Can Ethics Be Taught?

at this level why something is wrong or why it is right, they will tend to answer in
terms of what their families have taught her, what their friends think, or what
Can ethics be taught? The issue is an old one. Almost 2500 years ago, the
Americans believe. Many people remain at this level, continuing to define right and
philosopher Socrates debated the question with his fellow Athenians. Socrates'
wrong in terms of what society believes or what laws require.
position was clear: Ethics consists of knowing what we ought to do, and such
knowledge can be taught. But if a person continues to develop morally, he or she will reach what Kohlberg
labeled the post conventional level. The person at the post conventional level stops
Most psychologists today would agree with Socrates. In an overview of
defining right and wrong in terms of group loyalties or norms. Instead, the adult
contemporary research in the field of moral development, psychologist James Rest
at this level develops moral principles that define right and wrong from a universal
summarized the major findings as follows:
point of view. The moral principles of the post conventional person are principles
* Dramatic changes occur in young adults in their 20s and 30s in terms of the that would appeal to any reasonable person because they take everyone's interest
basic problem-solving strategies they use to deal with ethical issues. into account. If you ask a person at the post conventional level why something is
* These changes are linked to fundamental changes in how a person perceives right or wrong, she will appeal to what promotes or doesn't promote the universal
society and his or her role in society. ideals of justice or human rights or human welfare.
* The extent to which change occurs is associated with the number of years of Many factors can stimulate a person's growth through the three levels of moral
formal education (college or professional school). development. One of the most crucial factors, Kohlberg found, is education.
* Deliberate educational attempts (formal curriculum) to influence awareness of Kohlberg discovered that when his subjects took courses in ethics and these
moral problems and to influence the reasoning or judgement process have courses challenged them to look at issues from a universal point of view, they
been demonstrated to be effective. tended to move upward through the levels. This finding, as Rest points out, has
been repeatedly supported by other researchers.
* Studies indicate that a person's behavior is influenced by his or her moral
perception and moral judgements. Can ethics be taught? If you look at the hard evidence psychologists have
amassed, the answer is yes.
Much of the research that Rest alludes to was carried on by the late Harvard
psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg was one of the first people to look
Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael
seriously at whether a person's ability to deal with ethical issues can develop in
J. Meyer
later life and whether education can affect that development.
Issues in Ethics V1 N1 (Fall 1987)
Kohlberg found that a person's ability to deal with moral issues is not formed all Santa Clara University, California
at once. Just as there are stages of growth in physical development, the ability to scu.edu
think morally also develops in stages.
The earliest level of moral development is that of the child, which Kohlberg called
the preconventional level. The person at the preconventional level defines right
and wrong in terms of what authority figures say is right or wrong or in terms of
what results in rewards and punishments. Any parent can verify this. Ask the four
or five-year-old why stealing is wrong, and chances are that they'll respond:
"Because daddy or mommy says it's wrong" or "Because you get spanked if you
steal." Some people stay at this level all of their lives, continuing to define right
and wrong in terms of what authorities say or in terms of reaping rewards or
avoiding unpleasant consequences.
The second level of moral development is the level most adolescents reach.
Kohlberg called this the conventional level. The adolescent at the conventional
level has internalized the norms of those groups among whom he or she lives. For
the adolescent, right and wrong are based on group loyalties: loyalties to one's
family, loyalties to one's friends, or loyalty to one's nation. If you ask adolescents
 The Nature of Ethics
“The unexamined life is not worth living”
Socrates
Some Questions on Morality
What is good and what is bad? How do we know that what we do is right or wrong?
Are there certain standards or guides to what we ought to do and not to do? If
indeed there are, then, what are these standards and norms of right and wrong?
Are good and bad simply relative? Or, is there really an objective and absolute
basis of what is right and what is wrong? Where and how we can find it, if indeed
there is?
What make some rules or principles of action better than the others? How can we
know which rules are good and which ones are bad? What does it mean when we
say that some rules are worth following than others?
Can we do something that will give us pleasure but at the same time also hurt
other people? How do we know that our actions are morally justified? Should we
always put others’ interest ahead of our own? Why? Is always wrong to prioritize
ourselves before others?
Is premarital sex inherently wrong? What about homosexuality and same-sex
marriage? Are there situations that would justify some acts that most people
traditionally consider to be bad? Is it always right to follow one’s own conscience?
Can conscience ever be wrong?
What do we do in situations where there are more than single obligations? How
can we reconcile conflicting duties? How do we deal with cases in which the
consequences are not neatly separable into good and bad, but are intermingled
with each other?
How do we determine whether a person is responsible for her or his actions? Are
there degrees of moral responsibility? Are we always morally accountable for
everything we do? What are the elements of moral responsibility?
Why do we need ethics? Is it really important? Can we still be good without it?
Why, in the first place, should we be good? What’s good in doing and in being
good? What is the ultimate ground of moral goodness?
Some of these and other related questions, at one time or the other, have been
asked by a good number of people, especially those who have found the time to
reflect about the “bigger and more important concerns of life.” These questions
also arise somehow during the times when we are faced with certain situations
that would put into serious question and challenge our preconceived and
traditional ideas of goodness and badness, rightness and wrongness in human
conduct.
This type of questioning and mode of reflection belongs to the domain of ethics or
moral philosophy. Ethics is a branch of academic or intellectual discipline,
particularly the philosophical discipline that concerns itself with the whole question
of right and wrong, good and bad in human action.
Ethics is Critical
As a particular type of that area of knowledge known as philosophy, can also ethics
be defined as a critical, systematic and reflective analysis of what makes an act
good or bad. It tries to do a reflective investigation into the basis of that assertion.
It also inquires into the meaning of the terms “good”, “bad”, “right”,” wrong”,
“ought”, and the like.
Thus, the nature of an ethical inquiry is one that does not simply describe how
humans live but they ought to live. And more than that, ethical inquiry is
characterized by looking into the very ground or foundation of our actions, why
we consider them as good and bad, right and wrong, proper or improper, worth
doing or not, and what we exactly mean when we assert them as such.
Ethics is Practical
Ethics can also be viewed as a practical discipline since it is primarily directed to
those that are found in the actual conduct of human beings, how they can be
assessed or evaluated as to their rightness or wrongness. Whether these are in
conformity with what is good and what is bad. Ethics influences conduct. It does
not just tell us what the good life is but more significantly how to lead such a life.
The study of ethics allows us in a way to be exposed and be acquainted with moral
or ethical principles. Moral principles serve as a practical action guides in the
conduct of one’s concrete life. They help man to live the good life, to be moral, to
be a good person.
As opposed to purely theoretical disciplines in the vast field of the philosophical
enterprise such as epistemology and metaphysics, ethics or moral philosophy is
concerned with man’s everyday actions and decisions as it provides specific
guidelines as to what actions or choices are worth pursuing in specific situations
in the formulation of rules or directions for thought and action (Glenn 1965: ix)
Thus, ethics as a practical science presents thoughts and ideas that are not just to
be known by the mind (as in the speculative and theoretical sciences) but to be
acted upon in the realm of everyday life.
Of all the sub disciplines of philosophy, the study of ethics is perhaps the most
striking relevant and practical, especially so that so much of our life is immersed
and revolved around questions of morality. Everyday we are all faced with moral
dilemmas that leave us confused and groping for answers. The philosophical
discipline of ethics can be of much help.
Morality and its Justification
Specifically, ethics or morality has to do with rules and principles of conduct. It has
to do with the study of right and wrong. It is involved not just with a coherent
articulation and reasoned interpretation of our value system (of what we embrace
as good and bad) but also its systematic implementation and integration to our
daily lives.
Furthermore, the discipline of ethical questioning consists of raising the issue of
why certain actions are deemed right while others are deemed
Wrong. Here, ethics concerns itself with the whole delicate (and even
controversial) question of justification. How certain actions are justified and on
what ground? Thus, ethics in a way, provides us with a certain rules of conduct.
This where the discussion of the so-called “Ethical Theories or Principles” comes
into the picture.
Actions need to be rationally justified for them to deserve the title of “human
actions.” For what separates the human being from the rest of creation is his or
her capacity to think and reflect before he or she acts. Human actions are said to
be within the domain of morality because of this very capability. Here,
responsibility or accountability, which cannot ba said with other creatures is
present.
Reason and Ethical Inquiry
As a specific branch of philosophical inquiry, the crucial role of reason cannot be
underemphasized in an ethical investigation. Being a philosophical endeavor,
ethics employs the power and aid of g philosophical discipline of ethics does not
justify and base its answers to certain moral questions on divine revelations or the
use of sacred scriptures but rather uses logical reasons and arguments and
endeavor to faithfully follow them wherever they may lead.
With the use of reason and arguments ethics or moral philosophy attempts “to
achieve a systematic understanding of what morality requires of us – of how we
ought to live and why “(Rachels 2003: vii)?
The social sciences, such as psychology, describes how we actually behave but,
as a matter of practice, does not draw ant direct and definitive conclusions from
its inquiry as to how we ought to behave. The same can be said with the descriptive
sciences whose focus is merely to describe things “as they are”, nothing more and
nothing less.
The primary task of ethical philosophers is to strive to undertake the systematic,
rigorous and exhaustive questioning and analytical examination of the basic
assumptions or presuppositions and principles underlying human actions.
In reality, we all use reasons and arguments, consciously or otherwise, to justify
and support our beliefs and actions. Ethics aims to scrutinize what reasons and
arguments are defensible, consistent and logical. It tries therefore to subject these
reasons and arguments to a critical analysis and evaluation.
Why Do We Need Ethics?
Since ethics, as a practical science, is the study of the choices people make
regarding right and wrong, and since most of us make a number of moral choices
in our everyday lives, it is quite obvious why the study of ethics is important. Big
and small, the choices and decisions that we make everyday affect the kind of life
we live to a lesser or greater extent. We become good and bad persons based on
our choices.
Another reason why we need ethics is the fact that making moral decisions is
oftentimes difficult. This is very true when we are confronted and come face to
face with moral dilemmas. In here, there is a need for us to pause and reflect as
to what particular course of action to take. The study of ethics can provide us with
certain moral paradigms or perspectives that will, in a way, guide us in determining
what’s right and what’s wrong under such condition.
The study of ethics will also enable us to reason out moral beliefs and of why we
hold them. Ethics as a critical discipline will enable us to examine more closely the
ground and foundation of our moral beliefs and claims.
Ethics and Law
But, why do we still need ethics if we have laws to guide us on how to be good?
Are the laws that we have not enough to tell us what’s right and wrong, on what
we ought to do and not to do?
Ethical rules necessary even if we have the laws that are implemented by civil
authorities since legality is not identical with morality. We can be good in terms of
what the law requires but we may still fall short of becoming a “moral” or “ethical”
person. At times, what is moral is not always legal. Ethics is not identical with the
law.
Another reason why morality is still important even if we have laws to guide us in
our daily conduct is that laws are only concerned with actions that are usually
“public”, actions that in a way often harmed those around us. These types of
actions are external ones that society forbids because they are detrimental to the
common good or the general public.
Moreover, ethics goes beyond the concern and parameters of law, for it includes
human motivation in its investigation. Ethics, in this respect, includes thoughts and
feelings of individuals, not just their external conduct and actions, and subject
them to moral analysis and evaluation.
Morality goes beyond legality in this respect. Even actions that we do in private
are concerned under the umbrella of ethics. Morality includes things that we do
that do not directly harm others or even ourselves. Here, our innermost motives
and intentions, even if they are not carried out in concrete, fall under the scope of
morality.
Let us also be reminded that our laws are usually product of a collective
agreement. It is a kind of a social contract where people come together and decide
among themselves what’s good and bad. This means that laws, more often than
not, are decided by a majority vote. Morality is not all about how many people say
something is good or bad, or of how many individuals favor and decide that a
certain act is right or wrong. Morality is not that.
What is right is right even though no one is doing it. Wrong is wrong even if
everyone is doing it.
Lastly, we still need ethics even if we have laws because ethics serves as the very
foundation of our laws. “[I]t is because of ethics... that we have laws in the first
place, and we continue to need ethics in order to refine and perfect our legal
system” (Ruggiero 2001:9).
This, laws are morally sensible without ethics. The only way for a law to be enacted
or repealed is for more people to make a mature, conscious and reflective
discussion and decision about right and wrong. Making a decision as to good and
bad is not a popularity contest.
In brief, morality precedes legality. Its scope and implications are deeper and wider
than that of law.
Ethics is Prescriptive
Ethics is a philosophical study that attempts to critically and systemically assess or
evaluate the morality of human conduct as to whether they conform to certain
ethical rules and guidelines. This specific task of evaluating the rightness or
wrongness of human actions is a very important area of ethical reasoning in
particular and in moral philosophy as a whole.
When ethics does evaluate human conduct with the aid of certain ethical theories
and philosophies (moral perspectives), it judges whether the act is good or bad
and prescribes what is proper and what is not. Key terms and concepts such as
“should”, “should not”, “must”, “must not”, “just” and “unjust”, “duty” and
obligation” are always associated when we discuss ethics.
As a perspective discipline, ethics therefore tells us what we ought to do and not
to do; what actions we are supposed to perform and avoid it tells us to pursue the
things that are good and refrains us to perform those that are evil.
The nature of ethical inquiry does not just tell us what are the things that we have
to do because they are right but more importantly and significantly, it tells us WHY
certain actions are good and on what ground those actions are said to be moral or
immoral.
In short, ethics is concerned with the very ground and foundation of morality.
Ethics is Normative
For us to better understand the nature of ethical inquiry, it is helpful that we have
to distinguish between normative statements or propositions from descriptive and
factual assertions as a way to evaluate values in human affairs.
Ethics makes value judgments through the ethical norms it has developed. Value
and prescriptive judgments may be both called normative judgments to distinguish
them from purely descriptive and factual statements about something. They
usually express or presuppose norms or standards rather than simple and objective
descriptions about something (Holmes 2003:8).
Thus, a normative statement expresses a value judgment of some kind. Its
correctness is essentially determined by reference to a norm or standard, which in
ethics we call ethical/moral norms (Holmes 2003:8; Harris 1997:7-8).
Norms are standards. An investigation such as in ethics is said to be normative
since it examines which ideas ought to be norms, values, or standards. Ethics, as
a normative discipline, attempts to find out the standards of right and wrong in
terms of human conduct. In addition, it also leads humans to choose which of
these are more reasonable and consistent.
In ethics, we are concerned with what we ought to do, what consequences ought
to be achieved with our conduct, and what sort of persons we ought to aspire. It
seeks to establish and prescribe norms, standards, or principles for judging and
evaluating people’s actual practices.
Some people, especially those who are more reflective, are not content merely to
live. They feel impelled to evaluate their lives as they try to judge the value of the
goals they are pursuing and the various purposes that in a way fueled their actions
(Porter, 1995).
In brief, people assess their conduct against some sort of an ideal or norm that
strikes them with the force of an external authority. This may be in a form of a
God, conscience or a rational principle that they are able to develop within
themselves. Whatever it is, one thing is at least clear: we all want, to a certain
extent, justify our actions in a way that would help us find sense and meaning in
our lives.
As previously mentioned, the other disciplines such as sociology or anthropology
study and describe how people, society and cultures behave and act without being
concerned whether these are good or bad, right or wrong. Ethics, on the other
hand, as a normative discipline has a philosophical task of discerning which of
these practices and behaviors are genuinely good or bad. Ethical theories are the
main product of this particular type of philosophical inquiry.
One of the aims of normative ethical theory is to provide us with a standard to
attain the best ethical belief. As moral and intellectual beings, we all, to a certain
varying extent, possess different beliefs as to what is good or bad, right and wrong
with regard to how we behave.
But how do we know which of our moral beliefs and that of other people are true
and which ones are false? Is everything relative/ is one’s opinion of what is moral
and what is not simply depends on each individual, on how each person view
things? Is one’s opinion as good as the other as regards morality?
Not until we begin to seriously reflect on the true nature and implications of
morality and to be critical with our own personal moral belief that we can possibly
arrive at a mature understanding of that belief.
As we begin to subject our own ethical beliefs to a reflective scrutiny, we will soon
realize and discover that many, if not most of them, are merely based on
conventions or blind traditions.
This is where the study of moral theory, if done with utmost seriousness and
sincerity, can possibly change conventional, non-reflected opinions into something
more critical and philosophical. Thus, making our moral views logically plausible.
Therefore, the study of moral theories in ethics helps us to avoid to be swamped
with unthinking opinions that have long characterized our ethical reasoning. The
goal here is to our beliefs grounded on logical reason and reflection – beliefs that
can withstand the rigor philosophical analysis and criticism.
Characteristics of Moral Principles
Now that we have already distinguished moral statements from nonmoral ones,
let us try to further differentiate them from other areas of life where moral
statements or evaluate value judgments are also present, such as aesthetics and
in religion. (More on the difference of ethics and religion later.)
Academicians who are experts in moral philosophy have been unable to find any
single element or feature that will truly separate moral or ethical judgments are
also present.
However, moral philosophers in contemporary times are able to come up with a
short list of specific and particular characteristics that, taken as a whole, can be a
good description of the distinctiveness or uniqueness of moral evaluations.
While there is no universal agreement on the traits that moral ethical principles
must have, there is a wide consensus as to what these traits are (See Pojiman
2005: 10-11 & Harris 1997:9-10).
1. Prescriptivity – This refers to the practical, or action-guiding nature of
morality. Moral principles are intended to advise people on what to do and to
avoid. It tries to influence the way we act in accordance with certain rules of
conduct. Examples of this are injunctions or imperatives such as: “Do not kill”,
“Do no harm to your fellowmen,” “Love your neighbor,” “Do not steal,” “Tell
the truth,” among others.
As discussed, moral statements prescribe conduct. This trait makes moral
judgments different from aesthetic statements. The expression for instance
that the movie is good does not explicitly provide guide and direction to do a
particular act or conduct.
2. Impartiality – This means that ethical or moral rules should be neutral when
it comes to the question as to who will be its recipient. Moral standards are
supposed to apply to everyone regardless of one’s status and situation in life.
Moral rules should not advance the interest of a few or worse, of one alone.
Self-interest does not have a place in a proper moral standard,
Moral thinkers insist that ethical rules are grounded on the reasons of an “ideal
observer,” an “imperial spectator”. Thus, if we want to make a genuine ethical
claim, we must not allow our own vested interest to prevail and decide on
matters of right and wrong.
3. Overridingness – Moral standards must have hegemonic authority. This
means that they should tower over all the other standards where human actions
can be judged or assessed but they should take precedence over others. They
have to be of prime and ultimate importance.
A violation for instance of the moral imperative against telling a lie is of greater
value than pleasing somebody as prescribed perhaps by the rule on etiquette
or some other rules. In the same respect, moral judgment is more of
importance than a simple judgment on beauty (aesthetics), as well as value
judgments regarding legality (law).
4. Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority – Moral standards should stand on
their own logic independent of the arbitrariness of the majority. We can always
challenge on logical grounds the tyranny of numbers and the tide of public
opinion on matters of right and wrong. Something is right or wrong regardless
of what the majority decides or says.
Thus, moral rules are not subject to the whims and caprices of those in power.
5. Publicity – This simply means that moral rules and principles must be made
public if they are to serve as guidelines to our actions. The obvious reason for
this is that principles are made and promulgated to render advice as well as
assign praise or blame to certain behaviors. It would be self-defeating therefore
to just keep them public knowledge.
If moral principles are indeed impartial and of primordial value, then by all
means, they have to be made public. Keeping them in secret defeats the very
purpose why they are created. You do not hide something that you really think
is genuinely good and noble.
6. Practicability – Moral rules should not be impossible to achieve or else they
are not for men but for angels. This further means that ethical standards must
not be over what any ordinary human being is capable of doing. It should not
lay a too heavy burden on people. For what practical use is a norm if it is simply
impossible for anyone to follow?
In short, any normal norm must be workable or practical to a reasonable extent.
MAIN FEATURES OF MORALITY
Part of any theory, whether about morality or something else, is to describe its
subject matter by listing certain features or characteristics of the subject that
makes it distinct and special. This will, in a way, give a clearer picture as to what
the whole subject is really all about. The following list by Ellin (1995: 14-15),
though not exhaustive, provides a thorough grounding of the subject:
1. Morality is binding on those whom it applies. This means that if some
principle is part of morality, then the people to whom the morality applies ought
to obey that principle. This feature follows logically from the simple fact that
morality consists of rules, for being binding is part of what it means for
something to be a rule. It would incoherent to claim that some rules apply to
some group of people, and yet to say that these people are not obliged in any
way to adhere to the said rule, whatever it may be. This applies to rules of
etiquette and manners as well as moral rules.
2. Morality does not depend on what people think. This means that numbers
does not decide right and wrong even if that is the majority. Unlike legal rules,
they cannot be made by mere votes of those involved. As some lawmakers
would correctly say: “You cannot legislate morality.”
3. There are often correct answers to moral questions. In spite of so many
controversies regarding certain moral issues like abortion, euthanasia and the
like, most people have no trouble distinguishing good moral actions or decisions
from bad ones. The fact that we can all talk sensibly about right and wrong on
these issues proves, in a way, that morality matters. The disagreement only
means that we have to continue talking as to arrive at certain points of
convergence.
4. Despite this, morality is sometimes clear or ambiguous. The rules of
morality, unfortunately, are not always as clear or obvious, as we all would like
them to be. This may explain why a number of individuals argue on certain
moral issues without ever reaching some sort of an agreement or consensus.
This may also explain why some of us make moral decisions even if we are not
really sure whether they are right or wrong. Unlike rules in a chess game, moral
rules, as in life, are complex and as such, answers don’t usually come in the
black and white. When everything has been said, there are certain gray areas
that need to be clarified.
 PRELIMINARIES: ETHICAL CASES
Case 1
In the first day of class, the teacher asks: “What makes something good or bad,
right and wrong?” Many, if not most of the students, would just say, “It depends!”
By this they mean that the question of good and bad, right and wrong, is all a
matter of personal opinion. It is, they say, “subjective.”
What is right or wrong depends on how one looks at something. What is good or
bad for one may not be good or bad for the other. To each his/her own. Do you
think this is correct? What does the subject of ethics or moral philosophy say about
this? Can philosophical discipline of ethics help in clarifying this?

Case 2
Many educators who have taught ethics as a subject at one time or another share
the belief that ethics or morality “cannot be taught.” They say that moral values
such as respect, honesty, integrity, and the like are not learned through studying
ethics or moral philosophy in the classroom.
If this is correct, should ethics than as a course be taken out from the curriculum?
Why or why not studying ethics as an academic discipline relevant or not? Can
ethics be taught? Justify your answer.

Case 3
In a college faculty meeting of philosophy teachers, the department chair proposed
that a percentage of student’s final grade in an ethics subject should cover their
attitude or moral behavior.
He said that ethics being a practical discipline, teachers should not just rate
student’s academic performance but also the way they apply in reality what they
learn from the course.
Some faculty members objected to this idea because according to them what the
students actually do with their lives are their own private business and should
never be subjected to somebody else’s evaluation, not even that of ethics teacher.
Do you agree? Why or why not?