, the discipline of ethics is Important because i provides people with a basis upon which to discern their own accepted ethical systems and a basis for Droadening their own conceptions ofthe good. Genenat intRoducTion What is Ethics? What do people think about when they think ethically? What is the experience on which ethical reflection is rounded? Tt is grounded on the experience of free persons trio have to actin difficulsituations, Te developed from the Teality that when people act, they do not merely need to Ino the best way to realize something bt there nee times ‘when they nowd to act im way that realizes the good, And {he gol doesnot always man the est. or most expedient vray Ethical norms and the question of good and evil aise Iihen pele need to act as fre persons. Bt not all actions fe inerentlyethieal Actions only require ethical reflection then they are free acts that involve a person's desire to reali the oo Question of tho good are not questions of practicality questions of raliing one desired end. They are questions that refer to a person's freedom and ability to live socrding to what he/she conser to be Un god. In diferent ages of Ihuman civilizations, the particular norms ofthe good have taken on diferent forme. However, at eart, these norms xpress the human realization that fee action is defined by fon ought that is not mensured by how practical results are Achieved but by how human beings at im way that reales their capacity to freely and creatively respond tothe oder ‘of thing: whether this order is grounded on a transcendent fonder or man reason. Ethical questions arise when baman Brings Intuit that their ations must authentically full heir frewdom in response to aground of autbetic human esters ating and breathing are not usualy thonght bout a ethical or unethical, Afr al these ave jst functions of the body. However, when eating is thought of in ration to Inman freedom, the ethical question comes in. For instance, tating could involve the eating of food proved by peopleGENERAL INTRODUCTION who ace exploited. They are not paid a living wage so that the factory owners earn more, On top of that, they source thelr raw materials by polluting the waters of a community, “Whoover eats thet product participates in the exploitation land desiruction becaise buying the food supports the activity of the manufacturer. In this ease, eating becomes an ethieal ‘question because although eating isa bodily function, esting this exploitatively produced food is 4 free choice. And it fntails the human capacity to choose what makes one good It also reveals how human beings have a choice to act in a creative oF destructive way toward others. Certainly, eating fanned fish could be an easy and inexpensive way to get trition, but it cau also be unethical ‘Thus, ethics has something to do with realizing the fullest potential as free persons acting in the world and doing right for others. It is not about being efficient or achieving goals. It is about realizing what people intuit to be the good. Human beings intuit that life is not just about existing or survival, ‘and human actions are not just about expedieney. Somehow, human beings sense that there is this thing they eall the good which they are bound to realize to genuinely be human and to build better societies. ‘This course explores how philosophers have tried. to ‘explain this mysterious intuition of the goad and what they understood were the paths to realizing a life lived according to the good. HMM The Moral Act Human beings are complex beings. Unlike other organisms ‘that aze simply driven by the survival instinct, muman beings experience the world in a variety of ways through # variety of perceptive capacities. Bacteria are driven solely to replicate themselves; plants seek only nourishment and growth, snd animals seek to address their hunger and reproduce themselves. Apart from our rational capacity which allows us to reckon realty with imaginative and caleulative lenses, our feolings also play a crucial part in determining the way we navigate through various situations that we experience. We Alo not simply know the world and others; wo also fool thir ‘existonce and their value, ‘We are pleased when others compliment us fora job well done, We got angry when we are accused of a wrongdoing swe did not do, We become afraid when we are threatened by someose, and we feel anguish and despair in moments of seemingly insurmountable hardship. Mast of the time, we fact based on how we feel. Tis is something we share with fanimals to a certain degree. We seek food when we are hungry and we wish for companionship when we are lonely. However, unlike animals that are instinctively programmed to act in accordance with how they feel, we have the capacity to reflexively examine a situation before proceeding to act with respect to how we feel. In other words, although felings provide us with an initial reckoning of a situation, they should not be the sole basis for our motives and actions A person who is in a state of rage towards a perceived enemy or competitor is likely unable to process the possible consequences of his/her actions done impulsively. Feelings feck immediate fulfilment, and it Is our reason that tempers these compulsions. Feelings without reason are blind. Reason tets the course for making ethical and impartial decisions especially in moral situations although it is not the sole determining factor in coming up with such decisions. Reason, and. feelings must. constructively complement. each other Whenever we aie making choices. Whe feelings such 0s anger, jealousy, and shame are out of contro, hence without the proper guidance of reason, one's moral capacities become short-sighted and limited. Reason puts these emotions in their proper places seeking not to discredit their vaidity butGeneRaL InTRODUCTION calibrating them in such a way that they do not become the primary motive in making moral decisions However, it must be noted that reason in and by itself is also not’ sufficient instrument in assessing moral situations. Reason can sometimes be blinded in implementing and following its own strict rules that it becomes incapable fof empathy for the other. While it is morally wrong for someone to steal food ont of hunger, to panish a person for doing it without even trying to listen to his/her reasons for committing such an act may be considered cold and «i ‘That is not to say that the act is deemed right after one finds out why someone stole. It is then viewed as a complex ‘act, connected to a web of various circumstantial factors and motives, A person's act of stealing may, in fact, appear to be ‘8 symptom of a greater injustice in one's society prompting ‘one to do good not by simply punishing an immoral act but by proactively seeking justice for the disadvantaged people ‘who are pushed by poverty and societal injustice to feod themselves by stealing. In other words, reason, while reliable ‘ground for moral judgment, neods the feoling of empathy to ‘came up not just with a moral but also a just decision, ‘Moral situations often involve not just one but others 1s well. Our decisions have consequences and these have an effect on others. Matters of moral import need to be analyzed with a perspective that takes the welfare and feelings of others into consideration. What is good for one may not be 00d for others. For example, if jocpnay driver think it ie only right for him to get as many passengers as he can in order to address the needs of his family of by breaking a few traffic rules that to his mind harms nobody (be does not run anyone over or he does not bump other vehicles on the road), his reasoning, may ‘be construed a8 narrow and selfish. The inconvenience and stress he causes other drivers by picking up and dropping off pessengers anywhere and anytime he pleases actually barms| ‘others more than he thinks, Some people may come late for ‘work and get fired because of this habit. Some drivers may {el too much stress which endangers their ives and this has ‘an effect on the people that depend on them. In other words, if one’s roasoning does not consider the interests of people that are affocted by his/bor actions, thon ho/she is actually being prejudicial to his/her own interests, Saying that the actions do not harm anybody is not a sufficient moral justification until one actually takes into rational account the effects of the actions on others, Simply put, morality involves impartiality because it ensures that all interests fare accounted for, weighed rationally, and assessed without prejudice. Prejudices make decisions impartial. Reason recognizes not only the good of oneself but also the good of others. One way of ensuring the rationality and impartiality of ‘moral decisions is to fllow tho soven-step moral reasoning model. These steps can servo as a guide in making choices of moral import. 1, Stop and think Before making any decisions, it Is best to take a moment to think about the situation itself, your place init, and otber surrounding factors ‘which merit consideration, such as the people involved and the potential effects of your decisions on them. ‘This involves a step-back from the situation to make sure that you do not act out of impulse. 2. Clarify. gale. Ib in aleaocpeinny, to elecly) your short-term and long-term aims. One often decides on the basis of what he/she wants to accomplish Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, short- erm wants eclipse long-term goals. Thus, you ‘must determine if you are willing to sacrifice more ‘important life goals to achieve your short-term goal.1 yon, for example, ate seaking retribution for harm asd by another person, you have to think abot the Jong-erm consequence of revenge on your characex in he long ran Determine’ theta. Make suze youl gather enough information before you mak a cies. An intelligent ‘oie is one that is supported by verified facts. You rot fist mike sur that what you know i nou to toerit action. Without verifying facts, you may regret your choice in the futire once varions aspects of the Sitution come t light. Never make a choice on the Isis of henry. Make sure your sources are credible ad hove iter Develop. options. Once you are clear in terms of your gonls and facto ty to come up with alternative {tions to exhaust all posible couse of action. Most of the tine, the pressure of « situation may make ‘yo fc} you have less options than you think. Cleat Your mind and ty to think of other creative waysof lsifping your metives and implementing yt actions vith the lout ethira compromise Consider consequences. Filter your choices and separate the ethical from the unethical choices bearing in mind both your motives and the potent consequences of your action. ‘Think of long-term consequences and act in accordance with the principles of justice end fairness. Consequences are Lhbrical rulities that bear pon the liver of others, ‘A decision turns something in your mind into reality Make sure you do not regret the decision you have ‘conferred reality upoa, Choose. Make a decision. If the choice is hard to ‘make, try consulting others who may have knowledge or experience of your situation. Find pooplo with a 0 Genenat inroovetion virtuous character and compare your reasoning with your moral analysis: Once you make up your mind, ‘summon the will to do the right thing even if itis har, and seemingly counter-inuitive 7. Monitor and modify. Monitor what happens after your decision nd have enough humility to-modify your action or behavior as necessary: Pride may get in the way of admitting that you might have’ not thought out a decision wall enough. As you become ‘mote aware of the consequences of your actions, ‘especially on the lives of others, summon the strength fand determination to make changes to rectify any shortcomings. Do not besitate to revise your decisions in light of new developments in the situation. ‘These seven steps can help you ensure that you do not take moral decisions lightly. They shed light on the various aspects of moral situations that you have to Consider before ‘making a decision, An important element though, is your will to commit to an action based on moral principles. You must hhave the necessary resolve to put your cholee in motion after 1 long process of deliberation. Goodwill, though sufficient as 1 ground for morality accarding to some philosophers such as Tmmannel Kant, mast nevertheless be enacted and applied to ‘ale a difference in the world of practical moral affairs, ‘While feetings and reason set up the theoretical basis for ‘moral action, itis the will which implements your decision tand projects your motives into reality. It 1s not enough to want to do the good, you must actually do it, not only for ‘your sake but for the benefit of those that may bear the ‘consequences of your decision. To a great extent, you lowe it to others to do the right thing. It shows how much you respect them that you cannot allow yourself to not do something that may benefit them. It ia only by habituating yourself to doing good that your will becomos used toGENERAL INTRODUCTION propelling your decisions into actions. The will is like a ‘muscle that you must constantly exercise in order to develop and strengthen, ‘Moral courage isthe result of a morally developed will. t is the capocity to initiate and sustain your resolve whenever you are certain of doing the good. Many factors ean derail you from consistently standing by your moral principles, such ‘as intimidation from othors, but remember that a person fof moral courage is not afraid to stand his/her ground in tatters that involve doing what is right and just. Moral courage is what some of our heroes displayed in the face of dictators and colonizers, Moral courage is & kind of virtue that enables one to be ethical not just in thought but, more importantly, in deed. WM From the Act to the Person Focusing exclusively on human ects is limited. Contemporary ethicists point to the importance of “personhood.” It is the human being himself/herself who tives meaning aid receives signifieance from the ats that he/ she executes, While human acts and personhood are always bound together and even inseparable, the primacy of the person cannot be contested, Human acts are only human insofar as there is this center of identity and integrity that ‘grounds them. Human acts are particular actions that flow from the personhood of the human being, ‘Human acts, in turn, determine the realty of the person. ‘Though personhood rather than particular acts isthe deeper reality, the significance of the latter eannot be overlooked Hluman beings a8 doers of moral acts are responsible not only for what they do but for the persoas they grow into through their moral acts. Human acts are relevant to the kind of GENERAL INTRODUCTION ‘person one becomes. It is personhood that gives sctions significance. Particular moral actions shape the “person” that ‘one desires. It is, therefore, not only “good moral actions” ‘that are important for ethics, Asking students about “the ‘kind of person” they want to become is more meaningful and significant in such a study. Students of ethics tend to think of other people as victims ‘of e wrong decision or bad actions of a particular moral agent. It should be noted, however, that in the relationship between personhood and moral actions, as previously mentioned, ‘the moral’ agent himself/herself isthe first victim of a bad decision or a wrong ection. However, the depth of personhood cannot be fully bjectfied and always escapes conceptualization. Kant insists fon this mysterious center that is in the human person that hae refuses to say that the person is inherently evil. For Kant, the human person's inexhaustible ability to always change for the better is a source of surprte even for the moral agent. No ‘matter how much # human person is conditioned by culture land environment, there is within that person a source for change and a turning towards the good, This is confirmed by the conversions and even cultural revolutions that happen in human history.PART I The Academic Ethical TraditionsPART i: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Introduction Gawi and Gawa and Habituation In Filipino, the words gawi and gawa can give a sense of what philosophers mean by ethical action. Filipinos distinguish between thoughtless, instinctive mannerisms ‘and reflexes from gawa (action) and gowi (inclination). In reflecting on how Filipinos use these words, one can understand that human actions are different from mere bodily movements Freedom figures closely into action and inclination, Freedom here means not only the ability to act free from outside influences or the independence from the impediments to one’s wishes. It is the willful act and decision that give form and shape to the setions and inclinations of people. This freedom is oriented toward the wherefore, the what for, and the whom far ofthe doings of people ‘Theso are the common aspects of human action that Filipinos understand as action and inclination: that free Jnuman acts are governed by reflection and are freely decided such that they are not determined by internal or external forces However, gawi and gawe are not identical. Gawa refers to the free action that is oriented toward a particular end. For example, a worker uses his/her free imagination and will to boring about services and products that contribute to the well- being of society, As one governed by free decision making, the ereative worker embraces all the information he/she can gather to effectively realize his/her purpose. A process of discernment ‘accompanies the creative work, The carpenter, for instance, ‘must leara many details about wood: its feel, its hardness land pliabilty, as well ag its strength, He/She should know bout the qualities that will help him/her accomplish the tase st hand very well. Part of this knowledge is the knowledge shout the body’s movement in accomplishing this work. The ‘carpenter should study how heavy ot light the hand should ‘move over certain kinds of wood, what tools to apply so that the wood yields the best piece: a stool, table, or te wheel of cart ‘The wort gawi also refers to a free kind of work. However, instead of focusing on particular end like « product or fulfillment, gawi refers to the kind of acts that people are ‘used to actomplishing. Gawi does not only refer to particular ‘cts of a person. A person's kagawian of habitual action reveals truth about himself/herself. While the beautiful table ‘and the intricately designed chair are products of a carpenter ‘that has gotten used to being one, in his kagewian, he reveals himself/erself as a good or a bad person. A worker ‘who produces for the society is judged skilled or unskilled. ‘But a person is judged good oF evi, right or wrong, based on agawian or habituation. Kagawian i the Fiipino equivalent of ethos in Greek and mos or moris in Latin Ethics and Ethos ‘The term ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which ‘means custom, a charactoristic, or habitual way of doing ‘things, or action that is propery derived from one's character. ‘The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores) from ‘which the’ jective moral la derived is equivalent to othe, From a purely etymological point of view, ethical and moral are, therefore, synonymous. Also, restricted to such rootword Considerations, ethics and morality may only be “simple description of the mores or ways of behaving, whether of the fmman person in general or ofa particular population.” 1 soems then that as a field of study, ethics need not bePART THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS “normative” in guiding human action and itis even seemingly imperative to preserve an attitude of neutrality that excludes all judgments of vale, Btymologially ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior that is done by the human being in general ora society in particular Looking closely, however, knman action ought to be understood clearly in very strict sense. As considered above, ‘human action has to do with human movements that are ruled by one’s freedom. Given that freedom is not only the independence from what could hinder but also a consideration ‘of the goal of the aetion, ethics cannot be limited to pure description. Since goals are inherently directional, they imply ormativity, Tn the same manner that gawsfor the Filipino is difforent from gawa, Aristotle differentiates between human actions that are “praxis” and “to poiein.” What is important for the Jhaman agent who engages in “to ‘gowa for Aristotle, is to successfully complete a particular work be it ar ‘oF technical: that the tabletop is smooth, the carvings are precise, and the chairs lege are balanced. ‘The human person himself/herself is significant only in considering the result in matters of “to poiein” or gewa. Ethies, on the other hand, not only has such “normative” considerations as to the end product of the actions. Ethics, as concerned with “praxis” for Aristotle, properly focuses on the human agent that is rovealed through his/her actions. Ethics is normative with regard to its being m practical sekeew. I¢ dues wot only limit iaelf to the description of human actions but also aims to guide them, Students who study ethies are not to stop at the pure description of human mores but are ushered into a disciplined science that guides them in judging and rectifying human patterns of behavior. Ethies proposes guidelines, ‘considerations, and norms to provide advice and rules so that the may of right living and its practice are clarified If kagaswian isthe Filipino equivalent of the Greek ethos ‘and the Latin mor/moris, gawa is “to poiein” and gawi is “praxis". Ethie for Filipino students ie philosophy of human action that allows them to learn the art of living. It is an art that enables them to be reconciled with their freedom and ‘that which is expected of them (by others and themselves) ‘Thus, ethies is a way for them to find happiness. Ethics also considers that which is worthy of « human being. ‘This'means that living ightly ia not only’ about searching for happiness but living as one ought to live as a Inuman being. In living rightly, one receives contentment fand approval both from othors and himself/herself, and in living wrongly, he/she deserves blame (from others and from himself/herself). Such an ethies not only serves as a path to hhappiness but also reaches out in fullness of reflection for that ‘action which is an obligation for a human being. The gravity ‘of such an ethical consideration is given yoie in the Filipino saying, madaling maging tao, mmakirep magpakatan. ‘The effort in living rightly, though task, need not exclude the promise of the gift of happiness. There is no reason to presuppose why a life that ia consistent with ‘what the human person ought to do should not being him/ hher happiness. The Filipino student is, therefore, invited to ‘outgrow kung saan ka masaya suportahan hita and get to oa dapat mong gawin talaga kang sasaya: Plato's Insight Into the Good ‘An academic introduction to'the discipline of ethies is incomplete without reference to Plato [427-847 BCE]. Even the word “academic” itself harks back to academia, the Institution of leaning established by Plato forthe training of his followers who later will be called philosophers, lovers of wisdom. Ethics, being a discipline of study in universities thatPant |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS {all under the umbrella of philosophy, can also trace its roots ‘back to Plato atthe systematic thinker who grappled with the ‘question of that which is good, ‘The context of the life of Plato is not totally unfamiliar ‘with students of today. Athens and Greece went through ‘an expansion of trade around 600 BCE. This global” ‘awakening on the part of Grecks like Plato plunged him to ‘an experience of social, political, and intellectual challenge. Given the exchange of different experiences between Greece ‘and its neighboring countries around the Mediterranean Sea, Plato was interrogated by different points of view. Plato and the students of today share this “global” challenge; it leads to questions of truth and inquiry into what is good. Given this pluralism of perspectives, is it valid to ask “what is truly good?” ‘A serious claim faced by Plato was given voice by © thinker named Protagoras [4817-4117 BCE] who said that “man is the measure ofall things.” The implications of such ‘8 claim sit well with those who easly let go of the validity of traditional mores and ethos to arrive at a conclusion that is relativistic, This easy relaiviam holds that man, being the ‘measure ofall things, ean only hold on to beliefs and truths ‘that are for himself/herself or his/her society only. It denies ‘the possibility of ever arriving at truth Wat cau be shared by all. Man, as the measure ofall things, came to be understood ‘simplstically based on the concept that “to each his own.” Socrates [470-809 BCE], on the other hand, taught Plato about the difficulty of coming to a knowledge of the truth. This difficulty, however, did not mean impossibility for Socrates, He instilled this rigorous questioning to his students ‘and did not shy away fom interrogating even the traditional leaders of Athens. This resulted in his death in 399 BCE on charges of impiety and of mislosding the youth with his ideas. Socrates, however, is immortalized in the writings of Plato as 20 the intelligent and courageous teacher who leads his hearers nearer to the truth in the same way that midwives help in the birthing process of a child. ‘This confrontation between Socratic inquiry and easy lack of thought is portrayed in the allegory of the cave that is ound in Plato's The Republic. Glaucon’s story in the dialogue best introduces the allegory that is told by Socrates, These two stories are ‘ceasioned by the question about the good and the task of the ‘human person to inguire about it. Glaucon proposes the story of Gynos' ring (The Republic, Book I, 359-360) ‘According to Glaucon, a terrible earthquake Inter resulted Jn a break in the land snd the finding of a metallic horse that contained a skeleton. A ring was sald to be worn by that skeleton, The man who found the skeleton then took the ring ‘and found out that it had the power to render him invisible A simple inward turn would make the wearer imperceptible to others and another turn outwards would allow others to see im again. Free from the fear of shame and capture, Glacon concludes his story by saying that the man who found the ing would eventually become evil Glaucon's point about the good may not be as crude as the simple claim that each one is left to determine the good for himself/herself. It is nonetheless sinister in its simplistic presentation of the relationship between the human person fand that which is claimed as good. Glaucon distuisses the topic of the good altogether and proposes to explain the ‘man persons’ ethical actions at the result of fear It simply is the evasion of shame, incarceration, or retaliation that spells itslf out in “good behavicr” of mai in society Responding to Glaucon's story, Plato, through the character of Socrates, later proposed the “Allegory of the Cave” (The Republic, Book VII, 5148-5208). A group ofPant i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘people are said to have lived chained facing a wall where shadows are projected from the objects passing before a fire behind them. The shadows are thought of by these people fas the most real things. Once, a man is dragged out of the cave and made to sce reality as itis enlightened by the sun. ‘The freed man has to accustom his eyes first to.things as illuminated at night, then sees what is iuminated during the ay as reflected on small pockets of water. He lator on sees ‘the sun itself as the source of light that gives definition to reality, Having perceived true reality iGelfas enlightened by ‘the sun, the man then ventures to go back to the cave to free the other prisoners. They, however, resist him, choosing to recognize the reality they are accustomed to, The man who knows the truth ends up erucfied with burt eves. Pato then has Socrates explain to Glaucon that the sun represents the good. Once it is seen and recognized by any ‘mas who las gone beyond the shadowe, that good is followed ‘and lived even at the cost of one's life. This, of course, is 2 direct negation of Glaucon's aforementioned claim that the factions of humans are only directed by the avoidance of shame or retribution. Plato directs humanity to the nobility that is reachable through the knowledge of the good. His confidence in knowing the good as acting upon It reaches out to every age that grapples with the question of what is proper ‘human aetion. ‘This confidence in the human person's ability to know the good and act in accordance with it started the academic history of ethics. Plato's claim is, however, not only made in the past as they are recorded in dated documents that survived history. Plato continues to address us today and his voice builds confidence in oar own ability to know the good and ct ethically. Bach age, however, has a patilcular way of interrogating. Plato's assertions and furthor give) nuance to. what is known and how to act. Thinkers who come after him, for ‘example, will challenge a necessity that seems to have been 0 confidently lodged between knowledge and action. Does Jnowing the good automatically lead to acting on it? The ‘wonderful thing about a course in ethics is that the voices of thinkers who spent time researching such questions re still ear! and understood up to our present time and to challenge ‘what we know about the good and haw we act pursuant to itCHAPTER! Virtue Ethics: Aristotle Learning Outcomes ‘At the end ofthis chapter, you should be able to: 1, recognize the meaning, of eudaimonia or happiness tnd its relation to ethics; 2. differentiate the parts of the soul in relation to thele respective functions; 4. appreciate and articulate the role of virtue in crafting fan eta is 4. determine the role of habit in the formation of a virtuous character; and 5. articulate the difference between philosophical Jnowledge and practical wisdom, HEE introduction People are often most remembered by their most significant character traits, These traits are the product of ‘consistent display of a particular behavior. Some people fare known to be courageous, some as quick-witted, while others are remembered for their diligence and work ethic. To ‘certain extent, a person is defined (at least in the minds of others) by what he/she does and how he/she lives his/her life. On one hand, character traits such as thoughtfulness, temperance, and’ respectfulness are often seen in a positive light. On the other hand, cowardice, laziness, and shamelessness are generally frowned upon by most. One who consistently exhibits certain behavior in various situations fins o peculiar identity that somchow determines how others ‘perceive him/her as a person. For example, people associate the nickname Bertong ‘Tigasin (Bert “the formidable”) to a. ‘person who has consistently displayed strength and grit in ‘character Wo build our characters through how we make choices {in different situations we face in our lives. In meeting and speaking to different people, facing vacious problems, and Ihandling different day-to-day tasks, we develop a certain way of being, a unique style of being « person. Through the constant ifteraction of thought and action as prompted by ‘various situations that cal for one's decision, a person comes ‘to know himself/herself as a certain type of character or personality. Being a certain way or having a particular personality, ‘implies a certain understanding of the good. Personality or character is an approach or a way of reckoning the different situations that one faces in his/her lifo—e way of navigating ‘one's way towards his/her flourishing a8 a human person, Character is not merely a theoretical construct but product of action in the world—a constant doing or way of being ‘that is made apparent by the possession and actualization of particular virtues or vices. In one’s journey towards self-realization and self flourishing, there is an implied necessity to understand ‘what ho/she is actually aiming for in his/her life, In aiming for a goal, the person must also first understand what he/ she actualy is and is potentially capable of. Seactualization is not attained through theory but by practice: character is ' product of practice. But what does it actually mean for ‘8 human person to flourish? What doce it mean for one to achieve his/her goal? What is the goal of our existence as Jnuman beings and what doos character have to do with?PART i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘The Greek philosopher Aristotle (884-322 B.C] wrote his Nicomachean Bthice with these questions in mind. As one of Plato's most prolific students, he shares with his teacher the fundamental assumption that what radically distinguishes the ‘human person from other forms of being is his/her possession of reason (logos). For both of these thinkers, the ultimate purpose cannot be fully understood without understanding the place of reason in ordering one's life. However, if Plato firmly believes that ignorance is solely responsible. for 26 (ChaPréR |: VinTUE Erica: ARISTOTLE ‘committing immoral acts, thinking that ence one truly knows the good, one will inevitably do the good, Aristotle believes otherwise. Aristotle considers that morality is not merely a ‘matter of knowing the good but actually doing or practicing ‘the good habitually. We become what we are by what we do and not merely by what we know. For him, we ean only fully Actualize our potential as human beings once we understand ‘what being human essentially aims to and do the necessary things to fulfill our fanetion (ergon) in the most excellent way possible Aristotle raises significant issues forthe study of ethics Important questions regarding what is good or bad for the human person with respect to his ultimate goal of being fulfilled are raised. He elaborates Une coodiions pom wick SelE-realization becomes practically attainable goal. His fthies is grounded in the formation of one's character-—a ‘way of being and living in harmony’ with the hutnan person's Droper end. Just as he believes that orher things have 2 specific function and end, for instance, a pair of scissors, ‘whose function and end is to eut things, Aristotle also believes that such a purpose also exists for human beings. To full this function in the most excellent way possible is to live ethically, that is, to achieve a way of flourishing sulted tous. HBB Ethics as the Art of Living Well Eudaimonia Aristotle assumes that any activity, practical or theoretical, aims towards some end or good. He gives the following examples to elucidate this proposition: health for the practice of medicine, ship for shipbuilding, and victory for generalship in war, among others. However, these endsPART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS are still provisional goals to another goal. If, for instance, the practice of medicine aims to promote and maintain ‘health in society, can we not ask further why we want to be healthy? Does one seek health for its own sake or does one seek it perhaps because one would like to be able to fulfil one's duties as a parent well because one wants to raise good children? But what is the end goal of having good children? ‘Why does one want to have good children? Perhaps because fone cares enough for one's society that one does not want 10 contaminate it with useless citizens in the future, But why ‘does one value society this much? As one can see, almost all ends are not ends in themselves but mere conduits for a further or deeper end Aristotle i not simply interested in finding out the different ends or purposes for human life. He wants to find lout what our chief end is, He i interested in finding out, what all oar lives essentially and ultimately aim to. The chief good {or the human person must not be something one aims at for the sake of something els, It cannot be wealth, for wealth is merely a means for possessing things such as houses or cars. [Neither ean it be fame nor honor for they are just instruments for feeding one's egp, a servant of pride, Aristotle names the chief good for the human person as happiness or eudaimonia. For him, happiness is the self sufficient, final, and attainable goal of human life. It Is wel sufficient because to have it makos human life complete. It 1s final because it is desired for itself and not for the sake ‘of something elso, and itis attainable because, as shall be explained later, it is not a mere theoretical construct but something that one actually does practically, In his own, ‘words: | Happiness above all ssems to be of this character, for we always choose it on account of itself and never ‘on account of something else. Yet honor, pleasure, intellect, and every virtue we choose on their own ‘CHAPTER I: VIRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE | aaccount—for even if nothing resulted from them, we ‘would choose each of them-—but we choose them also {for the sake of happiness, because we suppose that, | ‘through them, we will be happy. But nobody chooses happiness for the sake of these things, or, more | generally, on account of anything ese. Budaimonia is sought for its own sike. All other ends, ‘such a5 health, wealth, and power, are sought because ‘they are perceived to be instrumental in one's flourishing. Budaimonia, as the proper end of man, is not some kind of inactive state but is actually something that ane does. For Aristotle, our chief good is not something we merely possess Tut something that we continually actualize (in practice), ‘According to him, “Budamonia is an activity of the soul {in accordance with virtue."? In addition, the chief good is fot achieved by one grand act or one big decision, for it is Something one constantly strivés fr. He says, “One swallow ddoes not make a spring nor does one day. And in this way, fone day or a short time does not make someone blessed ‘and happy either.” This implies that happiness is a lifelong factivity. One cannot be complacent in times of good fortune because happiness is more than one's fate—it Is something we Aecide to do for ourseives, Aristotle acknowledges the fact that it would not bust Ione were born into more favorable circumstances, sich as Deing brought up in a good family, having access to proper cedueati ‘the company of good friends, and being beautiful in physical appearance. These external goods Contribute to the attainment of one's happiness, but theyPART i: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS. do nok guarantee it. At the end of the day, happiness is still, something one does and not inerely who or where someone Is. Hence, some people ate rich but seemingly unfulfilled in their lives. Others ave good friends but have not cultivated ‘thes friendships enough to have ones friends hold a positive impact in ones life. Obviously, therefore, happiness is not mere self-indulgence or pleasure-secking for Avistotle, It denotes an activity that ‘essentially corresponds to the proper-nature of the buman being. At this point, i i erucial to understand how Aristotle ‘comprehends the nature of the human person so that the precise meaning of happiness may be explained. We must also investigate the meaning or virtue, for it is eontained it the definition of happiness, What is the human person for [Aristotle and what does his/her happiness entail as such? Secondly, what is the role of virtue in the achievement of ‘one's end? The Soul ‘Aristotle postulates that happiness is an activity of the soul. The obviows question is, of course, what. he means by ‘onl.” For him, the soul is the part of the human being that enimates the body. Body and soul are inseparable for Atistotle, but he emphasizes the role’of the soul more than that of the body in elucidating his ethies. The sou! is ‘composed of both rational and irational elements. ‘The rational part ofthe soul is divided into two parts te speculative (responsible for knowledge) and the practical (responsible for choice and action). The speculative part is ‘concerned with pure thought and is essentially the base of contemplation, while the practical intellect is in charge of faction and the practical determination of the proper means to attain specific end. (CHAPTER I: Vinrue Erwics: ARISTOTLE ‘The irrational part of the soul also has two parts—the ‘vogetative and the appatitve. ‘The vegetative part isin charge ‘of the nutrition and growth of the human being. This part ff the soul takes care of all the involuntary functions of ‘the body, from brosthing to digestion aud the like. Aristotle says that this part of the soul is not relevant in discussing Ihappiness or virtue. Since this is also found, in any other living boing, it ie not distinet to the human person. However, the appetitive part, according to him, shares in. the rational element in the soul. It cannot itself reason, but it does share in the rational element in that it ean be influenced by it, For ‘example, passions, such as sexual urges aud desire for wealth, ‘and recognition are quite difficult to control. It is the task ‘of the rational part of the soul to:xeign in such pansianate demands that seek fulfilment oftentimes without any rational and practical consideration of all the factors involved in its desire for satisfaction. ‘The desiring element. of the soul, albeit irrational, can be reasowed with, s0 to speak. Hence, ifa person suddenly fools the urge to eat all the food on the ‘able that is meant for an enti family, it is possible that hej she stops himself/herself from doing s0 once he/she realizes that such an act is grossly unfit for @ proper human being. ‘Examined under an Aristotelian lens, tis person's decision to Jeep his/her greed in check is influenced by practical reason ‘which determines the proper thing to do In a given situation. It is, thorefore, important to remember that there is & part of the soul that calls for eason’s governance. Giving in to-raw and unchecked appetites is oftertimes the reason & Person commits immoral acts. A person's raw biological and Psychological desires blind him/her from the implications (of wihat he/she does to the fulfillment of his/her end, which is happiness. In other words, giving in to passions keeps 4 ‘Person from flourishing and derail him/her from his/her trae fend as a person, Aristotle is not saying that It is wrong to Ihave such desires. It is only natural to have such passions for xthey are a constitutive part of having a soul. However, people ‘who aim to be happy must be responsible for such desires and keep them in check. For Aristotle, moral virtue is necessary in making sure that desires do not control the behavicr. Virtue, the Mean, and Practical Wisdom ‘The Greek word for virtue is aréte which means ‘excellence. By excellence, the Greeks thought of how a fulfils its function (ergon) in accordance with its mature. For Instance, if a knife cuts excellently, is sharp, darable, and dependable for different tasks, then it may be said that itis fan excellent knife-—it does what itis supposed to do im the Dest way possible. It fulfills its essence as a tool for cutting ‘unl slicing, Tt may then be called a “virtuous” knife. To be virtuous, in other words i to exhibit one's capacity to fulfil fone's essence or purpose in such a way that one's potentiality fas @ particular being may be said to bo actualized in the most excellent way. Following this, it ean be said that a ‘mcehonse that consistently wins races is virtuous horse and 0 is a guard dog that barks at the sight of an intruder. In the case of human beings, Aristotle says that there fare two kinds of virtues—moral and intellectual. Briefly moral virtue has to do with excellence in the performance of decisions relating to moral and practical activity, while intellectual virtues have to do with one's capacity to harness reasons contemplative capacity for arriving at knowledge. Intellectual virtue owes its existence and development to teaching, while moral virtue arises from habitual practice (ethos). As he explains in the beginning of Book 2 of the Nicomachean Ethics: Virtuo, then, is twofold, intellectual, and moral. Both the coming-into-being| and increase of intellectual virtue result mostly from teaching —hence, it requires 2 (Chapren |: Vinruc ETHICS: ARISTOTLE ‘experience and time—whereas moral virtue got its name [¢thite] by a slight alteraticn of the term habit [ethos It is also clear, as result, that none of the moral virtues are present in us by nature, since ‘nothing that exists by nature is hobituated to be other ‘than itis. For example, a stone, because itis borne downward by nature, could not be habituated to be borne upward, not even if someone habituates it by throwing it upward ten thousand times. Fire, 100, could not he borne downward nor could anything else ‘thatsis naturally ope way be habituated to be another. NNelther by nature, therefore, nor contrary to nature fare the virtues present; they are instead present in us | who are of auch nature to receive them and who are | Completed through babi Aristotle emphasizes the role of prectice and habit in the formation of moral virtue., No person is born morally virtuous. However, all persons have the letent potentiality to bbe so, if only they habitually do excellent deeds. But what fare excellent deeds? What are virtuous actions? How doos Person develop the capacity to bring these virtues out of the ‘ealm of possibility to the realm of actualy? It is only in practice that we come to know that we truly know how to do something. It is only in running that ‘we come to know how fast we can actualy ran and gain the Tight to call ourselves runners. It is only in trying to solve ‘math problems do we find out if we are good at mathematics fand have the capacity to be mathes is. Analogously, ‘Aristotle declares that we become morally virtuous by doing morally virtuous acts. We become just by doing just actsPART i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS. We become temperate by doing temperate acts. We become ‘courageous in doing courageous ucts. Remember Bertong Tighsin? Did we not say that he only tesined that nickname because of his consistent display of Actions that reveal strength and grit? He was not born like ‘that, He became known as such because of how he habitually carried himeelf in different situations. Now, we are not saying ‘that Bertong Tigasin is an exemplar of « morally virtuous person, He is only reealled at this point to shed more light ‘on Aristotle's emphasis on action and habituation as the round of moral virtue. As for moral virtues themselves, [Aristotle says that these are states of charactor that enable ‘person to fulfill his/her proper funetion as a human being "These states of characier are wed at an intermediary poiat between excess and deficiency —in a mean (mesotes) that can bbe considered as the appropriate response to the demands of diferent situations. Virtue is a state of character which makes a person good and capable of fulfilling his/her end (tefos) as a human person, By state of character, Aristotle emphasizes a certain cotsistency or constancy in one’s character in facing diferent situations. Consistency is not stagancy. He is not saying that a virtuous person is incapable of adjusting to various situations. On the contrary, it is precisely the person's ‘capacity to tend situations that makes him/her virtuous, 1 reading situations, the Virtuous person is able to arrive at a decision or perform an action that may be considered as an intermediate between deficoncy and excess, which he calls the mean of mesotes. By this, Aristotle does not merely point to a ‘mathematical mean, such that six would be the mean in» seale of one to ten, Te is a mean that is relative to the person facing a moral choice. By relative, he means that depending ‘on the particular citeamstances of a person, the mean would (CHAPTER I: VIRTUE ErHICs: ARISTOTLE ‘correspond to the most appropriate respouse given the [demands of the situation. For example; if you and a friend de at around 10:00 a.m to moot inva mall to watch a ‘ut 2:00 pam, several things have to be considered when ‘you try and decide how much time you will give yourself to “prepare to avoid being late and show respect for your friend's ‘ime: 1 The travel time ftom your house to the mall 2 How much time it usually takes you to take a shower ani, get clothed 3. Other appointments you might have to attend to Dofore going to the mall 4. The mode of transportation yon w ‘mall 5. ‘The location of the cinema relative to the entrance door ofthe mall 6, If you are typically slow and sluggish in making reparations 7. If there are other shops you plan to visit hefore ‘meeting your friend 8. Ifyou have a physical disability which would make ‘travel challenging 9. Your mood on that day ise to pet ote Many other things may be added to this list, The point, though, is that it is not merely a matter of finding ‘the mathematical mean between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., ‘hich would then be 12 o'clock that determines the time you should allot for yourself to prepare for your meeting without being late. A virtuous person neither prepares too early nor {oo late, not only in terms of the actu. time—the time of reparation is actually determined by his/her reckoning of the| PART |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS demands of the situation and his/her relative standing to it fas an individual. The mean is not a fixed point but rather ‘9 moving target. So, applied to the previous example, if you fre planning to mest your friend at the mall at 2:00 p.m. you have to take into account not just logistical matters, but perhaps, more importantly, your knowledge and experience of yourself in dealing with such matters. It is actually your ability to adjust yourself to the situation which determines whether you may be considered virtuous or not in that situation, If you agreo to moct with your friend without taking the things mentioned above into consideration, then you may be called an inconsiderate friend. On the other hand, to overthink and over-prepare can also be seen as excessive fand can leed to over-punctuality which may. strain your friendship, especially if you expect your friend to do tho same without considering that he/she is not the same person as youreall Hence, it may be said that (o feel or actin certain ways ‘that are neither deficient nor excessive relative to oneself and ‘the situation may be considered as the state of character that recognizes the mean, To be morally virtuous, one must be able to respond to situations not just with the correct feeling or action but in the proper degree, at the right time, towards the right people, and for the right reasons. In the example, if you arrive considerably easly for your meeting, would it be considered virtuous for you to eall your friend snd command him/her to come immediately because you are not good at ‘waiting? Should you be angry towards your friend if he/she arrives $0 minutes Ite because the MRT he/she was riding in broke down? Should you scold him/her for being inconsiderate towards you? Would it not be considered excessive if you take foe lateness agninst him/het? All those questions point to ‘ more fundamental issue: How does one become a good or ios frend? In other words, what is the proper disposition nocessary in being friends with another person? How does ‘one make demands to the other properly? How does one show ‘concer for the other's welfare? It is clear that for Aristotle, the answer is disclosed in actual practice. One's theoretical ‘knowledge of the meaning of friendship does not guarantee ‘that he/she can be good friend, Virtue is developed in Dractice. Aristotle defines virtue as follows: Virtue, therefore, it characteristic marked by choice, residing in the mean relative to us, a characteristic defined by reason and as the prudent person would | define it. Virtue is also # mean with reapect to two vices, the one vice related to excess, the other to deficiency; and further, it ig 8 mean because some | views fall shoot of aud others exceed what sb oe | the case in both passions and actions, whereas virtue discovers and chooses the middle term. Thus, with being and the definition that states ‘mean; Dut with respect to |) what is best and the doing of something well itis en | extreme! For Aristotle, virtue is @ state of one's character that {is the result of choice. This choice is governed by prudence fr practical wisdom (phronésis). Phronésis is the humen person's instrument in dealing with moral choices. It isa kind fof knowledge that deals with practical matters and not just with ideas or concepts. Practical wisdom participates in the ‘capacity of the rational part ofthe sou to reckon situations without easily giving in to the push and pull of the various desires which emanate from the appettive part of the soul Phronéeis isthe intellectual virtue responsible for bringing the human person closer to his/her chief good in the realmof morality. In other words, practical wisdom aids one in boing happy. It is comprised both of knowledge and action. (One's capscity for choice and action must be guided by the intllectual virtue of practical wisdom or phronésis im parsult ‘of the mean or the mesotes for one to be able to eallhitnself/ herself morally virtuous. It may be said that prudent actions fare actions that are guided by reason and not just driven by passion, These actions and decisions exhibit one's state ‘of eharacte—whether one is truly courageous, temperate, frieudly, or just, Practical wisdom guides the human person in choosing the mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency. It constantly adjusts its reckoning based on the shifting conditions that permeate a specific situation, relative to ones Hence, it may be sald that if mesotes is « moving target, phronésis would cortespond to the excellence of an archer in hitting thie torget in various situations, akin to Hawkeye in the Avengers movies. If one can recall, Hawkeye has an arsenal of different arrows adapted to hit various targets Phronésis would correspond to his. rational’ reckoning of the various conditions that may or may not affect his marksmanship, like the number of enemies he has to hit, their speed and agility, and his position and distance relative to them. He also understands his own limitations (since he hhas no superpowers like Thor or the Hull), and, therefore, assesses his role in the Avengers accordingly. He is then rightly assigned the role of archer in the team because be is ‘an expert, someone who is excellent in the craft af archery. Aristotle is somehow saying that for one to attain chief good, ‘the person must continually bring himeelf/horeelf to situations ‘where his/hor mettle and skills may be tested. Surely, even an archer as excellent as Hawkeye was not born an expert archer; he became so through constant practice until he developed the necessary skill set for earrying out his function fs an archer CChapteR |: ViRTUE ETHICS: ARISTOTLE In the moral realm, for instance, ove becomes courageous ‘only through practice. Courage is « learned intellectual and [practical skill, Reason guides one in calibrating the right roe of courage in facing, for example, a situation where 's le Is being threatened by an attacker. After assessing ‘the various factors (such as the attacker’ level of aggression, ‘the weapon used, the amount of morey and valuables a ‘stake, the presence of others in tho vicinity), one asks himself/ hborself the prudent thing to do. Does one simply hand over ‘one’s belongings and hope the attacker eaves? Does one resist sven that one had marvial arts training in his/her teenage years? Does one try to reason with the attacker hoping that hhe/she convinces the latter to not go through with the deed? ‘Or does one simply run away and seroam for help? What is the prudent thing to do? For Aristotle, there is not one ‘universally correct response to this situation that may apply to everyone in all situations, Sometimes, st may be more prudent to retreat, than to move forward. Courage is not always bold and brazen. Courage is thinking person's virtue. There is not one way of being courageous. Courage is not Ihaphazardly fighting the attacker without regard for one's life (for this seems to imply that one's belongings are worth more than one's life) nor i it freezing in total fear where one gives up the capacity to deliberate upoa one’ options. Courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice. However, it still ‘dopends upon the person to choose the appropriate response to the situation. In other words, itis up to the person facing ‘the situation to essentially define the meaning of courage as it applies to him/her at that moment. Since the mean is ‘moving target, phronésis is necessary ia, skilfully making the right decision. To choose either an excess or deficiency Constitutes a vice for Aristotle. It isto mise the marke as it were. It is to under-perform or over-perform with respect to one’s function (ergon) as a human being. It is to act in ‘opposition to ones ultimate goal, which is eudaimonia.Pant |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS “The Pineal Vetus and Ves Resting Courage cowardice ‘Setnaugerce | Moseratn reer Predigetty bert Meanness loaney Magniessce Patines rity Proper Pre Sraines af Soul TAmptiousness | PreperAmien | vackof Ambon rescbity [Good Terper Lackot Spe Boostfuness rertness Setideprecation utfeonery wanes Boorehnese [Coseauiousness | Friendliness Sunes [Bashiess| odes Shomsiemnece Ey [roperincgnaton [Melee ‘A truly virtuous action is performed by someone who isnot simply compelled to do so. A person does a virtuous fact and chooses to act in such a way for the sake of being virtuous, This choice comes from a certa character that is not easily swayed by ont {influenced by certain factors in a given person is someone who has been so used to acting virtuously that i becomes tremendously difficult for anything or anyone to convince him/her to act otherwise. To # certain degree, vices are no longer an option for truly virtuous person. Such ‘ person actively keeps himself/herself disposed towards the mean by way of habituation (ethos). Only a virtuous person. can perform truly virtuous actions because he/she is initially predisposed towards virtue It should be noted that certain actions admit no middle point or mesotes. Some actions are simply bed, and so there is no “virtuous” way of performing them. Acts ike adultery, theft, and murder aze bed in themselves and cannot be deemed virtuous in any situation. There is no right way of (CHAPTER 1: VinrUE ExHies: ARISTOTLE committing adultery, with the right person, at the right time, Adultery is simply wrong. The mean orly applios to actions fand dispositions that are not bad in and of themselves. Contemplation and Philosophical Knowledge For Aristotle, the main funetions of the intellectual vittues, namely, phronésis and sophie, are to aid human persons in matters concerning moral choice and the attainment of knowledge of first prineipes oF eternal truths, ‘respectively. If practical wisdom serves as guide for action in everyday life, the act of contemplation is a pursuit of Philosophical wisdom. Aristotle subordinates practical ‘wisdom to contemplation because he believes that it is the kind of activity: most proper to human persons considering ‘the fact that reason is human's most defining attribute Philosophizing, according to him, is the most pleasant of virtuous activites because it does not rely on anything else for is fulfilment other thar the desire to do it. It is the most selfeufficient act. Practical virtues such as courage and temperance noed specific conditions to be attained, while philosophy is something a person can do by himself/herself anytime. For him, contemplation is an act that cau be loved for its own sake because it: has no other aim than to reveal the most fundamental truths of existence. In other words, no person may be considered happier than a person who ‘has the time and the leisurely disposition for contemplation, Howover, it must be remembered that human life is not exclusively devoted to thought; itis mos: ofthe time engaged i action and practical matters. Thus, phronésis still plays ‘ crucial role in the attainment of one’ chief good, which is eudaimonia. For Aristotle, the contemplative knowledge of the good does not automatically translao to its performance. Belng virtuous in°the practical sense is still cultivated ‘through practice and babit (ethos). Liviag well means havingPAR |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS the complementary disposition of intelligent conduct and a {thirst for philosophical wisdom. HB conclusion Ethics is @ matter of living well through the habitual practice of virtue which escontially translates into having ‘ virtuous or excellent character. Happiness, being the chief good of the human person, is attainable through the ‘proper exercise of reason, both morally end intellectually. Budaimonia is an. activity of the soul that purposively ‘attempts to choose the mean between two extremes in the realm of morality. As the saying goes, *Vou can't put a good ‘man down.” This seems to resonate with Aristotelian ethics Fr hizn, a good man, person who has eultivated the proper virtues and has imbibed these in his/her thoughts and deeds, will always flourish, A person of virtuous character always finds a way to stay intact even in dire times. That person ‘docs not compromise the dictates of reason in exchange for the immediate fulflment of his/her passions. In other words, ‘in being habituated to choose the mean, he/she remains virtuous and, therefore, happy in every circumstance. It is ‘the person's ability to adapt while remaining true co himself) ‘herself a8 a rational human being which allows him/her to flourish in various environments. For example, according to Aristotle, a person who has cultivated the virtue of honesty throughout his/her life will not be influenced by a corrupt system, In fact, it would not even ocent to that person that taking bribes oF signing dubious contracts are an option because he/she as been so habituated to always choosing, neither excess nor deficiency, but always the mean—which is the choice proper to a person that stays true to himself/ herself as rational being, (CHAPTER I VIRTUE EHS: ARISTOTLE “Aristotle teaches us that characteris the most essential "component of ethies. A virtuous character is the result of Bernese of mai nnd (rane) a abituation (ethics) in the pursuit of the mean, (mesotes) Being ethical is all about being excellent in being human, ‘which is, being excellent in fulfilling one's essence as a rational being that has cultivated an excellent character and is, therefore, capable of making the most prudent deeisions in all cizcumstances, ‘The following chapter discusses St. Thomas Aquinas Natural Law Exhics, Similarities between Thomistic and “Aristotelian ethics can be noted because St. Thomas Aquinas is known as the thinker who “Christianized” Aristotle, Both philosophers emphasize the role of reason in guiding moral ‘oniduet, but Aquinas believes that the attainment of virtues is not an end in itself but only a way for attaining the final ‘env of man, who is God himself. He believes that by virtue ‘of reason, human beings posseds the innate capacity to intuit and distinguish right from wrong through conscience. sy avesion What does happiness mean for Aristotle and why doos hae consider it as the chief good of the human person? 2. What is virtue and what is its place in the ethical theory of Aristotle? Whar is the mean and how isi related to virtue? What is the difference between moral virtue and intellectual virtue? 5. How do you understand the meaning of character? How is charactor relevant in masking moral choics? «aPART i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS 6. Can you think of a real-life example of a virtuous person? Why do you consider him/her to be vo 7. How can you apply Arieotl'sethies in improving the current state of your country? HEEB Exercises A. Form yourselves into small groups, Evaluste the table of the principal virtues aid vices. Identify and reflect on your personal experiences where you may Ihave engaged in some of the vices listed there. What {actors led to your having such dispositions in these ‘experiences? B. Do research and find a movie in which Aristotle's virtue ethic is exemplified, HM reference Aristotle, Aristotle's Nicomachean Bthics. Trans. Robert ©. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011 _ CHAPTER II The Natural Law: St. Thomas Aquinas Learning Outcomes ‘At the end ofthis chapter, you should be able to: 1. recognize the meaning of natural law and its relation ‘tics; 2. explain how natural law ian imprint of the Divine Will on the free person; 8. appreciate and articulate the role of natural law in, crafting an ethical fe; and 4, discuss conscience and how this is defined by natural law. A Hi introduction Albert Camus opened his 1942 seminal book, The Myth of Sisyphus, by posing the question, “Why will I not kill myself today?” Locally, such a dramatic recognition of the sorry condition of the world is echoed by a column of Rina Simenez-David in the daily broadsheet. Philippine Dotly Inquirer on 25 October 2003 witen in frustration she asked “Why would we not Just close down the Philippines” Camus has lived through the two world wars (1914 1018; 1939-1945) and thus highlights the bitterness of his times and the task of man to live in sincerity, moderation, find justice with « playful heart even while confronted With utter meaninglessness in life, imenes-David saw twoPART i: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Philippine people power revolutions (22-25 February 1986; 17-20 January 200) an some years after oe 3 frustrated in the country that she simply wanted to ask every Filipino to live elsewbere, (CHAPTER I: THE NATURAL LAW: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS Our prosent age is not impervious to such attacks of absurdity, frustration, and near desperation. History, however, ‘is grocofully replete with people who have exerted effort in "Pointing out a viable way out of such darkness and confusion One of the options, if one wants to call i that, was ‘arrived at through the’ meeting between Philosophy’ snd ‘a religion of rovelation that is Christianity. The best representative of this integration and arguably also, an ‘excellent thinking through of reasonable way that addresses ‘the questions of the human. person, is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Thomas’ systemic approach that is ‘meant to guide human action is known as an ethics of natural Jaw. While his metaphysics harks back to modioval times of belief in God, his ethical system endures until contemporary times in the moral guidelines followed and lived out by religious believers who belong to the Catholic tradition. |Etsi Deus non daretur ‘Thomas Aquinas begins from the standpoint of flth, His perspective presupposes the existence of a God who is the ‘author (source) and the gosl (end) of al reality. This Creator for, Thomas, however, relates in freedom with the human person and s0 enables him/her in freedom to recognize ‘through reason, the very principle of foundations ofall things. Jn accordance with this foundational knowledge, the human person can choose to act in such a way that is worthy of ‘one’s very reality. One who can reach the wisdom at the very hheart ofall things is obliged to act in acoordance with his/ hher dignity. The human being then is said to be gifted witt “tho ability to know the highest good’ that engages him/her In freedom in “choosing to act on the good that he/she ought to do.” Freedom here is knowing the hest goal and being able to reach for it through decisive action, This is expressedPART f THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS inteioly that isin the very heart, of every human person as the dictate of “doing good and avoiding evil” For Aquinas, God reveals his Goodwill as the Eternal Law reflected in the order of reality. Rolating with the Law tas governing all is relating with God himself whose wil emanates to govern all that is. The reality then of life ss growth, nutrition, and reproduction is founded on the will that is eternal. Even the reality of sensitive consciousness 25, ruled by instinct that is true of animals is also in accordance ‘with the same will That “plants persist to earry themselves fout to the fullness of being plants” is an imprint of the pverning will that comes to human understanding as law. ‘That “animals governed by instincts behave in such and such 1 way" is also recognized by the human person as following the dictate ofa law that guides all of creation. ‘The reality of the human person who is abe, throug his/ her intellect, to decide in freedom and, through his/her wil, ‘to move himself/herself voluntarily in accordance with the ‘gpod that he/she ean know follows tho very will of God who hhas “created man in His own imago" (Genesis 1, 27). Man in His fullness shares life with plants and animals but goes ‘beyond them in his voluntary action and freedom in decisions Human freedom for St. Thomas, therefore, is an Imprint of the divine will in the very being of the human person ‘This sharing of human reason in the eternal will or divine law is for him /ber the natural law. The relationship between ‘the Bternal and Natural law for him/her is expressed in the Sacred book for Christians thus, “since the creation of the ‘world Goel’ invisible will—his power and nature—has been clearly seen being wnderstood from what has been made ‘visible so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1, 20). ‘The Divine will, according to this quote, ean be understood ts governing all that is; man's task is to act in such a way _ ; CHAPTER I: THE NATURAL LAW: St. THOMAS AQUINAS. that his/her participation in the full unfolding of nature lirects to fulfillment. ‘This law impinges on the very freedom of the human being who can know his/her options and voluntarily will to take action. The rational human person's participation, ability to discern what is good from what is not, s the very presence of the dictate of the law within him/her, and Is'also the {imprint on him/her of the Creator (Divine will). ‘Tho human person then, who is able to draw up specific laws that govern himself/herself his/her society, and his/her relationship with all erestion, is also the author of postive laws. Natural law necessarily takes precedence over postive Tavs. Not all that is legal in human society reflects the law ‘that dictates on the humau person as ethical in accordance ‘with natural law-—what is legal then is not always nocessarily orl ‘his othice of natural lew has gained wide acceptance at one point in the history of wostern civilization that it has ‘come to be espoused even if one prescinds from the faith feystom that has engendered it. Btsi Deus non dareturis an ‘expression that highlights the validity of this ethical system ‘with or without faith in the Creator God. Literally, etsi Deus non daretur means “even if there is no God.” ‘This implies ‘that the wisdom of the ethical system that is natural law is ‘valid and binding for the human person even if we bracket Dalit in God, ‘Those who came up with the expression efsi Deus non daretur do not advocate atheism or protest agninst the faith ‘They simply mean that the deposit of knowledge or “divine ‘wisdom’ that comes to us as “natural law” is valid in itself land is, therefore, the reasonable code of conduct even for ‘man of goodwill who may be without faith. Even the Sacred Scriptures of Christians reflot this, “For when non-believersPART i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘who do not have the law by'nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the aw. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hoorts” (Romans 2, 14-15) HH conscience and Natural Law ‘The ability of ran to know is important in his/her acting ethically. Hence, if one follows St. Thomas’ discussion on ‘conscience, one is inlined to conclude that “it is the proper functioning of reason in moving the human person towards ‘an end goal that is fitting of his/her dignity." One cannot do the right thing if ane does not know what itis. The famous dictate then to follow the conscience absolutely is tod to an ‘obligation to educate it. Not knowing St, Thomas is not an ‘excuse, Even if one does not know, he/she is obliged to know. If one acts badly out of ignorance and does net act to rectify the situation by bothering to learn, that person is to be held accountable according to the Angele Doctor : While the conscience absolutely binds us in doing the good and avoiding evil, conscience as reason is also absolutely tasked to be given formation. The conscience, therefore, can be mistaken, and being so doesnot exempt the human person from culpability. If hejsbe is able to know but fails to act in his/her obligation to do so, then he/she is not free from blame ‘nd responsibility for what was done. ‘There are diferent kinds of conscience that may lead us to wrongdoing: callous, perplexed, scrupulous, and ignorant. ‘The uninformed conscience simply Jacks education, while the perplexed one needs guidance in sorting out one's confusion ‘The callous and scrupulous are binary opposites but both are ‘malformed in being too lax or too strict, Callousness of the ‘CHAPTER I: THE NATURAL LAW:'ST. THOMAS AQUINAS conscience results in the long-time persistence in doing evil ‘that tho sof is no longer concerned whether what he/she does fs good or bad. Scrupulousness, on the other hand, fails to ‘rust one's ability to do good and, hence, overly concerns itself ‘with avoiding what is bad to the point of secing wrong where there really is none, If one thinks about it, these diferent feonsciences that lead to badness in action can readily be rectified by education. Putting effort in forming one's own fenscience helps a person to exit from such malformations Given such propensity to error ofthe human conscine, fean -we then disobey. the dictates of our conscience’? Sto. Thomas Aquinas still insists, “absolutely not! Gonscience remains to be our proximate norm that bids us ‘0 do the good and avoid evil; simply put, going against one's conscience is doing the contrary of the dictate of what one knowingly elects as good. If tho extent of what one knows ddotcrmines what is the good to be done and the evil to be Avoided, the self is obliged to act accordingly, ex, “act on the good and shun the bad.” These occasions again show the Importance of the commitment to edueate one's conscience, Basically because one cannot do good if one does not know it fand since one’s norm for acting is the obligation that is set by ‘one’s conscience: acquisition of knowledge as whit ought t0 be done through education is critical for ethical living, according to'St. Thomas Aquinas. Though separated by centuries, the Diychologist Lawrence Kohlberg later echoes $t. ‘Thomas in lnsstng that “education is crucial for moral living.” Hil three Contemporary Questions ‘There are relevant questions that ean help the Filipino student appreciate Thomistic Natural Law. If we follow what has been earlier said, that natural law is man's participation in the exceution of tie good and avoidance of evil throughPART I THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS the use of his/her reason and will, then three questions that originated from the writing of Alasdair Macintyre can be ‘appropriated to highlight the relevance of Aquinas today: ‘Who am I? Who do I want to bo? How ean T got there?! Who am I? Thomistie Natural Law interrogates the identity of the human person. If one is endowed with his/ber| ‘own facticity, history, and abilities, his/her present realty is fccessible to him/her through self-knowledge and reflection. ‘This assessment of one's own strengths and weaknesses is critical in being able to do good and avoid evil. This ethical task isnot only an outward truth. Doing, good determines the ‘ctor in a reality that is good and doing bad malforms him/ her too. The reality of human identity is that i is something definod yot also always in process. ‘The task of knowing the self is the point of departure for the tase of building up the identity of the human person. Ethics here does not only cover the issues that usually cal fur attention, such as abortion, euthsnasia, or other burning moral questions of this sort. Ethics for Aquinas is primarily ‘© question of human identity. “AIL human acts are moral ‘cta,? Aquinas said, Size itis through his/her acts that man defines himself/herself, the ethical man is the task of his/her foe act, Defining the self gives one a chance to clarify his/her ‘goal: hence, it is important to raise the second question: Who do I want to be? The human person's self-knowledge is dynamic, that i, itis always open to the direction set by ‘what one wants to make of himself/herself. Self knowledge here is malleable towards self-determination. Ethical acts ive direction through freedom to build up the self towards a particalar goal 7 Waee ea aitae dae eoty cmoctoeeeemctanecs eae Ey (CHAPTER Il: THE NATURAL LAW: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ‘The human reason is so gifted that it is able to discern through options and daily realities. Decisions are the basi ‘of one’s freedom in choosing what one wants to he. The self also considers the truthful transition to what one ought to be. Given this knowledge of himself/herself and the ability to evaluate his/her options and possiblities, the self can also Dettor give direction to himself/herself ‘The third question Is not. very far from: the other ‘questions. In truth, How can I get there? also fully utilizes ‘the sound judgment of human reason and evaluates the best route to get to the goal decided upon. The last question breaks down the task to be done into the particulars ff actions and daily routine, SelC-knowiedge and self. ‘determination are here bridged by self-governance. ‘The human person does not only access reason to assess his/her personal identity and personal goal; he/she is also gifted with the will to command the self to.go through the steps and, hence, be able to do the transition from knowledge to a fully determined self. Goal setting throngh reason and ‘decision is complemented by the abllity to freely mave the self ‘and command the body in action. It is in orchestrating the factions to be consistent with the end in mind that the self Teaches improvement. For instance, if one wishes to got to the goal of finishing fa degree, one starts with the reality of the self. Knowing what fone needs to improve on supports the goal of graduating. A ‘ound decision helps the student to maximize the training ‘and studies that go with being enrolled in the university. ‘One knows in honesty that s paper diploma that reflects a “degree is harily of value without true knowledge and mastery ‘of what one is expected to know. Hence, if one's goal is to “Ereduate with competence, one elects the daily, monthly, [Semestral, or even yearly tasks that ought to be completed. Professors, lectures, and even exams are then seen in thislight as sids in reaching the goal, Furthermore, the self is ‘not only passive receiver of what transpires externally; ane ‘designs the path and cooperates with the situation to reach ‘the end that hae been reasonably set by the sl The Relational and Perfec of Love in Aquinas Although we have suspended God-talle to make the case that natal lay is wlevat even forthe buman person Srthowt faith, the discussion of Thome whi i ncompsete iit doesnot end with the love that is directed towards God ‘Themis natural law isnot Chistian simply beams fe san xh reconclable ov compatible with faith, Iti disciplined tyotem that finds ultimate foundation and perfection In the Tealeyof Cod. While though etsi Dene non daretur we are ‘forded the autonomy ofa reasonable eties independent fiom fith, ultimately this eis leven fall meaning aid pectin in a rdatonkip wth God : "The autonomy of ethics fom faith afford Ive of atacptined reflection that enables man to not only copy the perfection that is God and apply it to himel/kere and Tis/her surroundings. ‘The independence that is ven in the tthical order als allows the human person in partcalasity to be himself/herself x the singular sujet that he/she i ‘That i, through persona reflection, decisions, goal setting, tnd prexs, the bomen person attains the full elation of ho habe stn ths sence, the human beng not marly a Rand in fr the Creator Ged. One isnot a robot wo learns the direction from everything else and sppliee it to oneself to fatcton an tou! or Deus eo machina, the God of the machine. The subjectivity of man and one's search for fulllment readily rest onthe docisone and vluntary wing thot one male | = On the other hand, however, the Divine Will and also “the entiroty of all creation cannot be limited by the seope ‘of satisfaction that is exclusively chosen. by man. The Juman being remains to be one particular being among the ‘multiplicity of beings. One cannot, given one's limits, be the fulfillment of everything. Here a protest may arise. Is oot his/ her goal sotting inclusive of *the desire to be everything?” Truly, he/she may have the longing, even the potential, to be What he/she wants to be, stretching it so far as embracing through his/her desire all that is. This potential, however, derives from what is actual in the reality of beng; wanting to bbe all in all is not the same as truly being all jn all, Yet the ire for this has to come fom somewhere. Human beings ‘not capable of desiring all in all because they are limited, "Who evokes this thirst in the human person? This desire, | therefore, has to come from somewhere or someone else who ‘awakens this in him/her. re the relational that is inherent in the natural ordee finds value. Tho human person is not only bound to find full maximum capacity of one's being in a search for selt- ‘actualization. He/She is not designed to find perfection on his/her own but thoroughly relates with other human persons ‘and all of creation, He/She is not designed to be & Pharisee ‘who is perfect unto himself/herself. He/She is open to be in ‘all and to exist forall. One's goal, therefore, is not amly to be ‘the “self-made man/woman” but, in his/her ful effort, “be ‘open and available for everything else” and “be open for the Jove or fallness that is beyotd hima.” Ultimately, as held by St. Thomas himself, the true estiny of man lies in a gratuitous perfeetion thet is beyond the human person yet relates with him/her thoroughly in freedom and, therefore, in fullness of love. This relationship fna loving invitation exceods the possibilities of achievements ‘and realizations that ‘are reachable by the human person in himself/herself. It may be called spiritual, beatific, or 5sPath THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS heavenly but in the expanse of what is desired and what is reasonably attainable by the human person. Iti availble fr bhim/her onty through relating with someone who is beyond ‘him/her. The highest perfection of man for St. Thomas isin his/her wanting to be with God. In the words that are used by believers, “The ethical mau is not the perfect man but one ‘who wants to be saved by cooperating in freedom with what fs attainable for him/ber” HEE conclusion ‘Thomas Aquinas was influential in bis articulation of the theory of natural law. He showed us that the universe ‘was determined by an order of love that ought to define the sense of the good of human beings, Whether one believes in a transcendent, loving god or not, he showed how people could intait an order to things that was inherent to all beings that existed, Whether one was a believer or not, ane could see that there is this order which isthe ground of people's wholeness and selF-realization. Many philosophers up co this day build ‘upon this idea of a natural order upon which is founded a natural law. Even in legal theories, this foundational ideo is influential. However, as Western civilization evolved, other theories also evolved which insisted that the foundation of norms for the good should be rooted in human reason alone In this schoo! of thought, Immanael Kant would be one ofthe ‘mc finportant thinkers [HEBEE Guide Questions 1. What is the natural law for St. Thomas? How does it guide the human being’s realization of the good? What makes it an imprint of the Divine Will on the free person? 3 os CCHABTER Il THE NATURAL Law: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, 2 Does obeying the natural law mean that human ‘beings umist only conform their selfrealization to the Jaws of nature? Explain your answer framework for living a good life even if one does not believe in » god? 4. Why is the quest for doing the good tied to the question “Who am I"? 5. Why Is the love of God the perfection of the ethical iter Exercise Form gps of fve menus each. Rezarch nl dssn ng ost win oe le ea Toma Exit can ip oa ce oe ‘of the following: mn » whether abortion is morally acceptable and in what > whether contractual labor is morally acceptable and why: oF why not > whether one can charge interest for why not loan and why oF » whether one can revolt against tyrannical government administration ‘Assign a reporter to shave with the class your reflections Present the main discussions and justifietions, and discuss ‘the agreements and disagreements among. the members of your group. 37[ll References Aquinas, Tomas. Summa theologiae: Critical essays edited bby Brian Davies. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. de Finance, Joseph. An Ethical Inquiry. Roma: Eitrice Pontifica Universita Gregeriana, 1991 Keenan, James. Goodness andRightness in Thomas ‘Aquinas, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1902, Pinckaers, Servins. Sources of Christion Ethics. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Chapter Ill Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant Learning Outcomes [At the end ofthis chapter, you shonld be uble to: 1. recognize the meaning of deontological ethics; i 2. explain the categorical imperative, 3. appreciate and articulate the role of duty in erating ‘an ethical life; and 4. apply the principle of the categorical imperative in ‘moral dilemma. Introduction Fran Kafka once gave voic to the solitude of man and ‘infer tsk to find his/ber own way. Kaa rot the story ‘of “an imperial message” directly addressing the reader as ‘the pathetic rubjct, Th story started with the sending of ‘a message from the farther distance, A dying king ordered his Herald to bring his whispered message. After confiming the accuracy ofthe montage, the Herald was sent breaking © down obstructing walls and going beyond the great ones of | the empire at fist. Eventually, however, he is slowed down the huge crowd andthe infinite distance that le betwen ‘nd the reriver of the message. The reader to whom the is adres inthe end shy the window dreasing Bs mene thet sy covePART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS CHAPTER Ill DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: IMMANUEL KANT ‘The reader is directly addressed by Kafka and invited ‘to move out of droaming and end his/her pathetic passivity. eft on his/her own, bo/she is tasked to find his/her own way tnd not give in to dreams of fullness of knowladge that: are given to him/her or the discovery of a path that is yet to be revealed. A professor once hypothetically presented such a situation by asking, “If early morning tomorrow you wake up to sure that there is no God, what would you do?” ‘The German thinker Immanuel, Kant (1724-1804) proposed a viable human solution to this quandary. His philosophy views man as utonomous and most of himself/ herself as not subject to external conditions, results, and If left to bimself/herself, is it possible for the person to be ethical? Immanuel Kant thinks so, Jn fact, he was so confident in the ethical system that he ‘came up with what he declares its systematic independence {from religion and even asserted that itis religion that is in ‘peed of hs foundational ethies and not vice versa, Autonomous Reason, Goodwill, and Duty __ Kant insists that every time we confront moral situations there are formally operative « priori principles that can be Drought to the fore. Highlighting these a priori truths ean Better help the learner of ethies sort through his/her task of living ethically. Kants research on ethies has named these as ‘eavon, goodwill, and duty. These are, for Kant, respectively, ‘the foundation (reason), source (goodwill), and motivation (duty) of ethical living. ‘Tho foundation of a sound ethies for Immanuel Kant can | only be the authority of human reason. The voice of God is not heard directly today while man is living in this passing world. Voices of ministers and priests who claim to speak for God are but other human beings who make use of their own reason in trying to understand what goes on around thes This common human reason is also what they use as they ‘comprehend the revelation that is sald to be the foundation of their particular religion. Given that they share the samme humanity with everybody eve including the students of ethics, ‘what they say ought to pas through the norma of reason that is internal to the moral subject himself/herself. Otherwise, ‘axbitrariness holds sway in thelr laim to authority end what they capricious hold as binding or graultousy free. ‘The person who acts in accordance to drawn-up lists fof what one should do complies through the use of his/her reason that they are“indoed an obligation for his/her. The reason, therefore, elects such and such as morally binding and mandat hums ORR 6thus acts in accordance with what he/she thinks is so. His/ Her reason, therefore, functions as the very effort vo think ‘through moral principles and apply what he/she knows to get to the right thing to do. In fact, this internal authority of Jnuman reason is operative and takes precedence every time the human person confronts a particular moral situation. This {s human rationality that is discursive, ic humans reason by “talking to themselves,” according to one of the Philosopher- readers of Kant named Hannah Arendt. ‘What is ethical necessarily always implies the use of reason, Human acceptance of external mandates also makes use of this same reason. Kant then tells us that reason in itself ean only be the sensible foundation of what is ethical fr ‘man, Kant then bids his students sapere aude that is “dare to think for yourselves.” Autonomous reason ventures to know ‘what is ethical not on the authority of what is external to the self but grounded on (reason) itself. The loudness of external ‘authorities eannot bend the autonomy of reason that on its ‘own knows what should be done. What others say in turn is ‘only acceptable if tis found to be reasonable by the use of ‘one's autonomous reason, If reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, in turn its souree ean only be goodwill. This simply means that what is morally binding is rooted in reason as “doable for the Inman person.” The moral authority for Kant is immanent in ‘man, that is, the origin of ethical obligation for man is his/her own goodwill. Instead of looking at the good as external to man, Kant locates the good ia the very interiorty of the self. The good that is relevant to the person who through his/her reason ‘knows what one ought todo, is that which he/cho can do ond ‘know aa good. ‘This goodwill implies the achiewability of what is known through reason, One who claims what ono says is 0 a (ChiaPTER Il) DEDNTOLOGICAL ETHICS: IMMANUEL KANT ‘moral obligation ean do so by being free of imapositions frm ‘outside. That is he/she is of hie/her own doing able to catty ‘out his/her obligation. It can only oblige hias/ber insofar as ‘he/she himself/herslf through his/her own reason knows i a6 obligation. In the same way that i i an obligation insofar ‘that itis something that he/she on his/her own can manage todo. Kant calls. “duty” the obligation that follows what reason deems as the action which is most worthy of our Humanity. This duty is founded on human reason, that is Ii-passes through the sorting out made by our autonomous tnd discursive reason, Our duty is that which the reason ‘determines as our obligation. Inasmuch as duty the dashle ‘obligation for the human person, it is not a duty if it is {impossible for man to do it, Duty, therefore, presupposes our ability for otherwise itis only a bother to the human person, Duty, therefore, is a doable good for the human will, Duty, ‘hile founded on human reason for determination, is at the very same time originating from the goodwill asa voluntary faction that is double forthe human being Duty or obligation is the motivation for reason and ‘epodwill of the human person. If one asks why he/she had to ‘do what he/she ought to do, the answer can only be because it js his/her duty. Reasoa tells the human person to do the ‘Obligation that is doable for the goodwill again since itis ber/ Ter duty: The good that is reachable forthe will of the human Detson is, therefore, owned by him/her as a duty. This then fexcludes any other external or internal motivation for the Inman person for doing what he/she ought to do: whether he/ she likes it or not; be it success or failure; whether it comes With applause or accusation; his/her reason and goodwill simply binds him/her to do what hejshe ought to do becanse It is his/her duty.Obligation is Understood as “Man as an End in Himself/Herself,” Autonomous, and Universalizable Obligation for the fiman person is something one’s reason elects and his/her goodwill owns simply as something. she ought to do. Obligation is simply n must, a “eategorcal imperative” ora duty that is defined by reason as doable for ‘man's volition and, therefore, should be carried out by the Inuman person. In this sense, "Man as an end in himself/ herself" means the obligation cannot be passed on to others. ‘That is, i confronted by a particular situation, the human person in his/her intagrity as reason and goodwill is obliged ‘to do his/her duty asthe agent of action. “he buele stops bere,” that Is, the human person is himself/herself the center of action and responsibility in a ‘given ethical situation. His/Her obligation is his/hers and it is hix/hor participation in this particular ethical event. He/She is autonomous in reasoning and willing the execution of his/ her defined duty If one remembers, however, reason as earlier mentioned is always discursive in its execution. His/Her autonomous reason, being thinking that is talking with himself/herself, presupposes dialogue. Dialogue with the self approximates ‘reaching out beyond the confines and determinations ‘of oneself only. The human person in reasoning out and ‘determining his/her personal duty i in his sense nonetheless tied up with other reasonable beings before whom he/ she is accountable. 1s one’s obligation as defined by one’s ‘antonomous reason acceptable to other reasonable beings who ‘ean stand in one’s shoes? One's reason is also the presence of other reasonable beings one ought to strive to be in accord with, One's definition of duty or his/her obligation ‘ought to be universlizable inthis senso (CHAPTER Ill: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: IMMANUEL KANT “Man as an end in. herself” conjoined with this sponsibility 10 reach for duty that is. universaliaable wessarily demands thet other human persons ought to “be troated not as instruments in the execution of what “one should to do but as fellow reasonable beings, ends in ‘themselves. They are reasonable human beings too before ‘whom the self stands accountable. Kantian Ethics and Religion Immanuel Kant fully established the independence of _ his ethies from religion via the recognition of reason as the foundation, goodwill as tho source, and duty as the motivation ‘of what obliges the human person. In his essay “Religions ‘within tho Limits of Reason”, Kant went as far as setting up his ethical system as that which is definitive in the | recognition of true religion. [A “religion is not true to"ltself according to Kant, If it goes against what man “ought to do” as defined by | his/her autonomous reason and goodwill that reaches for tuniverslizbility: Only fale religion or cult falls unreasonably to superstition and does away with duty as en obligation for his/er goodwill. It is, therefore, such Kent foundational for religion and not vice vers. Kant, bowever, is not against religion. For him the value of religion rests on its reality as an openness to “what one fan hope for.” Religion for Kant is the very openness of ethics to the complementary strength that is provided by hope Unlike Aristotle, Kant does not define “happiness” as the ‘motivation for his ethics of duty. What is ethical i indifferent to happiness for Kant and is purely motivated by duty itself (One does the obligation to reach for happiness, that will be self-serving for Kant and seltinterest here moves away fom the purity of dutyPART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Happiness, however, is understood by the human reason 1s reasonably related to ethics. “He/She who has lived justly by doing his/her obligation dutifully is the most fitting for happiness.” This truth, the human reason knows and leven goes as far as protesting the reality of just men living riserably. “Happiness ought to be related to the ethical task of mn,” reason asserts in protest It is clear, however, that happiness cannot be « motivation for the ethical obligation of man, according to Kant. He, therefore, suggests the determination of “happiness as gift” for the ethical man, ‘That is, “he/she who has lived justly is worthy of the gift of happiness.” Man eannot give this git to himself/herself and therefore in his/her striving to live ethically opens himself/herself in hope. Kantian ethics, therefare, need not be hard-hearted in the pute preoceupation of duty as obligatory. The ethical person is open to happiness hse cannot give to himself/herseli, His/Her duty ean also bbe an expression of hope that “he/she can make himself) herself worthy of happiness.” For Kant, the ethical human person is like someone who ‘woos in courtship the person one likes. He/She eannot oblige the other to give him/her a positive answer to his/ber offering of love and devotion. He/She can only make himself/herself worthy of a “yes.” Responding to his/her lve isa gift he/she can only receive from the other. The answer cannot be forced in the same way that happiness i something one expects to collect after a lifelong striving of doing one's duty. Happiness is gratuitous gift that one recognizes as within the realm ‘of hope. Different religions for Kant express this balance between the task of doing the duty and the hope for what one cannot give to oneself. Religion for Kant is the reeoneilation| fof ethies and hope, the task of fulfilling one's duty and the sift of happiness that one cannot gain by one's eflrts alone. I DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: IMMANUEL KANT onclusion Kant’ ethics provided for a ground for legislating, norms rational. behavior for autonomous persons. His ethical “system eimerged at a time when Western civilization sought for © foundation for moral behavior that did not depead on th or tradition. Kant provided that. and in effect. gave the “justification and possiblity for reason being the sole ground or determining the good. The next ethical theory will provide ‘another possible basis for determining the good using reason love Study Questions 1. Why is autonomous reason the only acceptable Fawn af ies fr Kan? 2. What is the importance af the Keatan shift from Dreoecupation wth the exterel good to ste the teeral god? 3H does ding ons mara duty beam stones tnd af the sme time universalzale ithe Konan pein of man ean end inher? 4 What isthe reasonable relationship between religion ai ets Kant” pain hope asthe taba etween git and task oe Kanan pep Exercise Read the newspapers for one woek and identify a moral Issue where you can use the categorical imperative to discera the duty of the persons involved. Report your moral issue in| class. 7PART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Hil References Kant, Immanuel. Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics, Translated by ‘Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Whitefish, NY: Kessinger, 2007, Loude, Robert. Kant's Impure Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Reyes, Ramon. Grovnd and Norm of Morality. Manila ‘Ateneo Press, 1989. Savater, Fernando. Apéstatas Razonables. Barcelona: ‘Mandragora, 2007 Savater, Fernando. Etiea per wn Figlo. Roma: Laveraa, 2007, CHAPTER IV Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill Learning Outcomes [At the end ofthis chapter, you should be able to 1. articulate the meaning of a consequentialist ethic; 2. analyze the Greatest Happiness Principle; 3. examine the objections to Mill's position and his responses to each of them; and uate ethical decisions from the point of view of utiltaranian Introduction ‘Human decisions always, have consequences. Whenever fone decides to do something, one's actions affect other people in ways beyond how one thought it would. Decisions continually affect the configuration and integrity of various forms of human relationships because in deciding to do ‘something, far instance, ono actually brings something new Into the world that has never existed before. Decisions bring forth new ideas, objects, and relationships into play in the ‘realm of action and thought. Because one decides in a certain ‘way, one affects others and the world in a particalar way, differently from how one would have if one decided differently In other words, particular decisions have particular ‘consequences that correspond to how one’s motives translated Into action through a.decisonPARY |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS In making decisions, one either looks to one's motives and to the foreseeable consequences of one's actions: Ofeentines, ecisions are judged as good if they are brought about by good and just motives and result im good consequences (On the contrary, decisions ate considered bad if they are motivated by anything most of society deems as malicious, such as selfishness, spite or envy, and if they have destructive consequencss However, as one knows, real life is Jot more complicated than this. One's motives are not always pure, and ‘consequences vary in kind and severity depending on those affected. In this ease, how does one judg the morality of a decision of an act? Doce one examine the motivation bebind the decision and see whether the act is mostly motivated by goodness or does one look at the results of the act? If one jjudges the morality of an action based on its consequences, ‘what eategories can he/she use to judge whether the act did produce good consequences? How can one say that an action ‘did produce desirable consequences? Does the end justify, the means? Does the goodness of the consequences, for instance, have mote bearing than the way, the method, or modus ‘operandi, with which such consequences are delivered? In ‘other words, even if one wore to say that morality is & matter of producing the best consequences, how do we understand its moral value in relation to motive and action? Are motives Irrelevant so long 86 an action or decison produces favorable consequences? Is the method by which a decision Is carried ‘out immaterial in assessing the rightness oF wrongness of an fact (for instance, the act itself is considered wrong, such as ‘ying! ‘Utilitarianism is a moral theory that tres to grapple with these questions. Among the famous proponents of this way of| ‘thinking, John Stuart Mil (1806-1873), is considered by many to be the most influential. His utilitarian theory of morality is development and clarification of the earlier form of the 7 (CHAPTER IV: UTILITARIAWISM: JOHN STUART MILL ‘theory authored by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1882) and espoused by his father, “Benthamite doctrine, which essentially ‘skates that it isthe greatest happiness ‘of the greatest number that is. the Imoasuce of right and wrong. Happiness in this context is understood na the ‘predominance of pleasure over pain. 2h" Stor Mil ‘John Stuart later on revises this doctzine by highlighting © distinction betwoen qualities and quantities of pleasures and pins Mills moral thoory is considered as consequentialist in that it judges the rightness and wrongnoss of actians baged fn their consequences. As opposed to deontological theories fa oaPART THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS of morality like Kant’s, which emphasize the motivation of duty, and virtue ethics, which emphasize the character of ‘agents, utilitarianism judges actions based on the quality tnd quantity of pleasure they are able to extend to as many people as possible, In other words, Mill holds that happiness (the predominance of pleasure over pain) is the goal of morality. Oue deliberates and reflects upon what is right before acting because one takes into account the potential effects of one's actions on other people's happiness. One, therefore, sees the importance of community in making ‘moral choices. Deciding on one's happiness is not solitary affair but an act which essontially brings to the fore one's relationship with others. Hl The Greatest Happiness Principle In Mill's ethics, actions are understood as right with respect to their capacity to promote happiness and wrong when they tend to promote the opposite of happiness. Happiness, as defined by Mill, is pleasure and the absence of pain, while unhappiness is pain or the absence of pleasure. For him, the Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle is the supreme measure of morality. Pleasure and ‘the freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, ‘and all desirable things are desired elther because they are inherently pleasurable or because they contribute to the prevention of pain. One of the foremost objections to such a doctrine is that it seems to degrade the nature of the human person by reducing morality to a pleasure-driven activity, not unlike thot of an animal's life that seeks only to multiply pleasure and avoid pain, Objectors point to the fact that itis a docirine suited for the followers of the Ancient Greck philosopher Epicurus [841-270 B.C] who thought that the purpose of philosophy is to attain happiness and tranguility in life. He believed that n CHAPTER IVP UTILITARIANIEM: JOMN STUART MILL happiness corresponds to atarazia and aponia, the peace fan freedom from fear and the absence of pain, respectively, However, followers of the Epicurean doctrine respand that it is actually their accusers that present the human. person in a ‘degrading light by implying that human beings are incapable fof experiencing any other form of pleasure other than ‘that comparable to an animal's. Mill adds that there is no ‘Epicurean or any such-related doctrine which does not assign to the pleasures ofthe intellect, felings, and the imagination ‘higher value than pleasures that derive from mere physical sensations. Jn other words, Mill's utilitarian doctrine makes ‘concrete distinction between higher end lower forms of pleasure. It doos not advocate a life of reckless abandon and ‘non-stop partying. Some kinds of pleasures are more desirable fand valuable than others. How does one determine which ploasures are highor than others? Mill explains | HF 1 were asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures or what makes one pleasure ‘more valuable than another, merely as « pleasure | except its being greater in amount, there is but one | postiblo answor. OF two pleasures, if there be one to Which all or almost all who have experience of both sive a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling ff moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more |) desirable pleasure. If ano of the two is, by those who sare competently acquainted with both, placed so far above tho other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attonded with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of ‘tho other pleasure which their nature ia capable of, we || are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a | superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount." ‘eee ana rr on ty i es 73If Bentham’s version of stiitarianism focuses on_ the potential amount or quantity of happiness that an action can potentially produce for it to be considered right, Mills ethics makes « sharp snd nuanced division of higher and lower forms of pleasure in terms of quality. Happiness should not ‘be measured solely on the basis of how long or how intense the feeling of pleasure is for a person or to those affected by ‘an action as Benthim, for instance, had thought. Although both agree that an action’s rightness or wrongness must take into account the number of those that shall be affected, [Mill says that even if more people benefit from an action’ consequences, but the kind of pleasure they experience jis considered lower or baser than the consequences of an faction that pleases # lot less people, but please them in a ‘more hima way, then the later course of action is deemed ‘more right, in that it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number while considering the fact that some pleasures are more befitting of a human being than others. Mill says that the pleasures of « higher quality are those that ‘employ our distinctively human faculties, such a the intel However, it should be noted that Millis not saying that people who have experienced both the pleasures of sensation ‘and pleasures of the intellect consistently profer the latter fon every occasion. He is not saying that competent judges of pleasures always prefer the higher forms of pleasure say, reading a good book over having a night of drinks with friends, He says that these people would not choose a ‘manner of existence that includes a greater amount of lower pleasures than higher pleasures. While it is reasonable to think that someone of experience of rational competence would sometimes prefer to go out and party with friends on some nights, it would go against reason for them to go out ‘every night to party at the expense of experiencing higher forms of pleasure, albeit of a smaller quantity. In other words, ‘4 wise man would aot exchange his lot for that of a foo!’ ‘even i he wore promised the pleasure's befitting of «fool's for alifetime. This is precisely because a competently experienced ‘uman recognizes that the pleasures of wisdom, though fewer fn quantity, far outweigh that ofa fool's. Mill does not assert that the exercise of distinct human faculties lke the intellect thas a greater intrinsic value than the exercise of those that promote the pleasures of sensation. What he claims is that the pleasures derived from uniquely human activities such fs reading, conversing with others, aud philosophizing have ‘superior value than other forms of activities. For example, if one is faced with the choice of playing ‘online games all day for a woek and studying schoo! lessons for at least three hours a day for a week, one must ask oneself ‘which course of action fulfills one's higher faculties mare, One should also ask how many people can benefit from such a ‘hoice compared to the other, as well as the kind of lappiness Jp-can bring these people. Let us thus examine the case: ‘ immacetly states ones | + tedious yet allows creo sterchforfunondescterert.| ” develop hishherhtelect and + olewzonetohongout wih | itusct perseverance in ena leomning porte esonstor * Jets one enjoy ones whe ‘caning the meray shea + tredcpine of ocuerngon relent tails lotedtoones ssdscation cen go along way in + essen atifiesane crete endeavors ‘ondoresgomingtiends | + relomeysoitary srmecierey 1 asthe potenti to bring pleonure tenes omy by ‘rong ones arte ar their gi ofeaaton Dresses cay tase Fouseheldchores et ‘When one carefully examines the Kinds of pleasures ‘at stake in the possible consequences of one's decision, one realizes that studying, while seemingly “painful” relative toPART i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS cnc dice for immediate ratification, ears more potential 12" tang happen the long run compared to playing calne game nr, even fw sane, hat laying Saline gue rings ore pase to more people In 9 moe Shmedite manner on il ha oak wa om of pleasure Ibvinge hems Ae these pears lngsting? What Tappan ater week of comaratei in he online gaming Unger the bons rated tee bade of ur fens or prvi bonds of wuts aljaens re exta Sd julged batt on your ality ply the pune ch that {Tyou ar tel prs there any grater tat pose fouls wane te ply 9th yon sf)? Doe he plese of ‘Eanng ins gun beg you athnte bmn fle Bh pure nor an ny th od th di? (On the eter hand if ne coe to tea se a ster amount of tine saying, oe also hat to an she pa of ‘Shou! mock ie worth the pleasure i potently creates fo ono and the, Even thereto arate at ttdvngoomatealytranno it ihe ren cod sre city sll worth dng? What ie sls does one fain rom prsrering trough pages and pages of lous? tanto tha is ie might rag plese oes Prone (jn ss prents and cosl, fr ann, mit Ft ea ht aly of ae ent Pigs than the pls ered fom plying nie goes ‘afd! te notin poeta of deepening and exgaing on howd and exerci oe intl woth the pat fhe saviy! Wold notte pent of exeling schon Sretualy geting ord bene nore peopl fo long Fann a ore ulin wa? Now, ene might say that Mill might conclude that studying always inter than plying. However, one aay argue that ne alo lene etal alsin laying Computer guns ad a the developmen of esp Is fore importante than geting 8 ood job alter raduating (ChAPrEm IV! UTILITARIANISM: JOHN STUART MILL from school. Mill must not be interpreted hastily. He is not saying that lower pleasures must always give way to higher forms of pleasure. He doce not envision persons s on dimensional. One way of looking at the matter is this: First, one must ask oneself thie question before making the choice: Is there way to strike a balance between the two activities such that the importance of experiencing the higher pleasure is not completely compromised by choosing the ‘other option? Secondly, if one were really just restricted to choose one activity, one must ask himself/herself which of the ‘two options one would be truly happy and content in doing ‘exclusively in the context of being a human person. Third, ‘tone were allowed to experience the maximum amount of pleasure derived from playing online games, he/she one be amenable to be consigned to an entire life of just playing online games than a life of developing his/her intellectual faculties? Fourth, would a competent judge, who has had considerable experience of the two options, prefer to have his/ her immediate desires fulfilled by lower pleasures than to postpone his/her gratification for the purpose of reaping the happiness involved in cultivating his/her higher faculties? Mill says. that. a human being whose capacity for ‘enjoyment is low has a greater chance of having his/ her pleasures satisfied than « person predisposed towards experiencing higher forms of pleasure. The development ‘of one's capacity for enjoyment (capacity to appreciate the Aifference between higher and lower pleasures) is either inherent in a person or more commonly due to the lack of ‘opportunity to experience the higher pleasure. Mill does not believe that « person who has had experience of both lower fand higher pleasures would prefer the former at the expense ‘of losing the opportunity to enjoy the latter. He larifies this ‘int in this quote Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tonder plant, easily killed, not only by hostileJ influences but by mere want of sustenance; and in the | majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the ‘occupations to which their position in life has devoted them and the society to which it has thrown them, fre not favorable to keeping that higher capacity in texercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes because they have not time || or opportunity for indulging them and they addict |) themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are the only | otes to which they have access, or the only ones wiieh |) they are any longer eapable of enjoying, It may be ‘questioned whether anyone who has remained equally susceptible to both classes of pleasures ever knowingly ‘and calialy preferred the lower, though many, in all ‘ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine botb.* Mill presents an important point in his utilitarian theory of morality. He recognizes a person's embeddedne |, caltural, and historical context that plays 8 ‘rucial role in his/her capacity to recognize varying kinds of pleasures. If one is, for instance, born and raised in a society that uimately favors the cravings and desires of the flesh over other pleasures, then i is ikely that one will have 1 preference for these experiences since one does not know any better. Returning to our earlier example if one lives {in a household which does not nurture and encourage the discipline of studying and learning, itis but commonsensical to assume that this person is more susceptible to favor feelings which relate to activities that contain in themselves the prospect of immediate gratification, for instance, playing, ‘online games. The fact that most people associate happiness ‘with sensual gratification and prefers this over other forms says something about the culture and values of society itself 7 (CHAPTER IV: UTiLITaRAMIsM: JOMW STUART MiLL A society with systems and institutions that legitimize and reward « life of excess is likely to produce ctizenry that is insensitive if not blind, to higher calling for buraanity. One of Mill's most famous quotes runs as follows: It better to be a human being dissatsfiod than a pig satitied better to he Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, And if the fool or the pig is of different opinion, itis because they only know their own side of the question." Happiness, according to the Greatest Happiness Principle, must be DPursued in direct proportion to the form of the being which Aesires it. Th other words, a pig profers pleasures befitting ‘of its nature and would be clueless to the possibility of ‘expetiencing other or higher forms precisely because itis a pig and not a human being. A perton, however, has the ‘capacity to realize a higher form of happiness because his/ hier nature as a rational being permits him/her to do so, ‘A fool, therefore, is a person who bias uo idea that being ‘human allows him/her to expetience wisdom and s0 he/she relegates his/her existence as compatable to that of a pig's, fas it were. In other words, Millis saying that the forms of pleasures that are considered higher, like the pleasure of fining wisdom, because they are more difficult to attain and fare to a certain extent more dificult to access, are oftentimes looked over in favor of pleasures that are easier to access ‘and immediately gratifying. Ulimately, one must defer to the verdict of competent judges who have experienced wide spectrum of pleasures inorder to secure a guide for moral Judgment. He says, “On a question which is the best worth having of two pleasures or which of two modes of existence Is the most grateful to the feelings, spart from its moral attributes and from its consequences, the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both, o, if they differ, that ‘of the majority among them, must be admitted as final”!Paar I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ne may therfore, say that In matters of dey for inwtance ome ugh to sek the opinion of a person Wh has ‘Sporienced both scktess ad Belt 20 fi out wheter Ring’ tatty, highetoleterol foods prefeable ever Gnvuring vegetables and frais. One who has ot known ‘Sinun do te bod dit eannoe have awit apreaton “hom ipertnt en's ath x over the satiation of ons fala I ths person, terefr,tlone that expen has Aeeeh m/l he pete ting alert ont tinue ores be cern tht he/she knows what esbe (king bo and hat Hb pinion mater To conta, the Greatest Happiness Pencpe, as the akimate end of action, sponsors the vow tat morlty Sr abouefotering an existence tat i exempt rom pln a8 toca pone nd oe tht i capable of eovig leases baftngs human, person in terme of bth quay and tale which benefits not just oneself bat others a8 wel Trane io in'a quendery regarding which option ofr the vot of hs greatest hapines for the frees number, Tre tat se fom en's eof eso, consul he wisdom Sf thre ‘that hve experienced bron ange of pleasures hata conse apa ofsansng the va of every slain [il Replies to Objections To the objection that happiness is unattainable "There are some who object to Mill's proposition by saying that happiness is unattainable. Many things such as poverty, tisease, and failure thwart one’s attempt at being happy. Mill responds by saying that if his abjectors define happiness as ‘continuity of highly pleasurable excitement, then it is true that such a life is indeed impossible. Pleasures often only (CHAPTER IV! UTILITARIANISM: JOWN STUART MLL last for a certain period. ‘The pleasure derived from eating only lasts until one experiences hunger once more, while the pleasure derived from being with ones friends often only lasts for as long as one isin good terms with them. However, Mill says that the life of happiness defined in his thoory is not a life of rapture but an existence made up ofa few transitory pains, different pleasures with a decided predominance of pleasure over pain. It is @ kind of happiness whieh does not expect from life more than what it can realistically provide He adds that history has shown ws that a satisfied and happy life is mainly composed of a balance between tranquility and ‘excitement. Those who find no happiness in such a state, he says, are generally those who care for ao one but themselves, (On one hand, those with no friends Soon see that their selfish cexcitements are essentially meaningless in the face of death On the other hand, those who have cultivated friendships fand have left lasting legacy of fellow feeling for mankind retain their happiness in any eireumstance whether it be in lively moments or on the eve of death. Another reason why some experience difficulties in being happy is lack of mental caltivation, A person that has developed anc harnessed one's mind to find pleasure in the realms of natitre, poetry, art, ‘and science continually finds soures of joy in his/her life, no ‘matter the circumstance. Happiness is, therefore, attainable if ‘one understands it realistically and lives one's ie in solidarity with others and cultivates one’s deeper eapacity to enjoy that ‘hich endures inthe transitory. To the objection that Utilitarian morality is incompatible with self-sacrifice Another objection to Mill's theory is that it does not recognize the value of self-sacrifice. Mill answers this bjection by saying that utilitarianism does recognize the goodness of self-sacrifice which places the welfare of others 8PART l THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘over and above one's own but only to the extent that it is ‘done for the sake of promoting the greatest happiness of the [greatest number, and for no other reason is it acceptable ther than this. If self-sacrifice is merely dove for its own sake, then utiltarianiam 9oes i as a waste. The kind of sacrifice Mill finds reasonable is the kind which produces ‘consequences that benefit more people other than oneself. He reiterates that utilitarianism not only promotes the happiness of the agent but ofall concerned who potentially experienee the consequences of the agent's act. A person must be as Impartial as possible in weighing his/her happiness against that of others. He ascribes to Jesus Christ's teaching to love one’s neighbor as oneself, expressing how utilitarianism values the other person at much ss oneself. In an ideal setting, the ‘interest of a individual is achieved in harmony with the good of the whole of society. Utilitarianism upholds the belief that ‘a truly moral person always tries to incorporate the good of ‘others in every decision he/she makes. Thus, in the case of seltsetifie, tis morally acceptable so lo as its done for the sake of the good of the greatest number. To the objection that social concern is a rare motive for action ‘The lest objection Mill doals with in his treatise is the objection relating to the question whether people actually hhave society in mind whenever they choose a course of action For Mill, a distinction must be made between the motives ‘and the consequences of one's actions with respect to which of the two is the basis for judging an act to be moral or not From his perspective, it really is too much to expect that people always act from the motive of their duty towards ‘thers. Most actions are not done for this reason. One must distinguish between the rule of action and the motive. If one (CHAPTER IV: UTILITARIANISM: JON STUART MULL ‘saves a fellow human person from being ticked bya conman for the sake of gaining favors from the act and not simply because one is motivated by duty to look after one's neighbor, the morality of the act is not diminished in the least. In ‘other words, from the utilitarian perspective, the motive lias othing to do with the morality of an action, Of course, it i ideal to always have the good in mind in every decision, but as far as morality is concerned, the act itself is moral so long, as it promotes the good of the greatest number. The motive ays something about the kind of person doing the act, but does not say anything about the morality of the action ‘one decides to undertake. In addition, Mill says that a great ‘umber of actions are meant to benefit individuals rather than the greater majority. Given the fact that not everyone fs in a position to have one's actions directly affect. the hhappiness of the whole in terms of public utility, Mil asserts that one needs only attend to the good of the few who shall Potentially reap the benefits of. one's actions. In short, one ‘cannot fault someone for having a small sphere of infkience for this does not curtail her eapacity to sill put the welfare of bothers (90 matter how few) over his/bers 8PART |; THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS [il The Ultimate Sanction ‘Aig extra ann 1 hl mala tne a sprees th aa te thy dont cael ont lew 8 By ees, Fee il pores tlle ny orl nae seas ny ae aly uly bod ies pace ey reattach tay hare to aide Hc Uinatl Sem o MIL Wie mio aloe boat” tat eels teint enc of he pine tly Th tenis le yep oo Cun fhe etre mete tht pov th peta tr url casut han tof neni Go ane tices od) Abert na cps tine SEES vier a tne lr ce bbe) Sera tae bt oer Hie mesg te He Selo tins eying tn nan fone Sram tne gros af Gt thse wo hak at std et stat which promt i grates apie Sis prove enaber mat abe bbeve et ae at Goapven ‘The ober exerel ton ete ao Sayre er epi Mil sy tht such slagedwic one undesans hat ane ano ine win he dese ef irs s0 ign emits at ns Ti conti oie rl pon dose at th ens east se wl pied by ty taiwhmrer way bei leg! Gae,improned) o ext Vel ol etocaton arian) Ml ns ht Eh Cotes empath he dvr o ty for i comnaly in the ng of he gente uber Suche notre telnet tein of thar ik repost at advotage or anager en Catv com nt and may ter, en ctr wk the nl oy (CHAPTER IV: UTILITARIANIGM: JOHN STUART MILL Mill then proceeds to explain that although external ‘sanctions do promote the welfare of the whole, itis still ‘the internal sanction of conscience that is considered as the ultimate sanction of morality. This is the feeling associated ‘ith one's violation of duty towards others when one selfishly looks after one’s happiness exclusively. Conscience is. the internalization of the external sanctions of morality: that {eels remorse each time one acts without considering first the effect or consequences of one's actions in other people's lives. This feeling of fellowship with other people is what ultimately drives one to persevere to be moral. As a social being, the human person has the ability to gauge-the morality of his/her action in the context of preserving the harmony between his/her pleasures snd the pleasures of others. In the end, one can only sleep well at night when he/she has ‘clear conscience, that is, when one is certain that he/she did everything to promote not just his/her own happiness, but that of everyones Conclusion Uniltarianism espouses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that actions are right when they promote the happiness of the greatest mumber and wrong if they cause the opposite. The principle of utility judges the morality of actions based on consequences, If ati action leads to the hhappiness of more persons, then that action is considered ‘moral, However, Mill makos an important distinction betwee the quantity and quality of happiness or pleasure. He holds that wllitarianism is not only interested in promoting the hhappiness of the most number of persons, but it also takes {nto account the kind or quality of happiness an action is likely to produce. In othor words, if one aims to do the Tight thing, one also has to take into account what kind of hhappiness one's action will bring into the lives of others, asPART b THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Pleasures of the mind are considered ‘higher thatthe pleasures ofthe flesh, With respect to matters of deliberation | ‘on what forms of pleasure are to be regarded as higher thait others, Mill points to the opinions of eompetent judges who hhave both knowledge and experience of w wide spectrum of pleasures which make them capable of truly appreciating the Alifferences and varying degrees and qualities of pleasures. ‘The aim of utilitarianism, therefor, is to promote a moral way of life that considers the welfare of the community fand not just one's own, such that Mill declares that i is the internal sanction of conscience which serves asthe ultimate sanetion of the principle of utility: To think of ‘the consequences of one's actions (both quantitatively and ‘qualitatively) in the context of the community is to be moral, “To contribute to the pleasure of others and to decrease the measure of pain that afflicts them is one's realization of a ‘truly moral ie So far, you have learned moral theories that are Western in their origin, In the next section, you will be introduced to how the Eest envisions a moral way of life, Gandhi's dictum of non-violence, Buddha's path to enlightenment, and ‘Confucian ethics are all discussed in the hope of expanding ‘and doepening your historical appreciation of moral questions. ea Study Questions What is the Greatest Happiness Principle and how is it different from Kantian deontology? 2. How is Mill's version of utilitarianism similar to ai diferent from that of Jeremy Bentham’? 3, How does Mill respond to the tltarianism i a “ewinish” doctrine? jcewsation that (CHAPTER IV: UTILITARIAWISM: JOHN STUART MILL 4. Why does Mill distinguish different pleasures? What Js the criterion for judging whether a, particular pleasure is higher in quality as compared to other forms of pleasure? What does Mill mean when he claims that. motives hhave nothing to do with the morality of an action? Divide the class into two groups and debate on this tatter using Kant’s and Mills philosophies. 6. What aro some objections to the utilitarian doctrine of ‘morality? How does Mill respond to eacl? 7 What the ultimate sanction of the principle of tty? Exercises A. Go back to your report about the nows articles that ‘used the Kantian framework as a basis for making ‘A moral judgment. This time use the norms of Mill. Compare the moral reasoning in each framework and share i with the elas B. Form small groups and come up with your own version of Benthamn's Folicife calenlus, Reference Mil John Stuart. “Utilitarianism,” In Utilitarianism and Other Essoys. New York: Oxford Publishing, 1998CHAPTER V Asian Ethical Traditions Learning Outcomes [At the end of this chapter, you should be able to 1, articulate the basis for ethical behavior for Buddhists; 2. analyze how the concept of the oneness of all things in the Bralima serves as a bass for moral behavior; and 3, examine how Confucianism founds ideal human ‘behavior on the ideas of Ren and Li HM introduction ‘This book has focused mainly on Western thinkers. It has articulated the quest of thinkers from European traditions to articulate the good and live in a way that realizes the ood. The text follows the debate of Western humanity regarding the grounds and norms of ethical self-ealization Te follows the rootedness of these norms on the natural law to their grounding in reason and the eventual employment ‘of discourse theory to atrive at a shared conception of the good in a multiverse of society. In most ethics courses, inchiding this one, there is heavy emphasis on the traditions of the West to train students to think about the ethical ‘way of existence. However, there Is another tradition of ‘thinking about the good that is worth considering for fuller understanding of how people orient thelr lives to the good. ‘This tradition comes from the great civilizations of the East, particularly from India and China, CHAPTER V: ASIAN ETHICAL TaADiTioNS ‘The students of this course may not realize It but many people in the Philippines are deeply influenced by or have ‘reat commonalities in their ethical way of thinkiag with these traditions, For instance, people believe that if they do bad things, they could be victims of misfortune because of ‘Korma. Others believe shat one ought to live in a way that hhonors their ancestors. Most people believe that the world is ‘ordered by Heaven and that if ane wishes to have a good life, ‘one must understand that order and live ones life aecording to it. These are all beliefs that echo or are derived from Indian and Chinese traditions. It would be profitable to study these traditions because they are closer to Asian moral sensibilities and have shaped them, ‘Those Asian traditions share some general characteristics. Manuel B. Dy identifies six common themes which can be drawn from the great Asian spiritual and intellectual ‘traditions. Firstly one can immedistely notice that religions thought is intertwined with ‘philosophical and ethical thinking. There is no real separation of beliefS about the transcendent and the cosmos, including the traditional ‘mythical belies. Beliefs about Dharma and Karma, the Deo tnd the gods, frame the crtieal understanding of the great ‘Asian Philosophical traditions regarding the good and the good life. At heart, there Is a quest to define what it means to live a good human life and thelr reflections could not be cexricated from thei greater belief about how the gods or the ‘greater order of Heaven govern the universe and keep order, or their intuition that there is a transcendent order that rules hhuman flourishing but is not and cannot be defined by the intellect. Also, at the heart of this union of faith and eritieal ‘thinking about the good is a quest for emancipation. Dy says ‘that at the heart of all Asian philosophical thought is the ‘quest for emancipation: “be it from moral degradation as inPART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS the case of Confucianism, from misery as itis in Tacs and ‘Buddhism, and from finitude as in the ease of Hinduism.?* Dy then notes that a second theme whieh binds these intellectual traditions is “love and compassion.” Since every ayster seeks to realize human emancipation and fullness, ‘© homan fullness that is rooted in the transcendence of suffering, fintide, disorder, strife, and maybe even death, it ‘becomes important that people live with Jove and compassion. Compassion and love, they intuit, are paths to tranquility, peace, and being whole. Connected with this is the third theme which isthe cannectedness of personal cultivation and social responsibility. Realizing one's goodness Is sometimes tied to fulfilling one's duty to one's family, ones clan, and ‘one's government” Enlightenment is the fourth theme. Each of the great. Asian traditions, more or less, outlines a path to enlightenment. his means an awakening to the true order ff the universe which leads to an awakening to the order ‘to which human beings align their existence. Thus, these traditions give human beings a path to awareness of the true order of all things, uncloured by human desire and folly, in ‘order to become what they onght to be. [A final characteristic is that these great teachings offer paths of “harmouy with oneself, with others, with nature, ‘with 9 Transcendent.” Because the fullness of Imman becoming is centtal to all these traditions, they all have teachings related to the harmony of self with all beings, ‘especially the transcendent, For these traditions, the existing transcendent order is the very basis of all fori of existence Human suffering and disquiet are rooted in the person's (CHAPTER V: ASIAN ETHICAL TRADITIONS inability or inadequate participation in the order of things. "Thus, varions Indian schools of thought speak ofthe need for human beings to be enlightened in the ways of the one order ‘of the universe and align one's way of being to that onder Examples of some of these great traditions are discussed here to give’ readers sense of how their metaphysical, religious, and mythical concepticns of the universe ean be the foundation of an ethes. The Vedas and Upanishads Indian philosophy is not discussed extensively in this section. Buddhism is the focus of this diseussion but only because it isthe aspect of Indian thought most relevant and ‘most useful to the local students. However, the diseussion begins with some aspects of ancient Indian philosophy that sive the reader the foundational ¢honght of this tradition ‘The Vedas are some of the oldest philosopbieal writings in the workd. These series of hymns to the most ancient gods fare a poetic articulation of the structure and meaning of the universe. Here, there is a family of gods for whom the hhymns are composed. The livmns themselves are considered direct revelations that speak of the most sacred knowledge about the work, its creation, and the principles of reality. And ‘the most basic insight of these writings is that Rita is the foundational principle ofall things, Ria isthe right order of the universe. Human beings experience this order through the presence of the gods to whom they dedicate the performance ofthe livmns embodied in rituals. Bach god isa manifestation of a force or principle of the universe and the singing of their hymns leads to the realization of a good life aligned to the order of the cosmos and the forces that keep it like the Rita.* More popularly, this means the performance of ritualsPART |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS according to how priests define perfection, And unfortunately, ‘most people take the Vedas to be a handbook of prescribed rituals. The focus json the external rituals to realize good fortune, which leads to a rethinking of the revelations of the Vedas collected in the Upanishads. ‘The writers of the Upanishads seek to understand the fullness of human becoming by realizing the deepest insight bout the true nature of the universe. They seek to articulate ‘why and how bunan beings could come to fullness through | enlightenment about the transcendent, unchanging reality of being, The expression of the path to enlightenment is through poetic deliberations on the nature of belag, and the human ‘realization of self in this universe Beyond rituals, the authors of the Upanishads share a path of spiritual enlightenment. The first idea is Samsara or reincarnation. All human beings are born repeatedly in lifferent forms of life, It isnot just a process of repetition but ‘one of purification. In each incarnation, a person has a chance to live a more enlightened life. In the teaching of Karma or actions and their consequences, the actions of persons hhave jst consequences. The way persons live their lives redounds on what happens to them, and more importantly, it determines their reincarnation, Relucarnation js not a mere repetitive process, where one is arbitrarily reborn without reason. The process is one of eallghtenmment and liberation One seeks to go beyond the Karmic cycle of rebirth and, jn a sense, entrapment In the life of the finite body. The Upanishads teach that by living a life of meditation and purification, one achieves a state of spiritual enlightenment that will allow us to live in genuine accord with the order of the good, If one lives well, Karma will lead one to a better life. Thus, one mist live well according t0 one’s Derma, which is the duty that one has based on one's station oF Station in life. There ate duties given one's cast or status in the social order, and if one fulfills all one’s given duties, (CHAPTER V: ASIAN ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘one can eseape the Karmic eycle which i the state of Moksha ‘oF liberation. To achieve Moksha, one must come to the insight that all things are one in the Brahman. All things that exist are from the Brahman, and ultimately all things return to the Brahman. That simple realization leads to Moksha or the state of enlightenment that liberates persons from the cycle of birth and rebirth to a state of stillness and a rootedness in the eternal. This is because the direct insight into this truth allows one to lase one's egotism and sense of the importance of the individual self. The fullness of human existence is to find one's oneness which is one's eternity with the Braman ‘The realization that “all is Brahman" correlates to. the ‘renter insight that “Brahman is Atman? and “Atman is Brahman.” Atman isthe self that underlies all being. Iti the eternal self whichis all our selves. And so all things are one being in Brahman and they axe all one self in Atmman,"” To achieve Moksha is to come to the deepest awareness of this ‘ruth and to realize it in one’s way of being." This insight ‘can be achieved if one purifies oneself of material needs and desires and meditates on the truths revealed through the Vedas and Upanishads, One noods direct acces to this truth ‘through insight, thus the need for purification and meditation, All this exercise aims to experience ‘the absolute within oneself" And with that, one finds the eternal and sil center of existence that is fini and comes to an end Here we can soe how the religis/metaphysical/ythical/ ‘mystical principles of Indian philosophy can be the foundation {or an ethics. If we ask the question “How does a good person live her life, then the answer is to live in a way that leads 9to the insight that all things are Brahman, and Bratman fand Atman are one, This means « good human life iy one of purification, One must act in a way that does not detract from insight and enlightenment. Also, one must be careful of ‘one’s actions soit does nos incur negative Karma which keeps fone imprisoned in the eycle of rebirth, Indian philosophies ‘and religions seek to artealate how to lve in such a way that ‘one fulfills these basic insights ‘Buddhism is one development of this workiview, HB Buddhism Buddhism was born from the enlightenment of Gautama Buddha who lived between the 6th and 4th BCE, ‘A sheltered prince, Buddha sought the ‘meaning of existence when he realized ‘that human life is suffering, The Buddha's Lifelong search led him to extreme asceticism. However, he discovered that fenlightenment and salvation could be achieved in the ordinary human life if people are enlightened about the nature of suffering. People ‘who seok to arrive at a higher level of enlightenment, where fone can see “beyond birth and death," need to realize four truths called Chatvari-arya-saiyant ‘Govtome Buds ‘The first truth is that life Is suffering or dukkha. In the ‘yle of death, life, and rebirth, there is constant suffering” ‘The second truth is that action or Karma isthe cause of this CHAPTER Vi ASIAN ETHICAL Taabimions suffering, particularly *nonvirtuous action and the negative mental states that motivate such actions.” These are afflictions of the mind such as desire, hatred, and ignorance which are rooted in the wrong valuation of self or atman, The ‘extreme valuing of the wef, the desire to preserve the Lis the ‘cause of suffering, People ouly need to awaken to the truth that there is no self to preserve. And as long as people keep Delioving that it is the human boing’s task to cultivate the sll, people wil be trapped in egotism and selishness, ‘The third truth is that there isan end to suffering and the path beyotd suffering is to transcend this illusion and ‘enter the state of nirrana, Nirvana is the dissolution of suffering which isthe fruit of the surrender of the ego, In this ‘way, they surrender hatred and desire because hatred and osire are the fruit ofthe fact that there is no individual se ‘The path to this avakening is articulated by Donald Lopez hn | One useful way to approach the topie is through the ‘traditional triad of ethics, meditation, and wisdom, |) Bthies rfers to the conscious restrain of nonvirtuous deeds of body and specch, usually through observing some form of vows, Meditation (Dhyana), in this context, refors to developing a sufficient level of | concentration (through a variety of techniques) to ‘make the mind a suitable tool for breaking through | the illusion of self to the vision of nirvana. Wisdom is insight, at a deep level of concentration, into the fact that there is no self. Such wisdom is said aot only to prevent the accumilation of future karma but ‘eventually to destroy all past Karma so that upon death, one is not reboen but passes into nirvana.®PART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS. Charly, the path to Nirvana offers a foundation for living 1 good life and acting according to the good. It requires dliseiplined form of Ife in order to realize human fullness. ‘This is explained in the fourth truth--how human beings ‘ought to live « life free from suffering by following the Eightfold Path or Astangika-margo. Again, Donald Lopez provides a concise description ofthis path: In brief, the eight elements of the path are: (1) correct view, an accurate understanding. of the nature of things, specfically the Four Noble ‘Truths; (2) correct ‘intention, avoiding thoughts of attachment, hatred, fand harmafal intent; (3) correct speech, refraining [/-Trom verbal misdeeds such as lying, divisive speech, harsh speect, and senseless speech; (4) correct action, refraining {rom physical misdeeds such as killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct; (6) correct livelihood, twoiding trades that directly or indivectly harm otbers, such as selling slaves, weapons, animals fr slaughter, intoxicants, oF poisons: (6) correct effort, abandoning negative states of mind that have already arisen, preventing acgative states that have yet to arise, and sustaining positive states that have already arisen; (7) corroct mindfulness, awareness of body, feelings, thought, and phenomena (the constituents of the [| existing world); and (8) correct concentration, single- | mindedness Clearly, Buddhism provides a way to understand what 4 good human beiag ought to do to come to the fullness of ‘human life, The Eightfold Path provides guideposts to acting in this world. If one soaks to act mindfully, these signposts fare exactly a way 20 discetn if one's actions are creative and non-destructive to others. Infact, they provide a framework (CHAPTER: ASIAN ETHICAL TAADITIONS for living in a way that avoids the destructive or evil ways of ‘human beings. ‘With these examples of Indian thought, we can eee that their ethical tradition is not only a quest to articulate good action but a way to realize genuinely human existence leading to the fullness of transcendence. Chinese Philosophy and Confucian Ethics This section explores the fundamental ideas of Confsian thought as a representative of Chinese ethical thought Confucian ethic snot the only or primary form of Chinese ethics, There are Dacint and Legalst Chinese schools of thought that contribute oqualy fo the development of the traditional Chinese people's conception of the god. However, inthe Interest of brevity, ths book focuses on the most popular and foundational theory to which all subsequent losopbies resp Confucianism is «system of thougtt_f attributed tothe teacher Kongai known in the West ae Confucius. Ho was an aspiring civil servant who lived his life 5 a teacher of governance, ethics, nd "tu, and was able to gather following round him. His main preoccupation was the possibility of builing « hermoniou, ered society. He tok his inspiration for Tiling a jst kingdom from the ancient sage rulers, King Wen and King We and their virtuous reget, the Duke of Zhou." 2 phtos ert ren ann nig Cs Cee gy Sateudirs nen ox Santen ONHe believed that if people were able to internalize or tale ts their own the ways of these virtuous people, then the state would be ordered because it would reflect the onder of Heaven. ‘This is what he taught people: the way to bear the order of heaven in one's conduct ‘At some point, his followers compiled = book of conversations known in the West as the Analects, the iain source of Confucian teaching. They are a series of conversetions, anceotes, and responses of the teacher to his students? queries that are not arranged in any partcilar ‘order. Later disciples worked on his thought and systematized ‘and deepened it If one desires to understand the foundations ‘of this thought, there are threo other books that stand as a source for this! the Book of Mencing, the Doctrine of the ‘Mean, and The Great Learning. ‘There is one basic aspiration for any Confucian, thot is, to be a person who has the virtue of ren, to be a person ‘who has internalized the way of Heaven. Heaven here does not indicate the abode of God. It is the source of order and balance, the way of life and nature, the way of justice and proper relationships. It is the order that must govern one's ‘way of being for pesple to find their peace. A person of ren ‘knows how to act properly or with propriety In all situations ‘siving all situations and things their due, but i is also about ‘being inuman and the relationships between persons. Manuel B, Dy explains that “Ren is made up of two characters, ren, ‘meaning human bring, and erf, meaning two, Indicating ‘thus that ren is the virtue that governs interpersonal relationships. Ren is translated as ‘benevolence,’ ‘Kindness’ “uman-heartednoss,’ humanity,’ and when Confucius was asked for its meaning, he said, ‘Ren isto love Inman beings” (Analects, 12:22)2* 98 (CHAPTER: ASIAN ETHICAL TRADITIONS Im order to realize. the ethical nobility. oF human sxemplarity which makes one a person who bears the virewe of rem, it is necessary to live according to the way of Heaven, ‘And the path for the master was’ that of ritual or Li. Confucius eld the ancient ways sacred because for him, these bore the wisdom of ancestors who still understood the ways of heaven. These ancestors governed the state and acted in ‘their personal life in ways attuned to the order of Heaven or the Dao. The way to attunement is to focus on traditional ways because “filial piety, a respect for and dedication to the performance of traditional ritual forms of conduct, and the ability to judge what is the right thing to do in the {given situation” were codified in ritvale and customs. For Kongqui, the person aspiring to nobility mast master and follow these codes of conduct because as they ate mastered, ‘one's nature becomes one with the Dao. Li or custom and ritual are not only empty actions that are handed down from the ancestors but the embodiment of the Dao realized in daily life so that a person who follows Li can became one with the Dao. A person must be able 40 live according to the way which is the very order of the universe which, among other things, is the measure of what is appropriate, of what is just, and the balance whieh isthe bass of harmony. A. person must cultivate himself/herself so that he/she is upright and lives according to the true ovder of all things For instance, much store is placed by the Confucian on filial piety. This means being able to support one's parents and take care of them. Keep close to them and support them, Do not despoil their name and make sure that one’s actions do not bring shame to their reputation. This also means that ‘one shout make sure that when they die, one mast carry out properly the rituals that honor them in the prescribed ways. Many of these rituals were important to Kongqui becausePART |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS they preserved harmony, order, right relations, and were ‘manifestations of respect. More than that, they reflected the ‘wisdom of the noble rulers regarding the relationship with fue’ parents in way that accords with the Dao. ‘The perfection of the realization of the Li fully attunes oneself to the Dao to the point that one no longer needs to think shout It, One should alm at realizing the rituals with ‘what the master calls “harmonious ease” (1:12). In the Analects, he says | 24 The Master said, “At age fifteen I set my heart |) spon learning a thirty 1 took my stand at forty | Thecame free of doubts; at fifty I understood the Heavenly Mandate; at sixty my ear was attuned; and | at seventy I could follow my heart's desire without |) vermtepping the bound of preneety.* In this quote, one can seo the whole objective of ‘Confucian emphasis on Li. To sock the harmonious realization | of custom and ritual leads one to live attuned to the ways af Heaven, As one becomes attuned to the ways revealed by heaven to irtuows men, one becomes attuned to the workings af the Dao. As one becomes more attuned to the workings of the Deo, one no longer needs to think about the Dao or make fn effort at living the Dao because attunement means that ine's self is open to and responsive to the ways of Heaven. ‘Thus, Kongqui speaks f his own development in the way. His ‘quest for truth i his deepening knowledge and practice of Li. ‘Then i becomes a stand, then it becomes intimate knowiedse, ‘which eventually leads to perfect attunement such that his very heart, his will, becomes one with Heaven. His heart will never desire to act in a way that oversteps Heaven's order Dbecanse itis completely one with it, 100 (CHAPTER V: ASIAN ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘To cultivate a greater realization of Ren, a state needs good education and moral leadership. Good education for Kongqui meant an education of the heart and virtues, ‘This one could clearly receive from an education in the Aancent rituals and customs that leads to atenement with the ‘Dao. Moral leadership in a society is particularly important because people need exemplars to live a life according to the way. The sage realizes that in a corrupt society where the ‘Dao is not practice, thee will be disorder or people will only comply with the orders ofthe rulers because of fear. However, ifthe rulers practice virtue and are people who have Ren, then the people would be drawn to live according to the Dao Dbeeause their social order is founded on it. Also, exemplars show the people how to live according to the Dao, which in ‘urn inspires them to be virtuous. AAs mentioned, there are other philosophies that respond to Confucianism, like Daoism Daoism pits more emphasis on the opening to the Dao that makes itself present in the natural order rather than in the ways of the state, the family, and rulers. It is a mystical philosophy that is too deep and profound to explain in this short space, However, it i worth noting that although it has «different path, its main concern ‘is for the human being to reach human fullness by living in attunement with the Dao. Their path is one of meditation ‘that leads one to fall attunement with the Dao such that one could act in a way that is Wu Wei. Wu Weis to act without ‘effort, oF ina way that is 9 attuned to the Dao that one acts perfectly with its flow. No human action becomes contrary to the way of Heaven once one isso attuned to the very order of the nameless and unknowable Dao, But first, one must accept that the Dao transeends all knowing and articulation, and ‘with that realization somehow finds a way to gain insight into ‘that ground of all thingsPant |; THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Here we see the heart of shese ancient Chinese ethical systems, They all seek perfect attunement to the Dao in order to realize genuine hmmanity. Confucians spel out system of rituals avd customs so that there is a frame that can guide people to that profound attunement. Dacists offer » more complex path of mysticism that is worth studying in depth Decause of its poetry and profundity. But to understand their insight requires a lifetime of meditation and to understand the insights of Konggui requites some immersion Into Li. Hii conclusion "This section only seeks to give the student a sense of whit the main trends of Asian ethical thought are. Buddhism and Confucianism ate only two of the major traditions from this continent and its long history of philosophizing. These two fare the most relevant to the student given their influence ‘among the Filipino people. ‘They are also worth exploting In this chapter because they give a general insight into the ethos of the great Asian traditions, And this is what is most notable. Whew Asian ‘thinkers philosophize about deing the good, they do not think bout rales or guidelines for deciding what is a good action for what makes @ norma universal. They are not so keen about articalating rales and norms for autonomous persons to decide ‘what is an acceptable act for 8 rational, free, and autonomous person. Their main concern is how to live a good life and be a {good person by gaining an insight into the transceudent and ternal order of the universe, and from that insight how t0| ttune one’s life to that order. Whether itis the Doo or the Brahma and Atman, one needs a deep intuition of the good and from that inition live in attunement 102 CChAPTER V: ASIAN EtHicAL Taapitions Asian ethical systems fe less” about becoming an ‘antonomous, rational legislator of one's own laws, Rather, they fare a quest to articulate human connectedness and oneness to the deepest order of reality: Thus, much of thelr codes of behavior are concerned more with the process of coming to attunement with the source of order and harmony. And the good person, therefore, Is a person in communion With his/her fellow Inmans, with fellow beings, and with, the ground of reality itselé Once the communion is attained, one ‘egins to act as a good person, a person whose self-realization 's immediately harmonious and non-destructive. It is worthwhile for the student to explare some books that deepen his/her understanding of Asian philosophy. ‘These books are accessible to most readers because they are written in non-technical or specialiatIangnage And so, ‘anyone without training can understand what they aze saying, However, because they are poetic and symbolic, i takes years ‘of reflection and re-reading to Begin to harvest their richness. Study Questions 1. Discuss the similarities that bind the Asian philosophies discussed in the introduction, AS an Asian, do you agree that these characteristics mark ‘your thinking? Do they shape your ethical worldview? 2 Discuss how Hindu worldviews shape the Asians! conception of the good aad how it determines the way people act. Can you sympathize with their conception ‘of Karma and the nocossity to come to a deeper insight into the truth that alls Brabimar? 8. Do you think that Buddhism is a good guide for free ‘and autonomous human beings to shape their actions in the world? How does it shape their conception of sgennine human action?PART i THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS 4. Can you understand the need of Confucians to emphasize Li in their ethical systems? How does it ‘guide » person to becoming a person who is Ren? Do ‘yon see any constraints ¢o living a life bound by Li? HB Exercises 1A. Interview China Gnd about Mbp of eslr weshp Ask im ber about how i acta Hyer eomcpton of god human bast and i ita hmler oc etal toward ving pero ‘halve hi/ber repo from what yu undrtand toe the al fore ber B. Read the Buddha's fist serion whore be reveals our wohl ras. Wie o papar on a ase Four Noble Traths alc on dein on Baaving taal. Hil References oy as ena i soci nat aiaeou bude ewe Se Ne als dren Oe Fe eA onus ere eee eres ee ee Sree Ts Mela ‘CHAPTER V: ASIAN ETHICAL TraoiTions Aa Four Noble Truths” Encyclopedia Britannica, _https://www.britanniea.com /topic/Four- [Nobleruths, aceossod 20 June 2017, Religions of Asia in Practice: An ‘Anthology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002, Olivelte, Patrick, trans., The Upanishads, Ozfo " 7, » The Upanis ford World's (Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008,CHAPTER VI Discourse Ethics Leorning Outcomes At the end ofthis chapter, you should be nble to: 1. atigulgie, why discourse ethics was @ nectssary devglogans; 2. explain’ fhe principles of (U) and (D) as the Seutlesicns of discourse etlcs; and ithe principles of fair and jst discourse and how Use pnp ead t0 aha wept [i introduction Most people assume that they Imow what is right and ‘wrong, People can easly judge right and wrong based on their ‘eommon sense, For instance, it is almost an instinet to know ‘hat is proper and improper dressing for men and women. No ‘ne has to think too deeply about that. No one also has to think too deeply about their judgment about stealing, killing, tnd the beating of woren and children. People have on instinctive and, most of the time, unshakable moral judgment ‘bout these things. For instance, anyone would have an opinion about wife beating. Some men and women would immediately agree ‘hat particular women deserve the beating thoy get becanse they act against some norms such as talking flirtatiously ing dinner on time. However, to another man or not preps other people say that wife beating or any form of heating is nnaceeptable and inexcusable. Some people understand wife Chapren vi oiscounse ernics beating as, normal course of behavior that is « private ‘matter between husband and wife. Other people understand this as a crime that the state must intervene in. ‘These people hold their position to he a matter of common sense that does ‘ot need to be reflected on or thought too mach abet, Often, people do not think about moral Issues| as Problematic because they have an ethical framework from ‘which o interpret actions. This is something they do not usually construct with awareness but accept from their cultures and societies. ‘Their understanding bout the relationship between husband and wife, the duties of each to ‘the other, the roles they play, and the relationships of power and authority they have (including what they ean’ and ought to do to and for each other) are accepted fram their eatures ‘They have accepted this way of seeing good and evil from ‘their infaney from the way people act, talk, and think about ‘things. However, not everyone looks at things inthe same way, One has & way of understanding reality depending on one's social status, ethnicity, generation, historical situation, and gender. Thus, there are many ways of understanding and articulating the good. This does not mean, however, that there is no fathful or unfaithful interpretation of the good [Neither is the good necessarily relative, depending on one's perspective and needs. But people's perspectives om the good ‘re particular. And human beings feel that some ecnceptions of the good are more fruitful and more creative for living a ‘human life. It is even possible that some conceptions of the ‘epod actually violate the integrity of human existence. But ‘how can we tell whose sense of the good and whose sense of ‘the just is eloser to what is creatively human? This is an important question for ethical thinking because if we need to live together, we have to have a shared conception of the good. And if that is so, what is the basisPART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS of the shared conception of the good? In pre-modern times— this just means before the West entered the Renaissance and {imposed its values upon the world through colonizstion—it ‘was easier to have a shared conception of the good. People Delieved that the gods or the cosmos imposed a natural law nd the good was based on the transcendent order. It did not ‘matter what people believed; the universe had its own order fand the good was based on that order, Free human beings, fone way or the other, only had to understand how human hetions were defined by that order and all would be wel. The reat religions already defined how the natural law was the founvdation of the good. When civilizations could universally ‘accept. the authority of the transcendent, they could hiniverslly accept a universal, natural law on which to base their existence. lowever, when the Western world began to emphasize the autonomy of the human being from the will and intelligence Of a transcendent God, people lst the basis of the good that feveryone could agree with. The primary task of Western tnen was to find the basis of the conception of the good that did not rely on a transcendent order. They realized that the Inuman person was an autonomous being who had reason. and ‘sing this reason could legislate the good for himself. Bocause ‘man reason was universal forall persons, then they could devise rules for reason that would ensure that reasonable persons could artive at an understanding of the good that twas acceptable to all men. As long as the autonomous hhumans had rules for legitimately legislating for themselves ‘an umderstanding of the good that everyone could accept a= rational, then there would be a universal conception of the foo that was not dependent ox a god or the cosmos. And 30, Stealing is not good because it violates the commandments of God but because if human beings all believed that stealing was right or an acceptable practice, then societies would be thrown into chaos and violence, That stealing is forbidden is 108 (Chapren VI: Discourse Ernics tn actptale ethical ln cans it mould make sens oa Perrone of as, ‘This whole theory was snple and provided opeans and Anglo-Sosons «very clear besiy for udersanng tho good without having to beloe in anything Int uma reason, However, a the West pished farther nto the terore f ether peoples wth othr ways of understanding th gy eh potash at {universal reason that could leit the goo was aot ap simple, What ifthe other ways of derstanding the god af other peoples were equally a vald ns Western ways of undertnding the god? They dino even have fo look very far trom Europe and the United Sate to cooountr other way of uadetandng the god. The women's ‘movernert ws thle Ure aerting eal eel whit ween were beginning to realize that they had diferent wayn ot “alung reality that were equal lege tt ifn ows te At! 0, the! thinking wm faced with the reality a tuk cares aad possible omcetins of the good, Gen the pose confit etween pony iegiinae eneapin sf the good, how do we arive ta shared conception ofthe fed ina malta! sacety? This is the reason hy dtcourse thea scours theory emerged Disoure thor in thoy tat show ational people how to arive ata shared conception ofthe good sng reason Alone. In this case, hg eason meant she vars forms teaom of pl om den xara sytem of roe Discourse theory sent to articulate te bse pens for arriving at «consensual understanding of the good ho that Deol hare word al ve ith ech ther. One "uot important philosophers cf decors tery Trg Habermas. in Habermas was orn in Germany in 1929 ant was fred ta thinker dong the powt-Werld Wor It Rewestrton,Pant Is THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS He was greatly inflienced by the so-called Frankfurt Sehoo! uf Thinkers who were influenced by Marxian thought and ‘were deeply interested. in social critique of the emerging ‘modernity, Habermas, using his lenses as a philosopher and ‘sociologist, was very intorested in the democratization ‘of modern, societies founded on communicative action id practice. One of his most important contributions to philosopliy is the analysis of the emergence of the. publi ‘phere and civil society, as well as his articulation of discourse theory and discourse processes. He was a prolific writer who Analyzed how modern social configurations emerged and how discursive systems democratized these. This chapter focuses ba his discourse ethics theory and explores its implications foe tontemporazy ethical theory. [Hl competing Conceptions of the Good ‘As discussed, the foundational idea that brought about the emergence of discourse ethics is the idea that there aro competing conceptions of the good in modernized sorities. ‘This means that societies today are no longer homogeneous fand people have different forms of reason, including moral reasoning, In large societies where the multiplicity of peoples needs to be accommodated, conflict and injustice cannot be avoided, Injustice is « particular danger ip multicultural societies, Any society needs a dominant system to guide free and ‘autonomous people regarding what is acceptable behavior. ‘The dominant system also determines what is accoptable and ‘unacceptable behavior, what can be expected and what duties persons have to each other and to society. And soit is easy to see how people’ lives can be determined ly the dominant ethical thinking about the good. It frees people to act but it ‘also limits people from realizing, themselves if their conception (of the good is seen as contrary to the dominant system. CHAPTER VI: DISCOURSE ETHICS How does. a dominant system come about? Often, ‘dominant systems evolve, When humuan beings come together, to live togethor and survive with each other, ways of lining together snd doing things evolve. Bverything evolves—feom ‘ shared understanding, of planting vice to building houses, disposing of wasto, burying people, and dressing. The sense of 00d and evil, right and wrong, and proper and improper also ‘valves. These ways evolve as we go about experimenting with what works, what is fair, what is more ereative, and what ‘makes us better people by ourselves and with each other, Eventually, those ways are codified in an, unspoken system ‘and define our lives. In small societies tha: grow with each other, these dominant systems are not experienced as unjust ‘or limiting, that is, until conditions change Many rules that govern people make sense while the conditions that make thom useful exist, But if conditions change, then sometimes these rales become oppressive: For instance, when people do not think ef themselves as subjects separate from their families and romantic love is not valued as a way of realizing happiness, arranged marriages are not s problem. That is the best way of pairing people and ‘aking sure alliances are built, a4 well as making sure the best genes are propagated. However, when things change and individualism and the pursuit of individual happiness becomes ‘an important value for people, then arranged marriages do ‘ot work and eventually, the system becomes outdated. But hile it exists, it ean be oppressive for those who no longer focl that t srves their human flourishing ‘Thus, dominant systems are generally useful guides for ‘man behavior, expecially in « community: And domninent systems are not generally problematic in communities that share the same perspective on reality and where general conditions for human dwelling remain unchanged. However, ‘aman communities in our time are large in veale and quite ‘cosmopolitan. People from all cultures come to share thePant | THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘communities that they live ia with others: For people who fame from other cultures and are not part of the evolution of| te dominant culture, the conceptions of the good that rule them could be oppressive. Simple things such as manner of dressing and everyday courtesies could be misconstrued to be violations of good conduct. More troublesome things such ‘as criminal behavior or sexual conduct could even lead to ‘rouble ‘There are very tragie examples of this kind of ‘opptessivencss. For instance, because the people who belong to traditional cultures do not understand the systems of| ‘ownership impored by the Westernized states of colonized parts of the world, they aro considered squatters in the lauds they dwell in’ Certain religious practices are frowned ‘pon of even persecuted because they violate community ‘seusibilities like the sacrifice of certain animals considered by Westernized people as pets. Here we see how important itis for nations and states to have a shared conception of| the good where there are competing conceptions of the goed, ‘This is especially urgent when we coasider that in most ofthe ‘world, the dominant egal and ethical, not to mention cultural ‘and economic systems, were imposed by colonizers through ‘blent invasions of the works of people who had their own caltuses which provided them with their own cobesive shared ‘eonception of the good. We see such problems in Asia and Africa, especially in countries with strong traditional ‘communities, where the people are poor and marginalized by their own governments because these institutions were inposed by the Western colonizers. In many of these countries, civil wars and terrorism, as well as corruption ‘and failed governance, persist because the majority of their ppaations sill refuse to accept the dominant system as ‘efining the good for them. Its thus important to find ways of building communities with a shared conception of the soos! without violence. And even ifthe issue of imposed dominant nn systems does not exist, the fet hit the conditions for human dwelling generally evolve demands that we come to a shared concoption ofthe good that does not alienate any members of ou society. Discourse theory was conceived to provide a way of creating a system of shared conceptions of the good in societies where there are competing conceptions of the good. It is helpful because it can provide human beings with a basis for accepting laws and ethical systems xs valid for autonomous, rational beings. “Legislating” for Autonomous, Rational Beings ‘The basi Idea of discourse theory is that human beings are rational and autonomous, and as such need to legislate for themselves their rules of behavior. This means that they are free beings who usually act when these actions make sense to them. There are many reasons why certain actions make sense to people. One reason is practicality. One should do something beeause the outcome is beneficial to him/her, It makes sense to work hard for the psychie or economic rewards that. working hard brings. One also acts because ho/she is fearful of or desires to avoid negative consequences Tt makes sense to follow the law, even the ones that are not 0 clear, because one could be punished. People also act ‘based on authority, They do things because the persons they respect or recognize as the bearers of the community say 0. For instance, they follow teachers, managers, and government officials bocause those people embody the will of the community. However, human beings are truly most free when they act because they are convinced that an action is good and that it ought to be done. This is when it can be said that people‘ct according to thei free wil. In such instances, they have basically willed themselves to do the good, ecause they are cual fllowing a maxim, » universalizable ought which they have accepted as justified and reasonable. For instance, one falows the law because itis good. It ought to be followed by Inumon beings who desire to realize themselves as good. People have a need to realize their potential as free beings, But they are not just free beings but beings who seek ts realize their fullest potential. This fullest potential can be called the good. In order to guide themselves in realizing the ‘geod, hniman beings need norms of behavior. They need a tuide to understand what they ought to do and how vo make ‘rms that guide them in new and specie activities. If people ‘not have a transcendent gpa to tell them what to do and. if they do not have a universal reason to determine what to do, thon there must be a way’ to formulate norms of behavior that ‘one can expect from rational and antenomous beings. These fre not norms of behavior for the most practical ways of soins ‘out things neither are these norms of behavior that reflect ‘ur preferences, Rather, thete are norms of behavior thé people expect Inman beings to follow if they are rational, free, and responsible. Tn contemporary times, it Decomes more diffieult 10 specify these norms on one’s own. After all, one is not the Toarer of « rationality that refleets the rationality of all peoples ‘There is & multiplicity of conceptions of the good ‘hich guides and defines how all those various peoples live, lind all these conceptions of the good for them are justified tnd rational, And $0, there must be a way of arriving at a onception of the good that is valid not just for aa individual ‘ut fr one's community as wel, Habermas is one of the philosophers who has helped tort ont the principles for formulating, conceptions of the ood in solidarity with others, The need for the communal process is twofold. Firstly, human beings net in a community. ‘Norms of human behavior have to be acceptable to all the community for people to be able to act together and have an drdered society. But mote importantly, when they articulate ‘ conception of the good, the persons in dialogue are seckiag the authenticity of what. it means tobe a human being ‘One person alone, with the perspective of his/her particular culture and rationality, cannot define the good, and cannot exhaust the mystery of being human. And so, one needs the perspective of others to articulate the possibilities of human raat an possibilities of How thes do people proce oar norms of man behavior? Firs they must understand that they need 2 roof jstieton through wc thy enn exp a one ‘othr thn tai for thas aor tron proces ef enpling to eachother wy they belleve wat they do, Socom they ned 0 accet that ths apes of nse ting is what we can calla proceso pinion and yl formation. The outcome of ths a shared srtanding ofthe goat ota compromise base on wha ie convenient or deftaed by the poweral but a shared oF communal accopted derstanding ofthe god What Habermas seek o artist show human beings fan come to «shared vnderstanding ofthe gut to which the community can subcribe. Being itonomous aw giving individal, cher ou to a maxim that can guide thee oy of artiuletng veal: Kant formated tis etegoreal fpcrative on which to base the lgisation of one ty “Act only according to tht toa by which you cam atthe see ne wi sl eon es" how en formulated the foundation for lesatng the eum This isthe most precise formulation for how tenemos nsPART I: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS individuals decide what to do in a concrete situation, but concretely it gives a formula for articulating fundamental ‘maxims on which people can base the ought. ‘This formulation certainly works as a basis for ‘universalizable norms of human behavior if people can agree that there Is only one shared form of human rationality. However, humanity has already seen that people from various backgrounds, cultures, and societies have produced various forms of rationality with thelr own conception of the good. ‘Thus, Kent's formula does not yield acceptable norms of Doehavior in multicultural societies if it means that a single person by himself/herself can legislate norms of behavior ‘ceptable to all persons in a community. Thus, using the ‘samme principle of reasonable persons legislating for themselves, Habermas comes up with « modification of the eategorical He proposes the following condition for the | (U) Allafiected ean accept the consequences and the | sie effets its general observance can be anticipated to have far the satisfaction of everyone's interests (and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities for regulation. In proposing this condition, Habermas is offering» nore communal form of norm formulation. Unlike Kant's categorical imperative, where it is possible for norms to be formulated by a single person imagining what is justifiable to all rational people, (U) proposes that » norm can only ‘be valid if all affected can accept the consequences. One person, no matter how insightful and rational, can imagine their acceptability of the observance the consequences at {© Aromas Dart ts tm marge ape utr ‘eee eect tne Macs ela ne ‘CHAPTER Vi OIScouRSE Etnics | of norms. ‘Thus; Habermas comes up with the principle of discourse ethics *(D) Only those norms can claim to be valid that || meet (or could meet) with the approval ofall affected | im their capacity as participants in a practical discourse."* Instead of the categorical imperative, || Habermas gives this principle for a process for norm | creation, Here the aim is still to formulate universalizable norms, but, there is the acceptance that no one person bears the rationality of all people universally. And no one person can Imagine what norms will be acceptable to all 1 becomes important then for all affected by any norm oF rule to participate in a practial diseourse to deliberate its validity: Practical discourse means a “cooperative process of argumentation."* This means that fora society to be able to articulate and be bound by universalizable norms, there must ‘exist processes where people cain freely justify to each other why they believe the norms of their actions are valid for all persons who are bound an affected by i. If people are able to engage each other in the ereative process of deliberation, then they are able to explore together ‘what the basic principles of their moral beliefs are. The process also allows them to become aware that thelr own ‘moral beliefS are not as universal as they believe because ‘people from other cultures have various moral certainties. If they are engaged in a genuinely open and free discourse, then they are able to explore what convictions are similar land different, whlch are accoptable and why, and if what is “unacceptable can be understood and accepted. This creativeprocess is a process of mutual justification because people ave to explain to each other why i is rational or reasonable to believe what they believe. If the participants are open to ach other, it is possible for them to expand or broaden their conception of the good. In this way, people get to clarify to themselves what is humanizing and creative most probably ‘cause it reflects the order of reality. But for Habermas, the true value of cooperative discourse is that it can lead to a shared opinion and will Shared Opinion and Will-Formation What is a shared opinion and will? People tive in mny and peace with each other when, despite their speting conceptions of the good, they are able to reconcile dlifferences and together articulate a conception of the that they ean equally accept. Once they have a shared onception of the good, then they can act together to realize the good in the world. Their shared conception of the good ‘their shared norm for acting together. ‘Total consensual. agreement on the good is almost ‘impossible to realize. After all, there are multiple perspectives ‘in one society. However, the process itself of cooperative discourse creates a certain process where people gain what ‘we can call, borrowing from Habermas, a we-perspective. A shared we-perspective ix a community's shared horizon of ‘understanding that is born from the fee and fair engagement ‘of persons who bear diflerent frames for understanding the good. Because if people are engaied in institutions that allow for the free discourse of rationalities, they will be engaged in ‘9 process of mutual justfiention. Creative dialogue is really founded on mutual justification because here people come together to explain to each other why they believe what they believe I this process is engaged in with openness and goodwill, then it can be a process of mutual clarification and deepening: Because as they justify to each other what they understand to be the good, the participants in creative discourse hegin to understand that not all conceptions of the {good are acceptable to all people. And if the participants fare genuinely open, then they will ask themselves what the Sources of difference and disagreement are and how they ‘can enrich their own perspective about the good with this ‘engagement with other conceptions of the good. For example, when people with competing conceptions of land ownership come together because they have to formulate aePaar |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS ‘policy with regard to indigenous poopie owing their land, they need to engage in a constructive process of discourse Indigenous people who live according to. non-Westernlzed Iifeways believe that land connot be owned. One is born to the land. One's community belongs to the land. The spirits of the land are known to one's people and they help wrth misfortune, good harvest, and can be spoken to and egotiated with. The land is etgontial to one's life and it is sacred because i is alive with epiits, and even the trees and the land are persons. Thus, it cannot be bought and sold I-eannot be partitioned. And one cannot do whatever one vwishes to the land and its inhabitants “Modern westernized people think of land as belonging to ‘he state. The state or the nation does not belong to the land. {tin a territory partitioned from other peoples and defensible by one's people. It ean be further partitioned for private ownership for people to use and do with as they please. They tan build on it, plant on i, make it Iie idle, or manipulate ft. It is seen as & source of livelihood, investment, and inheritance, It sometimes has sntimental value but mostiy'it hs economic value. And so, it does not matter what one does rrith the land as long as ane owns it. ‘These valuations of land are very different from each other. ‘The indigenous people view their land as a shared territory of their tribe and they are stewards of their laud, ‘They do not look at it a8 something to maximize and make profit fom. Meanwhile, the darinant economic system views their land as idle because it is not maximized, Forests are ‘uncut, mountains unmined, and rivers undammed. One who ‘comes from the dominant aystem views the ancestral lands ‘of the indigenous people as something to acquire in order to texpand the exploitable resource base. The indigenous people ‘on the other hand, se the acquisition of their land as an act ff sacrilege and violation. And so, how does one go about this conflieting conception of the good? Who has a right (0 CChaPTER Vi: DiscoURSE ETHICS the land? What doormen town the lad and lcate it Whnt dows mean to explo the land and who asthe Fiht to it? These are ont few of the quetions that these Conticing cocrptons of tnd ovarsip nee to fac. Ard "isc te pe ta hr satin one share unrtaning of wha ttm oo land tn ‘eos to own lad and have has portant for pope of god o engage * pec ofa tien td lft, a ho they work for mutual understanding and respect. Such process of mutual exchange of conepins ofthe god is the ely wey thot they can rationally die if theres a-way of coming to norms ofan stewardship and cmwrehy that i ton Area to all persons ated at wil let a geuin'y Creve engage withthe ln 16 is hope att these process of Gommuniatve Actin, the partipnts wil become a we. "The particpants In centane engagement of got eventual Decme a we Partly thle bea they ae ced onto len to each ther ad te to imagine where each person coming fom Such nanan drs pole fron thet atv tins to acta! opening to the oer. The paticpants in constant agement of dil bid exmaraere and have deeper tease of flow ing cae they bin to understand the food in shared mayor at lat an come to consennial Understanding af th good tmre easly because they he lieth thr postions and pos of vier nd 0, when face with necensary decisions roar food, errs of hs community are we who te need In the procom of mutual understanding and. tones ‘building. oa Consens ung i et fom making compromise Noting coro eta wept pst oho suse of praca ods, cern, acqesene, or thesimple recognition of the power persons have over one's self ‘To come to-« compromise with rogard to the norms of the ‘good means to surrender one's own judgment and autonomy inorder to be able to reach an agreoment with another. One docs not necessarily agree that the compromise position factually reflects the good but one accepts it for practieal ‘purposes, inchading the manipulation of the person with whom fone is compromising, In compromise, ane may think that one is ail right but is willing to surrender one's insight into the sad just to be able to achiove certain goals, "The intention of consensus is different. Consensus is born cout of the mutual recognition that the position arrived at is| the best that all participants can agree om given what they ketow and can know at the moment. It has to do with the building of a shared conception of the good that all persons involved can agree on. ‘Thus, a consensus is position arrived at by a community engaged in creative communication practices. Their practice is founded on the desire to arrive ft the best understanding of the good given the multiplicity fof conceptions of the good in a given society, It seeks t6 understand what acceptable to all as their shared position fot because it seeks to arrive ata praetical action or outcome bat because it secks to articulate the best understanding the people can come to regarding the good (Of course, itis difficult to arcive at a sense of solidarity born from stich communicative situation. Can an ideal ‘communicative station exist given the realities of influence ‘and power? However, Habermas presents what be understands ta be the best way to come to a shared conception of the ood given the reality that modern societies are founded on the multiplicity of rationalities. And so, he articulates the conditions for the possibility of coming to a consensus on the good based on a shared we-perspective. ‘The processes for consensus building and creating shared we-perspective rrqiires systems that ensure fairness so that all participants aaa feel that they are part of » procest where the outcome reflects their accopted understanding of what is the best position to ‘ake. In other words, the shared opinion on the good is the ‘product of a fair process where oven people whose pesitions are not taken can accept the dominant postion because it i ‘the most reasonable and makes most sense. ‘Thus, he proposes basic principles to ensure fairness First, all affected must be part of the process of deliberation. In our time, when societies and nations are highly populated, they have to resort to some process of representation, But this must be genuine representation Where, at every level, all affected may engage in public discourse, Second, the process must be fair such that all external influence like power and money are suspended and ‘only the force of the better argument has influence over the Participants. Third, all docisions or agreements have a “for snow” characteristic. This moans that all decisions made are the best decisions given the existing knowledge and the arguments engoged. However, these decisions ean change ‘when better arguments are arrived at. This way, even those ‘who have to concede to the dominant norms understand that their position can still be valid if they can show that it is ‘more reasonable.Pant | THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS CcuaPrER Vir Discourse &r) Conclusion Clearly, Habermas provides an ideal discourse situation for people to build norms of behavior consensually. But Whether this is ideal or possible in the world of praxis, Habermas provides us with reasonable norms which can ulde Inmanity’s quest to arrive at universaliable norms in a multiverse of rationalties. His criteria for fair and reasonable discourse can be used in shaping our systems of governance 25PART | THE ACADEMIC EtHCAL TRADITIONS At every level, as well as in our processes for creating ‘consensus in seeking norms to define the norms of our shared Ives, Discourse theory has been appliod to studies for understanding democratic institutions and their reform, Twilding just societies, and oven assessing institutions for peace building. Even those who do not agree that consensus ‘building is possible or ideal in the world agree that it is ‘important to build institutions of discourse that are fair and Aiscursive. Chantal Mouffe, who disagrees with Habermas, tays that even if societies are in a constant contest for limposing their conception of the good, peace and arder can ‘be achieved if people accopt that the contest of discourse is reasonable and fair Hi study Questions 1, What is the value of discourse ethies in the modern world? Is discourse ethies particularly responsive to rulkicultural ot multicatonal societies? 2, Discus the principles of genuine discourse. Do you think that they allow for the fair exchange of ideas ‘and concerns? Does it make the discourse principle of (D) possible? 3. If the discourse principle is idealistic, how is it useful in our lives that seek to realize the good in our daily lives? 4. Discuss the process of “bulld a shared we- perspective”. How possible and how important is it for ‘groups of people to come to a shared opinion and live according to such shared opinions and wil? Exercise Study the pressing issues In your community or school Choose a situation where discourse ethics can be applied. ‘Mako sure it isan issue thar involves competing conceptions | of the good: tuition foe increase or the imposition ofa strict “dress code, Form groups where members ean take the roles of different stakeholders. Engage in a process of discourse playing these roles and observe how people argue for their position and arrive at a consensus oF a compromise. Report fn this in class and explain how Habermas’ principles are reflected in this process, References Habermas, Jurgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1998 “Discourse Bthies: Notes on a Progt of Philosophical Justification,” Moral Consciousness ‘ond Communicative Action, Cambridge, Massachusetts ‘The MIT Press, 1990. Justification and Application: Remarks ‘of Discourse Ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1903.PART II Special Topics in EthicsPant Il SPeciAt ToPics IN ETHICS [i introduction ‘The great philosophers realized that the fullness of ‘man existence is dependent on man’s ability to live ‘according to the principles that determine being human. ‘These philosophers also tried to show that human action tard selfrealization are not purely automatic or mechanical. ‘Athough not absolutely free, people do act based on choice fd reflection. All the most human actions are determined by free choices founded on thought. Thus, thelr ethics focused on articulating the most basi principles that realize the good— Or the actions that most realize what It means to be a free ‘being eapabe of thought and choice. ‘The ethical theories of particular philosophers earlier “deeussed are the most infhintial in the field of ethies and they are also the most representative of what kind of theories fist, Aristotle explains how human action is orieated toward te realization of human happiness by realizing one's telos Fe shows tha realizing a life lived toward one's ¢elos entails Inabituation in human excellences s0 that virtue shapes human lives, St, ‘Thomas explains that there is an order of ‘gp that frames all being. Whatever IC is, it is determined by natural law and all buman beings must act In a way that respeets and realizes this order. Kant shows a way of | rvalizing the good by legislating it for one's self. He shows tow people must legislate for themselves what is good action ‘nd what is duty by using reason in determining the ought. Uilitaians show that a ealeulus of the greatest happiness for rnost people determines the ought for human beings. For any person who seriously seeks to realize the good In thelr lives, itis important to have an understanding of these principles because they give a clear bass for deciding what Is the most Inamane of just actions 130 ‘hie section explore hv csntempoary thinkers have spond to the capex al uso tat ace modern onl. ‘This ie hi carey of otomperery sa inking abot probe hte ot we bt hve taken ca artiulr character in conesnporaty tines, Far instance, ct women hare exprcnnd some fon of ppeson aa my hoe beet toves tower emancipeton However, teeing oi lopped moves toward te Gencpation of won i sustained tad bal manser i only seco penomenon, ‘Tere oe many thor hos) nia eens ve ey shes be emancpste ‘The teres continue to deveep igimportan for stents fo know the base nse and the ‘Sunatnal cr of niin, The same i tv for eslogs, medi stis, busines sthice, and serfs tured hres the a of th Section 1 expe the sndent tothe msn erent tthe ffandaont meres tine ey, give then « pespectve from which to nd thee rales, tel ve eng bane Steor wth which oandestand ont own the eve hori ty ey rt fo arch onCHAPTER VII Environmental Ethics Learning Outcomes [At the end of this chapter, you should be able to: 1. recognize the value of environmental ethics especially in the context of the contemporary era; 2. show an understanding ofthe position of animal rights sctvists and the philosophy behing it; 48. discuss biocentric outlook on nature and compare and diferentiate i from the land ethic; 4 trace the philosophical foundations of ecological problems such as climate change; and 5. exhibit an understanding of what it, means to be a dweller in nature, HB introduction ‘The earth has been in existence for around 4.6 billion years. If one seales this time to 46 years, humans have only been in existence for proportionately 4 hours and the Tdustrial Revolution in this case would have started only & ‘minute ago. In thie short period, we have found and invented ‘ways to exploit the planet's resources and have driven our ‘own species to the precipice of extinction. Various global ‘environmental problems and catastrophes, in scales unheard of before, have been popping up all around the world brought bout by global warming, People have caused the extinction of innumerable species of plants and animals. We have polluted the seas and pillaged the forests and mountains so ‘much that animals have begun to exhibit strange patterns ‘of migration and erratic behavior. Large parcels of land in jouth and Central America have been cleared and burned the sake of cattle raising that provides cheap beef for the fest." In 136 years of monitoring the surfaco temperature ‘earth, NASA reveals that 16 of the 17 warmest years 1d have all occurred since 2001, with the exception of 198." Dramatic increases in global temperatures contribute the melting of the polar ice caps, which then affects al climate patterns, making it more difficult for climate ts to predict the occurrence of natural calamities such ‘6 typhoons and hurricanes. One ean imagine a time when a simple walk outside the house would be considered dificult, if ‘not dangerous, due to this increase in temperature, In these ‘eoubled times, one asks what sort of world will be left for future generations of human beings. "The human popalation of the world is expected to nearly ‘tiple by the year 2100. As human beings continue to place their faith in the principles and ideas of progress, the drive to consume simultaneously becomes the primary impetus for life, The technological era has facilitated the human capacity to extract wealth and resources from nature and has since allowed human beings to live with far more convenience and comfort than. ever before, Technology has allowed human beings to live longer, but one may ask, what for? People seem to want a lot of things now without knowing why they ‘want ther. Consumption is now done for its own sake. It is xo longer utility that drives people to buy and want more products. It secms that utility has become an afterthought, secondary to the compulsive need to have and possess. As ‘people accumulate more and more things and live longer (but with more diseases), corporations coatinve to supply all their demands, As both production and consumption increase, the 13PART ll: SPECIAL Topics Im Eries ‘environment is pushed to its limits, forced to provide people ‘more and mote of their neods and wants, ‘More often than not, people assoetate ethies with the study of one’s relationship with other people, exclusively, It is often overlooked that human existence and his/ber bond with others is made possible in the first place with his/her relationship with the environment. Interpersonal relationships are kept and nurtured ngainst the background fof that which gives and nurtures Iife in the first place. If ‘one neglects one's relationship with the environment. and ‘does not value it enough to warrant at least the question, “Hlow must one manage one's existence with respect to the finitude of resources,” then one essentially shows neglect ‘and apathy towards the welfare of other persons. When one does not recognize one's responsibility in the upkeep of that ‘which gives and nurtures life, then one also disregards one's esponsibility for other human beings because everyone needs the natural environment in order to survive ‘This chapter contemplates the thiman person's ethical relationship with the natural environment. Starting from one's uty to animals, the issues expand to one’s duty towards all that have life and ultimately to the entire land or biotic ‘community, As the current generation of humanity faces ‘mare natural catastrophes that threaten not only human life Dut all thet exists on this planet, environmental ethics is ‘now, more than ever, crucial in adopting a way of life that is les destructive and more in tune with one’s essential place in nature. The main question this section deals with is this: oes one have moral duties towards natural things? 134 CHAPTER Vil: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS Various Approaches to Environmental Ethics Peter Singer and Tom Regan ‘on the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation (1975), is one of the most infiuentil works with respect to philasopie which tackle the ethical treatment of animals, Singer advocates fxjual treatment forall sentient beings, from animals to Thuman beings, He argues that in the sae way that some People are prejudiced against other people that ate diferent fror: them in terms of race, gender, of sexu orientation, hey can alo be accused of unjust prejudice against. animals. He observes that fman beings have been treating nom fouman animals in radially diferent manner as they doPART il SPECIAL ToPICs In ErHies human beings like themselves. Singer nates this behav speciesism—the unjustifiable privileging of one's own species ‘over another, People often use the level of intelligence as a ‘measure for diseriminating against other animals, presenting them with a justification to treat animals merely as food ot ‘a any form of means to an end. However, Singer argues that if we use this criterion, there is essentially no valid reason for us to kill pigs for food or use chimpanzees for various medical experiments unless we include very young children for the same purposes, for it may be argued that they are less intelligent than adult chimpanzees. If one argues against ‘Singer and says that it isthe potential for developing a higher {orm of intligence that should be used as the criterion, it can still be argued the some young chimpanzees possess a higher potential for intelligence than some brain-damaged human beings. ‘Where then does one draw the line? What would be the moral criterion that can determine what sort of beings must be included in one's moral deliberations? Is it immoral to step on grass? Should it be considered unethical to eat vegetables in the same way that Singer seems to be hinting fat the fact that itis in speciesist way of thinking that we feel justified in consuming poultry and meat? Singer holds that itis a being’ssentience or capacity to suffer that must serve as the basis for including its interests in making moral choices. Ifa being cannot fee, then it has no interests, and ‘therefore, to kick a dog is morally wrong, while crushing a stone it not. Hence, if a being has the ability to suffer or fee ‘then its species must not get in the way ofits being Ticleded inthe moral sphere. Al beings with the capacity € suffer equally should have an equal standing from a moral perspective. Here, we see how Singer's doctrine is consistent ‘vith the utilitarian doctrine, The happiness ofall beings that can feel pleasure and pain has equal weight in moral matters, Singer thus advocates, vegetarianism and stands against 136 CHAPTER Vil: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHics ‘animal experimentation because these practices tend to inflict suffering on non-human animals. In other words, if one's ‘action causes painful consequences on sentient beings (both, human and non-human), then Singer holds that this act is ‘morally wrong. ‘Tom Regan, Kantian deontologist, has a different ‘approach from Singer's utilitarian perspective. He holds ‘that certain non-human animals have actual rights, which ‘make them morally considerable, and oddly enough it is not rationality that makes them so for him. For him itis a being’s being an experiencing subject of a life that makes it count as morally considerable. This means that « being’s capacity for having: beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a ‘of the fature, including their owa future; an ‘emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and [pain preference and welfare interests; the ability to || Initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; || a poychological identity over time; and an individual | welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares | | ‘well oF ill for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically independently of their being the object of anyone else's interest.” If a being possesses these traits, then Regan says that such a subject of a life has inherent value and should be treated as a righte-holder. Hence, for instance, itis wrong to kill animals for sport, experiment on them or use them in commercial agriculture once it is proven that they do ‘experience themeelves as a subject of a life ‘More than anything, these two authors have shown that ‘human beings should not wantonly exercise thelr dominionPaRr il: SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS ‘over other species. At the very least, humans must consider the amount of pain they may be inflicting on other sentient beings-no matter what the motivation. One must also try to see other animals as beings of inherent.value that deserve respect. In other words, if one is to be ethical In one's treatment of animals, one mst contimually, come up with ways of lesening their suffering or view them as beings that hhave inherent value and, therefor, deserve to be in the sphere ‘of moral deliberation. YY roncsernis fyouwereofimdrectorand yeu were making oflm about the very practise acertaintribalcemmunty where animal Series prevalent how wed you go dbout rect the fin ifyoewinto folow Singers orRagens rgumentsisuerean ‘ethal way of ola your? Paul Toylor and Biocentrism Paul Tiglor extends moral consideration from the sphere of sentience and puts forward an argument for the moral protection of all sings thst- may be considered as teleological enters of life Whether a being is conscious or sentient is not the sole determinant of ite moral considerability. For Taylor, & Diocentre outlook protects the rights of all living organisms, including plants snd microorganisms, to seek out their good ‘and wellbeing. As a telelogieal-center-of life, an organism ‘exists for the sake of furthering its existence by andergoing changes and procestes that improve its well-being. In other ‘words, all organisms move towards fulfilling their own ends. Insofar as plants noed water snd the sun for nourishment, to willfully deny them these things would constitute a violation (Of their rights as teleological-centers-o fe ‘CHAPTER Vil: ENVIRONMENTAL Erwics Hence, for Taylor, human beings, much like their plant counterparts are non-privileged members of the earth's community of life. Humans, like other organisnis sre contingent, biological begs that cannot absolutely guarantee their survival: Human beings share a bond of kinship with other living organisms because it is the same natural processes that brought all of us to life. Infact, naman beings are relatively neweomers to the earth, The planet has been tweming with lif way before humans eame into the soene, and yet, we act like we are the sole purpose and énd of naliral ‘evolutionary processes. In @ manner of speaking, humans act like they own the place even if lot of ather beings have been residing and securing their place in the natural environment tillions of years before humans existed. In fact, we depend fon plants and animals for our survival, but they do not depend on us for thers. It may be argued that we are the ‘most. needy and capricious ofall living organisms on earth. In other words, biocentrism, at the very least, questions the ‘common view that: human beings are the highest or most important members of the enviroament, It espouses the view ‘that all Living organisms have equal rights from an ethieal perspective Because all living organisms have welfare interests (goods of their own), they may be considered as having a hnon-subjective point of view that human beings ean adopt {in judging actions as good or bad relative to the welfare of the organism in question, Hence, one ean say that even if crushing the roots of trees with bulldozers does not hurt the trees, it does harm them because it is in their interest to further their existence. Even if plants do not have preference Interests (conscious wants or desires), their possession ‘of welfare interests includes them in the sphere of moral ‘considerably."To argue, therefore, that humans are a superior species js considered as an unjustified bias from the perspective of biocentrim. As the name suggests, all that has life should be treated with impartial respect. To say that humans have ‘capacities that are more valuable than those of other beings, fuch as their capacity for algebra, is to unfairly judge the ‘value of capacities possessed by other beings. What. would the use be of algebra for a dog or a tree? Their capacities are suited for the purposes of protecting their own welfare as such beings. To say that we are a better species than them is to make the mistake of distinguishing what each species needs to be able to survive, Tree climbing is worth more to a rmonky than the capacity to solve math problems. Unlike Taylor's ealitarian outlook, Robin Atifield proponce & revision of blocentrism hy angiing for a Ihierarchical view, which holds that even if all beings that Ihave a good oftheir own possess inherent value, some beings, namely persons, have greater Intrinsic value. Hence, for ‘Attfeld, although all living organisms have inherent value, ‘some organisms may be considered as having more inherent ‘worth than others. Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic ‘Aldo Leopold, in his A Sand County Almanac, holds ‘that “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the Integrity, stability, ond beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." According to this view, the land itself, or what Leopold calls the biotic community, is| considered as the locus of intrinsic value. If Singer, Regan, ‘Taylor, and Attfield place value on individual beings, Leopold thinks that it is the very ecosystem, including sand, rocks, ‘minerals, and various natural processes that deserve moral consideration. A concrete implication of this view ix that the welfare of an individval member of an ecosystem is not ts valuable as the preservation of the integrity of the whole biotic community. For example, if an invasive speci of rats lays waste to e vogetable farm which sustains the life of Inuman beings and other species of animals, then the land ethic permits the most humane way of extinguishing the rat population in that area, bearing in mind thet the good of the ‘community is paramount to that ofan individual ‘The land ethic places human existence In the context of ‘community as part of an ecological whole. As such, human Deings must not be viewed as conquerors but as members of a life-giving system, In this regard, Leopold holds that in order to establish an ethical relationship with the land, Ihumans must develop not only their rational but also their ‘emotional intelligence, For him, itis only when humans Jearn to feel their belongingness ta the land that they develop a Jove for it, a bond that compels them to rospoct and admire the beauty and complexity of the biotic community. He proposes that humans develop an “ecological conscionco” that fextonds social conscience from interpersonal relationships to ‘one’s relationship to the land. He posits that such a way of thought can drastically challenge and revise the time-honored distinction between humans and the rest of nature, For Leopold, the land is not merely soil, but « fountain of energy flowing through plants, animals, humans, and back. Food chains sustain life; it is a biotic pyramid that ‘systematically produces and distributes energy. flows from one source to the next, thus sustaining all life in the process. Nutrients are shared by all and every member of the community that benefits from these various ecological processes, such as photosynthesis. Leopold suggests that if humans only learn to think not just with their minds but with their hearts, then they eannot but be gratefulPART Ii SPECIAL Topics Im Ernics and respectful of the community they belong to. Ecological conscience is key in appreciating one's duties towards the environment, Ecological wholos deserve proper respect, fot everything that happens to human beings happen ty virtue of ‘the life-sustaining processes inherent in the lad itself. Climate Change and Sustainable Development ‘When the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) came out with the Brundtland Report jn 1087, it hecame clear that the vital planetary resources ‘and processes necessary to sustain life were under strain. The report raised a very Important question: Is It equitable to tactifice options for Future well being in favor of supporting trent lifestyles? ‘The report: declares that it is not equitable for future generations to experience a considerable reduction of options for the sake of sustaining the needs and wants of ‘the present. It was in this report that the iden of “sustainable velopment” wes first used. Sustainable development, means “development that meets the needs of the present without ‘compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ‘own needs." This notion, albeit still anthropocentric in its ‘essence, nevertheless puts the issue of human greed to the fore, As developed countries continue to use up most of the planet's ecological enpital with no regard for the welfare of the ‘other developing nations with little access to such resources, the very biological existenco of future human generations ‘becomes threatened. The very idea of equity brings up the inoue of having fair and just systems of production and ‘consumption that take into account one's esponsibility not just towards other human beings but towards nature itself, > serine serait arnoeneTage econ CHAPTER Vil; ENVIRONMENTAL ErHics ‘As most countries continue on this path of unmitigated production: and:-consumption, it becomes clearer that Imumanity has become addicted to acquiring and consuming that the idea of *enoughness” becomes an alien concept, ‘This insatiable drive is what Aristotle named as the vice of pleonazia ot insatiable acquisitiveness. The question Is ‘whether such a drive is sustainable in the context of securing the future welfare ofthe various ecosystems that essentially subsidize this drive towards accumulation. By continuing such aan ultra-consumerist way of existence, humanity is shooting itself in the foot, as it were, blindly pushing forward without realizing that we are in auto-destruct. mode. It is not only the future of the future generations of human beings that Js ot stake, but the existence of the very web of life or the biotic community, which is the primary source of life for fil In other words, if one advocates the idea of mastainable development, then one must account for one's actions with respect to the environment, not only in the context of its actual effects in the present but perhaps, more importantly, its potentially harmful effects in the future. ‘As human beings continue to exist with such Insatiability, ‘the earth's temperature has gone up. In the polar regions, for instance, average alr temperatures have increased. by ‘5 degrees centigrade in the last 100 years. ‘The continuous During of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas), compounded by the destruction of forests (which absorb carbon dioxide) has dramatically inereased the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and as the temperature of the planet rises, extreme weather Phenomenon has become an almost normal accurrence, There iviow more flooding and drought in the planet and these Ihave a dramatic impact not just on the lives of human beings Dut on the entire ecosystem. As the oceans get warmer and the arctic glaciers melt, sea levels rise threatening coastal populations. Experts have said that a 1.5 degrees centigrade average rise in global temperature may put 20% to 30% of vaPant I: SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS species at tisk of extinction. ‘The Montreal Protocel (1989) fand the Kyoto Protocol (1997) are international treaties that seck to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases that cause damage to the ozone layer. However, as one observes, ‘the human population is ell experiencing the effects of rising ‘global temperature, In fuet, experts say that nations should fact to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees centigrade if they want to mitigate the long-term harm of global ‘warming to various ecosystems. One needs only to remember the effeets of typhoons Ondoy and Yolanda to understand how serious a problem global warming is ‘One may therefore ask, how did it come to this? How hhas such a young species Taid waste to such a vast and complex environment in such a short time? The answers to these questions are not merely empirical but philosophical in nature, In essence, human beings may be seen as dwellers that have become tremendously inept in living their lives prudently. Humans seem to lack what Aristotle has called practical wisdom in living in its own home, Earth. Erazim Kohik believes that itis only by rocalling and re-establishing four essential place in nature as dwellors can we initinte [genuine change and reclaim our rightful place in the biotic rmnnanity: I is only by dwelling ethically that buman beings ‘an begin to live harmoniously with nature once mor. Kohék and the Human Being as Dweller ‘The thinker Eraxim Kohth thinks iti the forgotten meaning of vette” that is at the rot of the Reman ting’ alenation fom hn/her environment, Calare ot Mrenly the cllcton of arifocts or the manifestation ofa ore tater and appreciation of beauty. cording to Bi, (CHAPTER Vil: ENVIRONMENTAL Erisics ‘culture traces its etymological roots from the Latin, cultus, which means “the yielding of respect, honoring the sacredness of all that is." Culture is not originally opposed to nature Dut is essentially understood as the human being’s role in it To be a person of culture is to be someone who recognizes ‘the nobility of being He adds, “the homo humans of ancient Rome, the man of culture, is one who cultivates his life, not leaving it at the mercy of his momentary whims and their ratification but ordering it according to its moral sense.”*! One sees how Aristotle's notion of virtue and, practical wisdom is echoed in this quotation. In such context, the Ihuman, being may be considered as a rational being that bas iven in to the immediate demands of physical gratifieation at the expense of his/her capacity to rationally locate his/bee ‘essential place in the natural environment. ‘Most times, human beings perceive nature as a world devoid of human existence, a pristine environment ruled by ‘natural selection, This world is interpreted as opposed to the ‘world of culture and eiviieation where skyscrapers paint the hhorizon and marvels of engineering, science, and technology Dll cities with artifacts of innovation and progress. Operating within the purview of such a dichotomy, the human being is seen as an invader of nature, as a being who corrupts what is natural and desecrates what is unspoiled by intentions of greed or covetousness. The buman person may be likened 10 a bulldozer that levels nature for the purpose of building and erecting his/ber monuments that serve as testaments to the unclisputable reign of reason over all that exists. Seen In this light, to be ethical seems to imply the necessity of _ limiting o¢ minimizing the human person's presence in nature 15However, as Koliske mentions, culture is actually the husnan being’s role in nature. Tt involves the cultivation and the ‘recognition of the value of all that exists. To be a person of culture isto be ethical (One learss from’ Aristotle that being ethical has to do ‘ith coming up with the correct course of action relative to| fhe demands of a sitaation and his/her standing in it. Te is ‘m being habitually accustomed to choosing the mean or the rmesotes wherein the humaa being is most excellent in being Inlmself/herself. Over the past two ceituries, the: human being seems to have lost control over his/her appetites and ‘anthinkingly give in to the desires of material production and ‘pital accumulation, Such a disposition has put uot only the natural environment in perll but has also endangered the human species pushing It further to the brink of self ‘annihilation. As progress lays waste to nature, one sees ow the Inman person has gradually lost hier moral sense with respect to how he/she is supposed to manage his/her motives, desires, and actions in the context of being a dweller in nature. Kohék claims that it is only by understanding one's essential aud moral place in nature as a dweller ean one begin to mend the wounds of wvarice inflicted upon nature In| relation to this, he asks human beings to reflect on how their very expensive existence In nature may be justified. Given ‘that the human person asks so much from nature, in terms of natural resources which he/she uses to subsidize hia/her needs ‘nd wants, how can one say that one’s existence in nature is not only practically, but perhaps, more Importantly, morally Sjstifinble? [A dveler is someone who resides in a particular place and cals this place his/her home. Someone who dwells is someone ‘who recognizes the value inherent in being afforded the comfort of being received and weleomed by a place. There is a v6 why the adage, “There's nb place like home,” resonates ‘human sentiment. A home nurtures one's existence free. A home does not ask for anything other than respect. showing respect for one’s home, one recognizes the value t therein and cultivates its capacity to serve as a ling placo not just for oneself but for others as well. In ‘other words, to dwell isto cultivate one’s place; it is to take ‘on the responsibility for the upkeep of that which embraces ‘and sustains one's existence providing one with the sense of security and acceptance that may not be found anywhere else. ‘To dwell is to recognize tho innate value of one's home and allowing such recognition to guide one's actions in it: One ‘does not destroy what one values. One does not abuse what ‘ene loves, In this context, ono understands just how much ane “owes to one's dwelling such that ho/sho allows this insight to ‘pe in/la actions dowels hii ome ‘The natural environment is the human being's only ‘ome. It isa complex system that allows one to explore his/ ‘er possibilities and sustain his/her needs even beyond the kind. Nature inspires artists, offers new questions to ‘the sciontific-mindod, and openly offers itself to the demands ‘of material production. In the course of the human being’ ‘towards knowledge and control, he/she has lost sight his/her essence as a dweller, as the one who has been ‘entrusted the responsibility not only of exploiting nature for ‘its use but of cultivating it in « way that is proportionate to ‘ts inherent worth, Culture becomes a thing instead of an act. Calture may be, therfore, seen as the human pereon's ethical task in nature. It is the way one ought to dwell in nature. Tt is in fulfilling the demands of culture that one becomes a virtuous dweller, thereby justifying one’s place in one's home, In Aristotelian terms, to dwell is to be an excellent human being with respect to the demands of one's very situatodness fn the natural envizonment.ARF I: SPECIAL Topics IN Erwics HE conclusion Bthles is often exclusively understood as the study of ‘moral affairs between human beings. Seldom is it allowed to extend to diverse beings that seem to have lower levels ‘of consciousness of to,the very environment that allows for (CHAPTER VII: ENVIRONMENTAL ErniCs in beings to think about morality in the first place ‘chapter has shown that the natural environment, stood as the complex biotic community that serves as primordial source of life, desorves to be treated ethically, ‘perhaps now, more than ever. ‘The disastrous effects of climate ‘change can no longer be swept under the rug of “collateral ‘damage.” Human actions have consequences not only to ther human beings directly but to the very fabric of life that rs and sustains all beings whether conscious or not, ‘sentient or non-sentient Singer, Regan, ‘Taylor, and Leopold have shown that the Aine-honored ploce ofthe human being an top of the great in of being is not beyond question. Reasoa does not ily make us the most important being ofall. In fact, 88 Kohik perceived, it may very well be this most prejudiced Delief that lies at the root of the environmental ers. He Iolds that i is by virie of re-establishing the human beings ‘ature as a dweller can one begin to find ways of becoming ethical towards nature. I is by ealvating practical wadom that the human being may begin to perceive nature from a moral perspective, scing its inherent value and acting fn accordance to such value. One's moral duties to the natura ‘environment, therefore, is no mere extension of hia/er duties 410 his/her fellow human being. ‘The environment deserves respect because itis that which makes every other form of Telationship posible. Environmental ethics may be argued as tore primordial than the other trains of ethics. To become ‘thical in the context of one's being a dweller i to be ethical to everyone and everything thet counte on the environment ‘or survival usPant I SPECIAL ToPICS In Ervics Hi swucy Questions How Sng is onion th i vo and Airst fen Tor Rega? 2, What bocentisn? What ar sma clas? 2. ts Leopold's land etic just an extension of the Nocenti oak on nstret 4 What does Leopold mean by the! term lole comm What is the meaning of sustainable development? How would Kantian deonsogiat a ultra tigue rot ognon ts vally as at ethical guid at Soar Die the clan no ewo rome and dba, (6, What is culture for Kohak? Why is it relevant in the study of environmental ethics? 7% Think of a specific environmental issue. Using Kohék's ideas on dwelling, locate the essential root of the problem, Is Kohék’s position utilitarian or Adeontclogieal? Explain, HB Exercises |A. Form small groups and draw a biotic community. Discuss the possibilty of ereating such a community in your nation, Where would it bo? What would it be Tike? B. Make an artwork which portrays the nature of the Fnuman being as a dwele. ©. With a partner, design a campaign advertisement o ‘the value of environmental ethics in today's modern ‘world ‘CHAPTER VIL: ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS leferences n, Rachel. Silent Spring. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1963. Kohsk, Erazim. “A Human’s Place in Nature.” In Between “the Embers and the Stars. Chicago: Chicago University Prose, 1984, Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights, Berkeley University of California Press, 1983, >: lbeary thinkquest.org/11353/fets hima https //climate nasa gow/vtal-signs/elobal-teraperature/ ipso stanford ed entresethls-environmental/#TEAE tiTheConEavBthCHAPTER VIII Business Ethics Learning Outcomes [Ar the end of this chapter, you should be able to: 1. examine the ethical dimension of business, its relevance, and nocesity: 2. compare the stockholder, stakeholder, and social ‘contract normative theories of business ethics; 3. recognize the implications of corporate social responsibility in running a business; and 4. show undersiauling of the various tages of ‘organizational moral development. HE introduction ‘The world of business is oftentimes seen as an amoral world, It is viewed as a world solely driven by the profit motive and business people are often portrayed as ruthless, self-interested individuals. One might thus wonder how Dusiness and ethics ean co-exist. One of the principal tasks of ethics is to enforee the values of justice and fairness in situations where there are grave abuses of power and a gross imbalance in the allocation of resources between people that fare meant to share them. Business, as an enterprise directed towards the accumulation and growth of profit, is prone to many unethical practices, especially by those who occupy the seats of power of corporations. More often than not, ‘businesses engage in unethical conduct not for the conscious rnokive of causing harm or damage to various stakeholders but simply for their own survival and flourishing. Most unethical (CHAPTER Vill; BUSINESS ErHics Behaviors by businessos and corporations emanate ether from ‘ignorance of their ethical responsibilities or from deliberate fand insidious attempts at increasing their profit margins beyond what may be just and fair. In other words, the world of business ic replete with examples of bebavior that attempt ‘to circumvent society's ethical standards not solely because it ‘does not recognize the good but because it finds the good too ‘costly and, therefore, counter-intuitive to the profit snotive Some businesses engage in illegal and unfair labor ‘practices. Some do not pay their workers proper wages; some do not maintain a safe working environment; some force ‘workers to work overtime without extra pay; some engage in {rand by selling products that do not perform as advertised; some enter illegal contracts that bypass logal codes; some ‘damage the environment and human communities with ‘waste from their factories, and some are involved in creating monopolies and cartels that effectively control the price of fconsumer goods. All these have moral implications in that such practices violate the basic principles of justice and fairness. A business reserves the right to seek profit, but it does not have the right to profit through unethical, or at feast, illegal means. However, some businesses do want to at least strike @ Balance between the profit motive and ethics. They try to ‘ensure that their employees are paid fairly and enjoy the Dbenofits of social security and health insurance. They also ‘make sure that their business proceases abide by the legal ‘environmental codes of the community. They do not engage in false advertising and they mako sure that their profit margins fare within acceptably fair bounds, ‘This chapter tries to shed light on how ethics may be effectively integrated to a business's operation. How fan business fulfill its goal of making money without compromising ethical responsibility? What sre somePART i SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS (CHAPTER Vill: Business ETHICS normative models that can be used in assessing « business's moral development? Simply put, how ean the profit motive and ethics co-exist? | It is not uncommon to hear the criticism that those ‘who theorize and teach business ethies have little or no ‘experience In the actual practice of business. Some argue that deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialist morals are ‘esoteric philosophical theories that are inapplicable to real-life ‘business situations. Some say that if one is fully engaged in the workings ofthe business world, one realizes that i i not ‘4 world of abstractions but a world of simple and practical problem-solving. In this case, one realizes that. business ‘ethics, if itis to be reliably applicable to such a context, Imust negotiate a way of speaking the language of business Tt must translate the language of normativity into a language ‘hat can be understood atc accepted Uy Unum Un: Luts ‘community. The following is a brief expictation of the three basic normative theories in business ethics mainly derived from an article by Joba Hasnas, The Stockholder Theory ‘This theory states that “businesses are merely frrungements by which one group of people, the stockholders, ‘edvaace capital to another group, the managers, o be ined walize specified ends and for which the stockholders receive fan ownership interest in the venture." In this theory, itis the people who invested money in the company that erve as the main source of business deciions. Managers act as aents that serve atthe pleasure of investors. They are not allowed to divert fads avay from the business plan that has been expresly approved by the stockholders. In other words, the 155 158PART Il: SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS stockholders have the final say in everything that happens in the business. As Hasnas explains, “If the stockholders vote that the business should not close a plant without giving its employees 90 days notice, should have no dealings with a country with a racists regime, or should endow a loeal public library, the management is obligated to carry out such a directive regardless ofits effect on tho business’ bottom line in most cases, however, stockholders do not issue such directives and simply order the managers to maximize their financial returns. Nonetheless, the stockholder theory holds ‘that managers pursue thelr bottom line by legal and non- deceptive means. Hasnas adds, “Far from asserting that there are no ethical constraints on a manager's obligation to increase profita, the stockholder theory contends that the ethical constraints society has embodied in its laws plus the general ethical tenet in favor of honest dealing Constitute the ethical boundaries within which managers ‘must pursue increased profitability” This implies that It is the society's responsibility to restrict businesses from dealing uncthically. Ifthe stockholders want to increase their profits, they must delegate the operational aspect of such & motive to the manager's own interpretation of how business fought to be run in the context of being tied up in various legislative and legal impositions by society in general. From. this perspective, businesses have no other moral obligation to fulfil other than to maximize profit for the stockholders legally and honestly. This means that if managers spend the stockholders’ money to accomplish social goals, such as ‘charity events, endowinents, etc without the prior approval of the stockholders, then they are in violation ofthe agreement because they are effectively spending other people's money ‘without their consent. 156 For example, if a manager deems it morally necessar {to spend 10% of the company’s earnings on socially oriented Activities involving children of employees (leding prograsn, {free medical check-ups, academic scholarships) but does this without the knowledge and approval of the stockholders, then the manager acted in vielation of his/her contractwval obligation to the stockholders. In other words, even if one ‘sees nothing wrong in what the manager did, or even finds it laudable, the stockholder theory prioritizes the manager's financial and executive obligation to the stockholders. Even if one were to argue that such an act inereases the happiness ofthe greatest number the act itself apart from its consequences) is deemed wrong in this theory. Putin ethical terms, one’s duty to honor one's contractual agreements overrides one's duty to promote the happiness ofthe greatest app greatest ‘The Stakeholder Theory. This theory *holds that the management’ fundamental bligation is not to maximize the firm's financial success but "to ensure its survival by balancing the conflicting claims of tulip etakcholders""" A stakeholder is defined as any group ‘r individual that stands to benefit or auffer from decisions tnade by a corporation. This obligation, according to Hasnas, is based on tho two prinipls of stakeholder management 1. Principle of corporate legitimacy, The corporation should be managed for the benefit ofits stakeholders: its customers, suppliers, owners, employees, and the Jocal communities. ‘The rights of these groupe must be ‘ensured, and further, the groups must participate, in some sense, in decisions that substantially affect their welfare2, Stakeholder fiductary principle. Management bears ‘ fiduciary relationship to stakeholders and to the corporation as an abstract entity. It must act im the interest of the stakeholders as their agent, and it mast ‘act in the interest of the corporation to ensure the ‘survival of the firm safeguarding the long-term stakes preidieshatenr ‘These principles seek to ensure that all interests related to the firm are given & voice, especially in decisions ‘that have potentially injurious effects on those that have & stake in the firm. Business performance is rated in relation to how it maximizes the gains and minimizes the losses of all stakeholders, ‘This principle may be derived from the Kantian principle of treating people not merely as means bat tas ends as well. Thie requires one to respect other people's ‘autonomy and their capacity to design and pursue their own fends as persons. To treat the stakeholder as an end is to recognize his/her right to not just be treated a6 @ means for ‘accumulating funds, extracting labor, end raw materials fom, ‘According to the stakeholder theory, stakeholders’ interests must be properly represented in business decisions. Each Stakeholder must be afforded e fair say in company policies fand decisions, In other words, the management's task is to ‘manage the business such that various interests are balanced Jn an optimal way. If a manufacturing firm, for instance, sources its raw ‘materials from an indigenous tribe in an underdeveloped ‘community, the stakeholder theory obligates the firm to make sure that the people are fairly compensated for theit product. It is unethical to buy their goods at an unfairly hhon-competitive price even if these people do not really 158 (CHAPTER Vill: BUSINESS ETHICS Jknow how the market works. It i grossly prejudicial to treat ‘these people merely as means for manufuctsiring the firm's products. The rules of the market must be applied fairly to all stakeholders In anothor case, fa factory opens its operations ina local ‘community, it must make sure that the health of the people in the surrounding areas is not compromised by the firm's ‘operations. This applies to cases where hazardous chemicals fare manufactured in an area that is relatively close to ‘populated residential neighborhoods. Even if the community isnot really a diroct stakeholder to the firm, it must still be ethically considered whether the firm's operations will have an cffct on the poople living around its base of operations, The Social Contract Theory ‘This normative theory states that “all businesses are thically obligated to enhance the welfare of society by satisfying consumer and employee interests without violating ny of the general canons of justice." This theory posits an ict agreement between businesses and society that the latter only tolerates the existence and operation ofthe former ‘under the supposition that it can benefit fru it. This theory is formulated in the sprit of the traditional political social contract theories crafted by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseat. imagining a state of nature where individuals ve without any Political governance, these thinkers think of what conditions must be met before citizens agree to form a government, ‘The terms of the agreement is the canon upon sthich the specific obligations of the government to its people are ‘drawn from. In the same manner, the social contract theoryPART tl SPECIAL TOPICS IN ETHICS imagines a scenario where there are no formed businesses, but only individual producers, and then proceeds to ask what conditions must be met before businesses are allowed to be formed, ‘When businesses are legally recogniznd as agents, society “authorizes them to own and use land and natural resoarees and to hire members of society as employees." ‘The “price” Of being given access to these privileges is the mandate to improve the welfare of the community. Corporations, with its resources and functions, must be exploitable for the betterment of society. Hasnas enumerates how businesses may ‘enluance the welfare of society from the perspective of the social contract: 1. Benefit consumers by increasing economic efficiency, stabiliging level of output and channels of Aistsibution, and increasing lability resourens 2, Benefit employees by increasing thelr income potential, diffusing their personal lability, and facilitating their income allocation 7 3 Minimizing pollution and depletion of natural resources, the destruction of personal accountability, the misuse of political power, as well as worker alienation, lack of control over working conditions, and, dehumanization” ‘The existence of businesses can be an enabling factor in ‘a citizenty's economic life by inducing new possibilities of Ineractious that generate opportunities for expanding earning capacities and integrating leisure time to an otherwise tight working schedule. If businesses conduct their affairs fairly, employees stand to benefit from the stability provided by «| ae gE 83 & 160 (CHAPTER VI: BUSINESS ETHICS “regular salary. So long, as companies respoct workers’ labor right, the later’s productivity may be channeled to various ‘endeavors that essentially support the economic apparatuses cof society. Within the ambit of justice and fairneas, society stands to gain « lot from the existence of various business enterprises. Reidenbach and Robin's Conceptual Model of Corporate Moral Development Ere Reenbch and Den. Rain argue that there are cariainerpnivatioa bebavioes hat exit a sie? Ie of moral velopment. While is true tht ott the tain goal of any business enterprise society detmands that ero ls try to cnttbte etal Soll gous anno be dened that thre iva cvain eure tut may telat unethical behavior on the par of bins exter 1, therte,ncenry tat there bean epctve aru ty sandard nine which the prevaling ete euler of 1 busines may be juiged 8 thr thal or eubethical 181Pant Il: SPECIAL Topics IN ETHICS ‘The following cassificatory variables are used for Reidenboch and. Robin's model. of corporate moral development: “management philosophy and attitudes, evidence of ethical values manifested in the business's culture, and the existence ‘and proliferation of organizational cultural ethics and artifacts (codes, ombudsmen, reward systems." ‘There are five stages that comprise the model: amoral, legalistic, responsive, emerging ethieal, and ethical. The model is inspired by Lawrence Kohlbers’s Stages of ‘Moral Development. Reidenbach and Robin assert that ‘direct application of Kohlberg's model is not po since Individuals do not develop in the same manner as ‘organizations, Briefly, Koblberg’s model i as follows Level 1: Pre-conventional morality Stage I: Obedience and punishment; behavior driven by avoiding punishment Stage 2 Individual Interest: behavior driven by self- interest and rewards 5; Level 2: Conventional morality ‘Stage I: Interpersonal: behavior driven by_ social approval Stage 2: Authority: behavior driven by obeying ‘authority and conforming to social order Level 3: Post:Corventional morality ‘Stage I: Social Contract: behavior driven by balance of social order and individual rights ‘Stage 2: Universal Ethies: behavior driven by internal moral priniples® eee Charen vill: Business ErHics Koblberg’s model shows. how an individual's. moral development progresses from being based on external factors ‘to one that is founded upon internal moral motivation. Just ‘as not all individuals pass through the six stages, the same holds true for business organizations, according to Reidentbach and Robin. In addition, corporate moral development is not necessarily a continuous process, AS new management or new ‘mergers occur, an organization experiences sudden change in ‘ethical climate that signifies either progression or regression in its moral development. The Stages of Organizational Moral Development. Stage 1: The amoral organization ‘This type of organization is defined by a “winning at ‘any cost” attitude." Ethics is the least of its concerns. It is an enterprise completely absorbed in productivity and profitability. It only thinks about ethics when it gets caught in some wrongdoing, For this type of organization, the only focial responsibility of a business is to make a profit. As Reidenbach and Robin say, “Top management ules by [power and authority and employees respond by acquiescing ‘to that authority and power through « reward system which supports a ‘go along’ type of behavior.” Those who obey the rules without question are rewarded, while those who dare to ‘question management are ultimately punished by expulsion from the organization. Employees are treated as mere means for productivity and profit for the enterprise. Reldenbach and Robin add, “The ethical culture ofa stage one organization 163Paar I; SPECIAL Topics Im ErMiCs ‘ean be summed up in the ideas that ‘They will never know,’ “Bverybody does i *We will not get caught’ and “There is m0 ‘way anyone will ever find out." From this perspective the ‘Owners and investors are the most important stakeholders. ‘Stage 2: The legalistic corporation Firms in stage two “exhibit compliance with the letter of ‘the law as oppoved to the spirit of the law.” An organization in this state of moral development exhibits respect for laws, codes, and regulations. This firm is concerned with following state rules, placing a premium on the legality of fan action over the morality of it. It places a great deal of responsibility on its legal team to make sure that corporate policies are executed in accordance with the laws of the state, fo ae to avoid any lal complications. From this perspective, ‘what is legal corresponds to what is right. While it shares the principality of the profit motive with stage one, stage two is concerned with the legality of the way by which profit is gained, Stage 3: The responsive corporation ‘This type of corporation begins to acquire values other than profitability and legality. These firms have it in their interest to do right, but it considers more as an expediency rather than an end in itself. In other words, these types of ‘corporations are inclined to give in to societal demands and, therefore, realize that business has an obligation to operate ‘with society in mind. They have a code of ethics that seeks to ‘align corporate goals with societal demands. As Reidenbach ‘and Robin clarify, “Concern for other stakeholders begins to manifest itself as managements begin to realize the Importance of employees and the community in which they operate. This nascent concern is not motivated by sense of doing right fr rights sake but rather is «recognition of the organization's greater social role” At this stage, doing 00d is a matter of expediency. ‘Stage 4: The emergent ethical organization ‘This type of organization actively seeks greater balance between profit and ethics. It recognizes the existence of = social contract between business and society. The ethical consequences of any corporate decison are given weight along ‘with its potentiality for profitability. Various instruments are designed to make sure that the firm and its various agents conduct business ethically. There are handbooks, policy statements, committees, ombudsmen, and ethies program ‘directors that seek to manage and ethically account for the conduct of the organization with respect to its various responsibilities to different stakcholders. Reidenbach ond Robin give the example of Boeing and General Mills to illustrate what happens at thia stage. Boeing facilitates ethics training programs and has installed a toll-free aumbor for employees to report ethical violations. General +oeruits individuals that share the same cultural and ethical ‘values with the company. It also has a set of guidelines for dealing with vendors, competitors, and customers. However, Reidenbach and Robin note that, “While responsive corporations begin to develop ethical mechanisms to increase the probability of ethical behavior, these organizations are ‘aot yet fully comfortable with their implementation. Top ‘management recognizes the importance and value of this type of beliavior but lacks the experience and expertise to make it work effectively." In other words, although stage four firms recognize the value of ethics, they lack the necessary 105‘proficiency in administering and maximizing the potential ‘ethical mechanisms, Nonetheless, there is real effort in ‘making sure that profits are earned morally: Stage 5: The ethical organization Reidenbach and Rotin day that they do et Ixiow af any tusness organization that has reached this stage of corporate ‘moral development, They describe this type of organization a8 flows: | Stage five behavior is characterized’ by an |) ongantsitln-wide scceptance of x common act of |) ethical Vanier that permeates1be" Srgunaion's | culture. "These core vales guide the everyday behavior | ot an individual's ations. Decisions are made based fn the inherent justness and fairness of the decison as well as the profitability of the decision. In this sense, there is balance between concerns for profits ‘and ethics. Employees are rewarded for walking away from actions in which the ethical position of the Donganization would be cempromised At this stage, normative moral theories are used as guides for designing various organizational activities. There is also ‘continuing ethical training program that is integrated with the employees’ technical training program. This kind of culture has a deep sense of duty and obligation to what is right and fair. The job is evaluated from a moral standpoint, highlighting dimensions that pertain to social responsibilty, ‘himess, and justice, Tho main difference between stage four ‘and stage five isthe level of dedication the company exhibits in funneling its resources towards the goal of making the firm truly ethical in all aspects. Stage four heavily relies on 168 the ethical mechanisms to enforce ethical behavior, while stage five has already imbibed ethies in its corporate culture, In stage fivo, there is perfect harmony of the corroct action ‘and the ethical action: One, therefor, sees why’ he/she would Ihave a difficult time finding companies that have reached this level of moral development. ‘These five stages illustrate how corporations vary in their understanding and appreciation of ethies and its relation to the profit motive. As firms progress up the stages, ethics becomes more integrated in their operations. The stages help fone understand how different companies try to inculeate tthical bebavior in their various dealings with various stakeholders. As the profit motive becomes more balanced ‘with the obligation to be ethical, a company is shown to be less concerned with iteelf and, therefore, more attentive to its societal obligations. Conclusion ties isthe study of how one ought to conduct oneself in relation to others. Business, as most people soe it, is ‘4 world that seems to be exempt from the ought since it is ‘quite understandable that business people seck only the good for themselves. After all, what is business for if not for maximization of profit. However, there are ways of doin Dusiness ethically. Values such as justice and fairness need not be completely overlooked in one's business dealings with others. As a business recognizes its social responsibilities ‘as an entity that pools various resources from different sourees, both human and non-human, it realizes thot it has a responsibility to make sure that its operations do not hhinder the flourishing of these stakeholders. In the course ofits ethical maturity, it also realizes that its existence hos profound effects of the welfare of citizens and the netural 167Pant it: SPECIAL Topics IN ETHICS. ‘The theories presented in this chapter show how ethical maturity is achieved in business. Codification of rules and ‘manual for ethies are integral in achieving a higher level ‘f moral development in a company. As these rules become tormatively instilled in the business environment, the ethical ‘limate in the workplace evolves from being a place purely ‘notivated by profit at all cost into an environment that gecks fo gain this profit in the most just and fair way possible. Such a change may incur costs for the business, but since it is now working with an ethical horizon in view, i sees ethics ts part and parcel of doing business and not just an ad foe recourse to save it from lawsuits, While ethies may not be the prevailing motive of an ethical company, it seeks to fame its profit-making agenda within just and fair practices that are conscious of all stakeholders, including the natural vironment. Hi study Questions : 1. How ithe toekoler theory sir to and eet from he tahoe theory? 2 How isthe concept of legality elated to the social contra theory of basins 5. Can an amoral ongntzaton be etic? fo, ow? 1 ot, why nt? 4, What ar some notable dfrences betwen a legalistic eporotien and 2 responsive oe? 5. Why is corporate socal responsibility an integral part of doing business ethically? With a partner Fencarch on minim of fie companies that donot Gmplement corporate soil responsibility nd reflect cn tho epercsns of the tela. CCRAPreR Vill: BUSINESS ETHICS 6. How can the profit motive co-exist with ethies? 7. Cam you think of practical ways by which giant cil firms, mining and logging companies can conduct thelr businesses without unethically exploiting the ‘environment? 18. How can one make sure that all stakeholders are given ‘due consideration in making business decisions? Is there a practical way to ensure this! Exercises ‘A. Simulate a business board mesting and perform the difference between the stakeholder theory and the social contract theory. Come up with actors and septs to demonstrate cis n class B. With « partner, research on companies that have & reputation for being ethical in running their busines, Come up with a list of their practices that exhibit ‘their advanced organizational moral development. References Hasnas, Joba, “The Normative Theories of Business Rtbics: ‘A Guide for the Perplexed,” Business Ethics Quarterly 8.1 (2008): pp. 10-42. Reidenbach, R. Eric and Donald P. Robin, “A Conceptual Model of Corporate Moral Development,” Journal of Business Bthies 10 (1991): 278-284 Velasquez, Manuel. Business Bthics: Concepts and Cases ‘th od New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2012,CHAPTER IX The Question of Women and their Emancipation Learning Outcomes [At the end ofthis chapter, you should be able to: 1. explain the necessity of fominiam; 2, diseuss and articulate the idea that women's rights are Jnuman rights; and 3, recognize how women's rights are abused and articulate possible paths to emancipation and equality Hi introduction ‘A woman in almost any part of the world is faced with challenges that make it difficult for her to realize her potential as a person. For example if one were a young git in Southern India, she is snatched away from her family to be forced to marry a uch older man. ‘That man and his mother treat her like an unpaid servant and a producer of children ‘She raises the children, works constantly In the house and on ‘the farm, and receives beatings from her kidnapper husbond land his mother. If she manages to escape and report this crime to the police, they will most likely bring er back to her abductors and abusers because in their eyes she is the property of that family. Tn many parte of Africa (in Somalia, Cuinoa, Sicrra Leone, among others), a daughter's own mother and other ‘women from her family hold her down and eut off her clitoris without anesthesia, and then sew up her vagina so that she (ChapTER IX: THE QUESTION OF WOMEN AND THEIR EMANCIPATION does not feel any sexual pleasure and remain faithful to the ‘man who marries her, even if there is very low expectation for hm doing the same. In fact, this future husband will probably have unprotected sex with high school-aged girls and infect ‘ber with HIV. If one is @ young Cambodian woman, she could be abducted by traffickers and brought to a brothel in Thailand ‘or Malaysia where she will be imprisoned and violently raped bby customers who pay a high price because she is young and innocent, They bratally abuse her until she loses all sense of self-worth and feels that no one, not even her family, will accept her so that time will come that she will not even want to escape anymore fone is 4 wife and an academic in the United Statés, a supposedly empowered snd liberated woman in a gender-equat ‘world, one probably sponds 51 hours working and another 51 hours on household ehores. Married male professors who are supposed to be more liberal and enlightened about gender Jssues only spend 82 hours on household work." The wife also probably earns a third of a man's salary even if she does the ‘same kind of work. In obviously violent oF subtle ways, women are victims ‘of unoqual treatment in much of the world. No matter how ‘much they work, they are paid less. No matter how talented ‘they are, they are less likely to be hired than their malo ‘counterparts. They are the overwhelming vietims of sexual violence. Many forms of modern slavery are reserved for ‘women. This is the reason why feminism as a framework for thinking about justice and fairness is necessary. Because of the forms of violence and injustice that are particular to ‘women, a specific form of ethical thoory has to be developed. eee eiertce amntectme mets Shiteesireccemarieserm eno 2 correPant I SPECIAL Topics IN ETHICS ‘This feminist ethical theory is a theory born from the realization that women have a different set of issues that ‘male-dominated ethical theories cannot fully address. The ‘ear example for these are the forms of discrimination and violence particular to women like the belittling of their work as homemakers and child bearers. Although traditional this could explain the injustice ofthe violence of trafficking ‘and ape, it does not easily understand. the violence of sscrimination and marginalization. Thus, a woman’s lens is| ‘meded to explain why certain social structures are ethically wrong, Another reason forthe necessity for women’s perspective in ethies is the different way womea reason morally. Women have a different way of deciding on the best action to take ‘dven a moral dilemma, Studies have shown that women have ‘different way of assessing the good and understanding bow test to realize the good. This way of thinking about the good ‘nd acting on it bas not been reflected in abstract, calelatve ‘and Iaw- or rule-based thinking of men. Because of this, rhilosophy has had a bias against women’s forms of ethical reasoning. This has always heen considered too particular, tarrowly focused on the domestic, and lacking In gravity ‘ecause men set the standard of what questions are worthy of shilosophical reflection and how to arrive atthe good. Finally, it is necessary to formulate ethical theories from women's perspective because this perspective allows ‘or the eritique of existing systems that victimize ther, ‘There are many socal structures that seem fir but actually sisadvantage women. For instance, the kinds of work traditionally assigned to women such as nursing, preschool ‘and elementary education, and domestic work, on the ‘hole, pay lower than most other work dominated by mea. ven the fact that women are assigned to particular forms ‘of work assumed by men to be best sulted to women is 3 (CHAPTERIX: THE QUESTIONOF WOMEN AND THEIR EMANCIPATION Life is complex and contemporary situations present ‘various questions thst ethicists today have to confront. 1 is worthwhile to think with them on the realities of ‘gender, the environment, the conduct of business, and health exc. > Various theories are taught in the university and most of these are complex and technical. The student and teacher must find'a way to understand these theories ‘well and internalize them in the quest to realize a ‘oon! Inman tite Because of the realities of time and the limitations of a college education, the authors of this book have presented ‘the most important insights and othical thooris that collog> stutents ought to know to be able to live critical and earouble husnass liven. However, this cours slid be wet 1s an invitation for the college student to explore the theories that appeal to him/her more deeply. Various resouitees are listed here to which the student can refer to in order to gain Secper tndrstanding of the theories presented, It is the hope ofthe authors that they have presented aa introduction that Invites students to a deeper reading of ethics. A “Allegory of the Cave," 21-22 4 Sand County Aimanae, 1 ‘Action Ser Game Analects 28 ‘Animal Libreion, 195, Aponia 73 Aquinas, Thoms, Sant 45-48, 5152 Avittio, 1,24, 26.34, 370, 1-4, 65, 130, 148-106 Asian ethical traditions, 8-10 Astengia-marga, 96 ‘Atarana, 7 ‘Aman, 93-94 Atl, Robin, 140 Astonomoas ron, 6-62 Bobayle, 181, 187-188 ‘Beam, Jeremy, 71,74 ‘Bea's Fee Hedonstic Caleuae, 7 Bioceteim, 198-140 Biodicl etic, 102-202 Book of Menus, 08 Brahmen, 28-94 Buda, Gastar, 94 ‘ovdiem, 0-01, 94-07, 102 ‘ino etis, 152-158 cs Camas, Albert, 45-46 Categorical imperative, 9,64, Chatarienyesatyans 4 Chil bearing enanerents seltimpronemen, a general ‘well-being, 197-109 (Cimate change, 12-144, 149 Conceptual Morel of Corporate ‘Moral Devepneat, ter ie 7 Confit /Conacianin, 6,07 Confucis, 97-99 (Conscience, 48, 50-5, 85-86, es of 50-51 (Conscience kinds of, 80-51 callous, 5-51 ‘ignorant, 30 perpen, 0 serupulos, 50-51 ntigue of Practica aon, 61 Culture, 14-145 > Peo, $8, 99-102 Deostoegial ethies, 50-67 Dharma, 80 207Digan, 95 Dionne, 106-126 Discrimination, 172, 177-181, Dacre of the Mean, 98 Dali, Duy 6, 63-66 ecopie pregnaney, 195-196 igo! Path, 96 vironmental ete, 132-140 ‘wiroental thes, approachas to 13142 ‘isnt, 138-140 Briere 72 Bion, 27, 82,99 thes, dee, 5-6, 1719 ties, 7-19 ‘Bt Des non dart, 7-49 Budamona, 24, 27-90 unas, 19-200 F Fexinion ‘See Penni etice Ponisi thee, 17-180 6 owe, 16-10 Gav, 16-19 Genel Natural History nd They of Heavens, 0. Gitlgan, Cael, 178-177 Goodwill I-68 ‘The Great Learning, 98 Greatest Happiness Principle, a0 Groundwork of the Mtaphyice oF Moris, Ot 4 Habermas, Jurgen, 109-110 ' In Another Voie 176 Tekpation Kk Kalin, Frans, 59-60, Kegaan, 17,19 ‘Se alo Cet Kar, Inmanod, 11,13, 6, 5063, 65-67, 7, 115-116, 130 atlantic and religion, ‘5-66 Karma, 89, 92, 4-05, Keenan, Jas, 195 Kolitk, Ream, 164-148 Kobiberg, Lawrence, 81, 162 Kyoto Procol, 144 Li and ei, 140-142 Leopold, Aldo, 10-142 90 ‘Living Gently ina Violet Wort, 192 egos 28, Mevates 4, 35, 10, 3, 146 Metaphysics of Moral 61 ‘Mi, John Stuart, 60 Motsha, 9 Montre! Protos 14 Moral at, 632 Moris, 7,19 The Myth of Sigphas, 45 N Natural lam, 45-56 Nicomachean Bhs, 26 Ninna, 95-96 ° Obligation, 64-05 Orgaiztional moral stags of, e167 Pe Personal matical care, 188, Persontood, 12 Phroesis 7-39, 1,43, Plat, 19-23, 5 Peoraria, 18 Prenatal penoahod, 198-194 Prine of double eet, 195-196 Protagoas, 20 Rega, Tem, 185,197,140, 149 Reidenbac, Evie, 161-103, ekgion thin the Limite of Feason, 61 en, 98 ‘The Repub 21 ize, 91 ‘Robin, Donal, 161-169, s Semsara 92 ‘See Bighld Path Set Spring, 185 Sager, Peter, 185-157 Social contract theory, 189-161 Socrates, 20-22, 78 Sephia, Soul 30-22 Specesion, 196 Stabshober theory, 157-150 Storer theory, 185-187 ‘Sema Contra Gentiles 46 Sema Thelepae, 8 Sustainable development, 12-14r ‘Toor, Pol, 138-140 Tai 26,34, 130 u Uponishads, 91-94 Uiltrianis, 09-85, v Vine, Jean, 192 Ves, 91-94 Vere ets, 20-43 Vere, 32-41 w weED) ‘Sos World Comino ‘ou Environment and Development Work Commision on ‘Envconmeat ae. Development, 142 The Authors Mare Oliver D. Pasco is » PhD candidate and is currently writing his dissertation on the philosophies of Martin HYoidogger and Jean Baudrillard at the Ateneo de Manila, where he is also a full-time faculty member. He teaches Philosophy of the Human Person, Ethics, and Philosophy of Modin snd Technology He hs published in various lol and International philosophical journals on various philosophical topics and has co-authored two textbooks on the philosophy ‘of the human person. V. Fullonte Suérez has a PhL. from the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome) and teaches Philosophy’ at the ‘Ateneo de Manila University, Holy Apostles, San Carlos, and ‘Moti uf Good Counsel Seinary. He resides in Sto. Nino de Pandacan Church, Manila. His interests and weit ‘en metaphysics, philotophy of religion, philosophical theology, ‘and Filipino culture from religions philotophy perspective. Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez, PhD is « professor of Philosophy at the Ateneo de Manila University. He was ‘chair of the Department of Philosophy for six years. He has boon a consultant far various non-governmental agencies and multilateral agencies in areas of poverty alleviation ‘and good governance. He has published in various national ‘and international journals on the areas of human rights, democratization and governance, discourse ethics, poverty, and ecology. He is the author of the books May Lore ang Diskurso ng Katarungan and Governing the Other Exploring the Discourse of Democracy in a Multiverse of Reason.