LECTURE 1  Legal: standards by which legal right or wrong is judged
in a democracy; formulated by representatives of
THE INQUIRY ON PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS: AN INTRODUCTION
An attempt to define the subject matter….
 There are various definitions of Ethics such that anyone
would be led to think a universal one is impossible to
formulate.
 Hence, many ethical discussions end in controversies;
some result to even more divergent views about the
subject.
Related concepts (philosphyforum.com)
 Some views relate ethics to other words like right, value,
morals, good, evil, happiness in their attempt to define
the term.
 Some provide practical and common questions that
relate to acts, desires and needs from which individuals
find life’s meanings and purposes.
 There are different definitions of ethics because there are
numerous questions entailed in our views regarding
rightness and wrongness; as well as the diverse responses
to these questions.
THE STUDY ON MORALITY
Moral standards as opposed to non-moral and amoral
standards
The usual rules in our lives…
 Etiquette: standards by which manners are judged to be
good or bad normally dictated by socio economic elite.
 Athletic: standards by which we judge how well or bad a
game is played, usually formulated by governing bodies.
people.
 Language: standards by which grammatically right or
wrong language is judged, evolving through its usage.
 Aesthetics: standards by which good or bad art is judged
dictated by a small circle of art specialists
The Moral Standards
 Moral standards deal with matters that can seriously
injure or benefit human beings.
 The validity of moral standards rests on the adequacy of
reasons to support and justify them, not on the decision
of majority or authoritative bodies.
 Moral standards are to be preferred to other values,
including self-interest.
 Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
 Moral standards are expressed in universalizable view
point from an ideal observer.
 Moral standards are associated with special emotions
such as ‘guilt’, ‘shame’, ‘remorse’, ‘praise’, ‘pity’,
‘indignation’.
So what is common to all these characteristics?
 No other than society taken in broadest sense….society is
interpreted philosophically as the “other”.
 Noncompliance with moral standards would seriously
injure us as human beings.
ETHICS AND MORALS
 When do you say an experience calls for a moral
decision? When a choice made based on the person’s
ethics, manners, character…
Example Scenario: You went to SM Department Store to buy a
pair of rubber shoes. Brand A costs 2K; Brand B costs 5K. Your
wife gave you 5K. You were jobless at the moment. Your son
and daughter will enroll this coming June. Your mother was
rushed to the hospital because of lingering illness. You owe your
neighbor 1K and you promise to pay the moment you have
extra money
What are they?
 Ethics refers to the rules of conduct recognized in respect
to a particular class of human actions or a particular
group or culture.
 Morals are the Principles or habits with respect to right or
wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and
don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right
and wrong.
What is their origin?
 Ethics comes from the Greek word "ethos" means
“character”.
 Moral comes from the Latin word "mores" meaning
“custom".
Where do they come from?
 Ethics comes from social system (external source). We do
it because society says it is the right thing to do.
 Morality comes from individual themselves (internal
source). We do it (or we do not do it) because we
believe on something being right or wrong.
What is the flexibility of the concept?
 Ethics are dependent on others for definition. They tend
to be consistent within a certain context, but can vary
between contexts.
 Moral is usually consistent, although can change if an
individual’s beliefs change.
Acceptability of the terms
 Ethics are governed by professional and legal guidelines
within a particular time and place.
 Moral transcends cultural norms.
SUMMARY
 Ethics is codes of conduct that pertain to a community,
family, company or a nation. On the other hand, morality
refers to personal sets of beliefs about what is right and
wrong.
 Ethics is accepted by the entity of the community but
morals are not.
 People have their morals that may or may not be in sync
with society’s ethics.
Thus, the study of ethics….
 entails a reflective distance to critically examine
standards
 looks at values beneath the moral standards (answers
the questions of WHAT and WHY we do the act)
 looks into the agent who makes the moral decision (level
of maturity and moral development).
  It is about the moral decision process (HOW we arrive at
the moral decision).
 Ethics is not solely about theoretical knowledge but the
application of that knowledge…how to transform such
knowledge into action in our everyday life.
 The process of making a moral decision can be as important
LECTURE 2
 Many ethical decisions that people encounter are so
MORAL DILEMMAS AND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF
MORALITY
WHAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA?
THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS
 It is a complex situation that often involves an apparent
mental conflict between moral imperatives, in which to
obey one would result in transgressing another.
 Sometimes called ethical paradoxes, these dilemmas
invoke an attempt to refute an ethical system or moral
code, or to improve it so as to resolve the paradox.
TYPES OF MORAL DILEMMAS
1. Epistemic conflicts: This type of dilemma involves conflicts
between two (or more) moral requirements and the
agent does not know which of the conflicting
requirements takes precedence in her situation.
2. Ontological conflicts: This dilemma involves conflicts
between two (or more) moral requirements, and neither
is overridden. This is not simply because the agent does
not know which requirement is stronger; neither is.
Genuine moral dilemmas, if there are any, are
ontological.
 Self-imposed moral dilemmas arise because of the agent's
own wrongdoing (Aquinas; Donagan 1977, 1984; and
McConnell 1978). Example: An agent made two promises
that he knew conflicted, then through his own actions he
created a situation in which it is not possible for him to
discharge both of his requirements.
as the decision itself.
complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself talking around the
problem without actually making any progress towards
resolving it.
1. Individual dilemmas
o Students identify dilemmas in cases submitted or
shared by classmates (assignment form)
2. Organizational Dilemmas
o A dilemma that exist within an organization or a
particular sector. It refers to a problem of reconciling
inconsistencies between individual needs and
aspirations on the one hand, and the collective
purpose of the organization on the other.
o Example: University A spends a minimum of 100K for
European trips of Dean Torres. The trips involve paper
presentations, attendance to international
conferences, linkages with other universities abroad,
and benchmarking of best practices. However,
unknown to the management of University A, Dean
Torres is also employed as an academic officer in
University B. The latter is aware of the employment of
Dean Torres in University A. When the management of
University B learned about the trip of Dean Torres in
Europe, it requested him to visit two schools (in
Europe) regarding its 3 programs under conception.
Since University B would only be a rider on Dean
Torres trips, it offers him 50K as personal allowance.
Dean Torres was glad about the offer. He needed
money for the upcoming kidney operation of his wife.
For his European trip, he is entitled for full
transportation, accommodation and personal
allowances by University A, intended for the paper
presentation and 2 additional days for ocular
inspections/visitations of HEIs in a location of his
choice. For such, he is anticipating additional 30K
savings for the allowances to be provided by
University A, since he has already communicated to
some friends and relatives to accommodate him for
his upcoming trip. (However), University A is
undergoing budget tightening due to decrease in
enrolment as a result of K to12 implementation. Dean
Torres argues that the upcoming European trip (his 3rd
in a row) has been approved by the Academic
Council prior to the implementation of the K to12.
Furthermore, the Dean argues that the said official trip
is necessary to maintain the current autonomous
status of the University (A) as well as the level 4
accreditation of his College’s two prime programs.
Unknown to Dean Torres, the President of University A
is aware of his employment in University B because
her brother in law is the current president of University
B. She is likewise aware of the 50K subsidy to be
provided by University B to him (Dean Torres). Her
brother-in-law had talked to her secretly to support
the European trip of Dean Torres, because if such
would push through, it would definitely benefit the
two universities. The President does not know what to
do. Her brother in law was instrumental to her
installation as president of University A because of his
numerous connections in the academe. He was her
principal sponsor too in her pursuit of her Ph.D
abroad.
3. Systematic/Structural Dilemma
o This dilemma refers to ongoing search for satisfactory
system. Managers rarely face well defined problems
with clear cut solutions, instead, they confront
enduring dilemmas like trade-offs, without easy
answers.
MORALITY DEFINED
 Moral Philosophy is an attempt to achieve a systematic
understanding of the nature of morality and what it
requires of us, “how we ought to live and why”.
The Role of Reason
 Reason is a faculty that is used by man in dealing with
issues.
 Moral judgments are not a matter of personal
preferences or tastes
MORAL REASONING
 It is a process by which one thinks about the moral
dilemma in ways that:
(1) identify (as comprehensively as possible) the
morally relevant aspects of the situation;
(2) weigh the significance of the morally relevant
aspects, giving due importance to the views of
the persons’ concerned of what constitutes
benefit and harm;
 (3) identify (as comprehensively as possible) all the
possible actions that could be pursued and their
most likely consequences; and
(4) consider all of the above elements and come to a
decision about which action is reasoned to be the
most ethically justified.
On Impartiality:
 Each individual’s interests are equally important.
 Therefore, each must acknowledge that other person’s
welfare is equally important as our own. • Impartiality
entails a proscription against arbitrariness in dealing with
people.
 A conscientious moral agent is someone who is
concerned impartially with the interest of everyone
affected by what he or she does;
 Someone who carefully sifts facts and examines their
implications;
 Someone who accepts principles of conduct only after
scrutinizing them to make sure they are sound;
 “Someone who is willing to listen to reason even when it
means that prior convictions may have been revised,
and who finally, is willing to act on the results of this
deliberation.”
Simply put…..
The nature of morality implies two main points:
(1) That moral judgments must be backed up by good
reasons;
(2) Morality requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interest.
LECTURE 3
THE QUESTION OF MAN’S FREEDOM
THE HUMAN FREEDOM
 Human freedom is a social concept that recognizes the
dignity of individuals and is defined as negative liberty or
the absence of coercive constraint…as opposed to
positive liberty which refers to the possibility of acting in
such a way as to take control of one’s life.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of ‘true liberty’ may be placed
under this category.
 Positive freedom therefore is less about what individuals
are forbidden from doing, and more about what
individuals can do to reach their full human potential.
JEAN PAUL SARTRE “ABSOLUTE FREEDOM”
(1) EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE
 It gives emphasis on man’s “subjectivity”.
 Leads to the question of being.
 Rejection of a divine meaning to one’s life
(because….)
 For Sartre, existence precedes essence, freedom is
absolute, and existence is freedom.
(2) SUBJECT RATHER THAN OBJECT
 Humans are not objects to be used by God or a
government or corporation or society.
 Nor we to be "adjusted" or molded into roles --to be
only a waiter or a conductor or a mother or worker.
We must look deeper than our roles and find
ourselves.
 (3) Notion of CHOICE:
 FREEDOM is the central and unique potentiality which
constitutes us as human.
 “I am my choices. I cannot not choose. If I do not
choose, that is still a choice. If faced with inevitable
circumstances, we still choose how we are in those
circumstances”.
(4) RESPONSIBILITY:
 Each of us is responsible for everything we do. If we
seek advice from others, we choose our advisor and
have some idea of the course he or she will
recommend. "I am responsible for my very desire of
fleeing responsibilities."
(5) OUR ACTS DEFINE US:
 “In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait,
and there is nothing but that portrait." Our illusions
and imaginings about ourselves, about what we
could have been, are nothing but self-deception.
 A "brave" person is simply someone who usually acts
bravely.
 Each act contributes to defining us as we are, and at
any moment we can begin to act differently and
draw a different portrait of ourselves.
 There is always a possibility to change, to start making
a different kind of choice.
(BUT) WHAT REALITY OPPOSES SARTRE?
THE THREE POSITIONS OF FREEDOM
 Man is absolutely free. (Sartrean)
 Man is absolutely determined. (Causal, Logical,
Psychological, and Theological)
 The middle position: Man is situated (Maurice Merleau
Ponty)
TYPES OF DETERMINISM
1. Logical determinism maintains that the future is already
fixed as unalterably as the past.
2. Physical determinism is based on there being physical
laws of nature.
3. Theological determinism argues that since God is
omniscient, He knows everything, the future included.
4. Psychological determinism maintains that there are
certain psychological laws which we are beginning to
discover, enabling us to predict, usually on the basis of
experiences in early infancy, how a man will respond to
different situations throughout his later life.
OBJECTIONS ON THE ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM
 If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then no basic
experience is trustworthy, which would lead to total
skepticism and inaction.
 If the statement “man is absolutely determined” is
true, the statement is also determined, and the
opposite “man is absolutely free” would also be
determined, and so there would be no truth value
anymore to the statement.
 If human beings are manipulable like machines, there
would be no problem in making a society just. -M.Dy
THE SITUATED FREEDOM MAURICE MERLEU-PONTY
 Freedom could never be divorced from the
individual's insertion in a world; (it is interwoven with
the field of existence).
  The concept of freedom only made sense in
conjunction with this insertion (man’s beingness in the
world).
 In Merleau-Ponty's philosophy, men faced a
previously constituted world that nevertheless
accommodated free action.
 For Merleau-Ponty, there was "never determinism and
never absolute choice," by the very nature of man's
being in the world. Choices are made in this field of
meaning.
Objection on Sartre’s Absolute Freedom:
 If freedom is absolute, always and everywhere, then
freedom is impossible and nowhere.
 Absolute freedom implies that there would be no
distinction between freedom and unfreedom.
GABRIEL MARCEL ON FREEDOM
 Freedom is related to person.
 Existence grows out as an ego (in the context of having
freedom) and grow into becoming (beingness) a person.
THE TWO REALMS OF FREEDOM
1. The realm of HAVING: freedom is external to me; it does
not commune with me; a “problem” apart from me;
applicable to ideas, implying possession (not open for
sharing with others).
2. The realm of BEING: pertains to persons; open to others to
commune; this is not a “problem” but a mystery that is
part of me; applicable also to things: I am my ideas, I am
free.
UNDERSTANDING FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
TWO MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY
1. Accountability:
 I am accountable for an action that is free, whose
source is the “I”…. I acted on my own; I decided on my
own; I am fee fom external constraints.
 A person is morally responsible for an injury if:
o The person caused the injury or failed to prevent it
when he or she could have or should have prevented
it.
o The person did so despite of knowing what he or she
was doing.
o The person did so out of his own freewill.
2. The response-ability:
 The response-ability means the ability to give an
account, the ability to justify actions that are truly
responsive to the objective demands of the situation.
 A response that meets the objective demands of the
situation is a response that meets the demand of justice.
 Greater freedom is NOT just being able to do what I want
to do but being able to do and wanting to do (wills it)
what the situation objectively obliged me to do.
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE
 The relationship of these concepts can be discerned
when the network of relationships with FELLOW HUMAN
BEINGS and the GOODS intended by freedom is given
consideration.
 Justice is giving to the other what is due.
 If human being is to keep is freedom, he must assess his
real needs with respect to what is available around his
world and the equally real needs of his fellowman.
ON MAX SCHELER’S HIERARCHY OF VALUES
 Freedom is often associated with VALUE.
 Every choice is based on a value.
 Value is never taken in isolation from what the total self
aspires to become.
SCHELER’S HIERARCHY OF VALUES
1. Sensory Value: (pleasant/unpleasant)
 Values that are objects of sensory feelings, and their
corresponding subjective states are pleasure and pain.
 Under this realm are also technical values, values of
civilization and luxury value.
 Essentially, the pleasant is always preferred over the
unpleasant.
 (but) are there instances where unpleasant are preferred
for another value?
2. Vital Values: (Noble/Vulgar)
 These values are connected with general well-being.
 The corresponding states of vital values are feelings of
health and sickness, aging, exhausting, energy,
vigorousness.
 These values are completely independent and
irreducible to the pleasant or unpleasant values.
3. Spiritual Values: (beauty/ugly; Truth/Lies;
Justice/injustice)
 They are independent of the body and the environment.
 They correspond to spiritual feelings, more appropriately
to the spiritual acts of love and hatred.
 The corresponding feeling states are spiritual joy and
sorrow.
4. Holy and Unholy: (Sacraments/Biblical Truths/Faith,
Traditions)
 These are values that appear only on objects given
intentionally as “absolute objects”.
 Values that is independent of things and powers.
 Derivative values of this kind are value of the sacrament,
cults, and other forms of worship.
 The subjective feeling states are bliss and despair, and
their responses are faith, lack of faith, adoration.
 A value is higher than another if it is not divisible
 If it contains in its essence the ability to be endured
through time, qualitatively and not quantitatively,
 If it generates other values
 if it accompanies depth of contentment.
 An act has a matter and form.
 Matter means substance or material while Form structure
or common characteristics).
 At the back of every act entails a value which implies a
hierarchy.
THE TWO KINDS OF CHOICE
 Horizontal choices refer to freedom of choice.
 Vertical choices refer to choices in relation to values
order). Both choices shape our FUNDAMENTAL option.
 LECTURE 4
PHENOMENOLOGY OF LOVE
The Self and the Other
 Love is the movement which "brings about the
continuous emergence of ever-higher value in the
object--just as if it was streaming out from the object of its
own accord, without any sort of exertion...on the part of
the lover. ...true love opens our spiritual eyes to ever-
higher values in the object loved. Max Scheler, The
Nature of Sympathy, 1954
Morality is concerned with three things.
1. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals.
2. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or
harmonizing the things inside each individual.
3. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a
whole: what man was made for: what course the fleet
ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band
wants to play”
What is LOVE?
Love is NOT…..
1. Romance
 a picture of two people whispering sweet nothings to
one another…
2. Not an act of possession
 People fight and struggle in the name of love, hence “i
love you” is come to mean, “you are mine”.
3. Not about qualities
 “Love is blind and lovers do not see”. This has come to
mean that to love is to be attracted to qualities of the
other.
4. Not about sex
 The equation of love to sex has led to the idea that
friendship is not love, as if friendship is inferior to love.
The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm says:
 The popular notion of love at present is “falling in love”
and that, there is nothing people may learn about love,
since love hits man like a lightning.
 This popular notion about love is attributable to the
following three reasons:
(1) The emphasis on being loved rather than on
loving….how to be attractive…how to increase sex
appeal…
(2) The emphasis on the object loved rather than on the
faculty of loving…ie…my ideal girl/boy, the best
husband/wife…
(3) The confusion between the initial state of falling in love
and the permanent standing in love.
LOVE AND LONELINESS
 The experience of love begins from the experience of
loneliness. Loneliness is a basic human experience.
 Loneliness starts from man’s consciousness…(about his
uniqueness, search for self-identity)
 The natural tendency is to seek out fellow adolescents for
understanding and acceptance…these are our
barkadas.
 Friends often have the same interests, the same likes and
dislikes… Through friends man finds equality.
 Would they be enough?
 Loneliness is possible even one is immersed in a crowd.
When one attempts to conform with the group and
suppresses his individuality, boredom sets in.
  Hence, one resort to drinks, drugs or other forms of
heightened sensations or keeps himself busy with
creative activity.
 But even when he discovers himself in this creativity, in
the end he finds himself faced with the anguish of
being…alone.
The Loving Encounter
 Loneliness ends when one finds or is found by another in
what is called, a loving encounter.
 The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. It is not
simply bumping into each other, or simply an exchange
pleasant remarks, though these could be embodiments
of deeper meeting.
 The deeper meeting in love happens when two persons
or who are free to be themselves choose to share
themselves to one another.
 It presupposes an I-thou communication… …….
 a communication of selves.
The loving encounter necessitates an appeal…
(1) The appeal of the other is not his corporeal or attractive
qualities.
(2) The appeal of the other is not an explicit request.
If one bases his reaching out to the other simply on this
need, it may well be because of pity and not really out
of love.
 The appeal of the other is himself, the other in his
otherness is himself a request…. It is the call to participate
in his subjectivity, to be with and for him.
If the appeal of the other is himself, what is then my reply?
 If the appeal of the other is himself, then the appropriate
response to that appeal is Myself.
 As a subjectivity, the other person is free to give meaning
to his life. His appeal then to me means an invitation to
will his subjectivity…. to consent, accept, support and
share his freedom.
 When i love the other, I am saying, “I want you to
become what you want to be, I want you to realize your
happiness freely”.
 Love is effective and it takes actions.
 Hence, love is inseparable from care and labor.
 To love the other is to labor for that love…to care for him,
to care for his body, for his world, for his total well-being.
The Reciprocity of Love
 In loving the other does not mean “a loss of self”.
 In loving the other, I have to be concerned to myself if
my love is to be authentic.
 Consequently, there exist in loving the other the desire to
be loved in return.
 I cannot love the other if i am 100% sure my offer will not
be accepted.
 One does not give something he knows the other will not
be willing to receive.
 But this desire (to be loved in return) though essential
should never become the motive for loving, otherwise I
am loving the other not for what he is but what i can get
in return.
 The primary motive for loving the other is thus the other
himself, the “YOU”…which is not an ordinary “he” or
“she”.
 The “you” is not just another self…(not just a rose among
other roses, a fox among other foxes)…
 But the you-for-whom-I-care.
The Gift of Self
 What is the nature of a gift?
 A gift is causing another to possess something which
hitherto you possess yourself but which the other has no
strict right to own.
 If the other has paid for that which i have given him, this
is not gift giving but selling.
 Love is essentially the disinterested giving of myself to the
other as other.
 The giving in love is not a giving up. I am not being
deprived of something when i give in love because the
self is not a thing that once given no longer belongs to
the giver.
 Nor giving in love has virtuous character, such that I do
not give just to feel good.

To give myself in love is NOT so much to give of what I have.

BUT rather, to give this self that I am and can become.

So how could you be a worthy GIFT to the Other?

What are the manifestations of RICHNESS and FULLNESS of the
SELF to be a worthy gift to the other?