LECTURE 1 The Moral Standards

THE INQUIRY ON PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS: AN  Moral standards deal with matters that can seriously injure or benefit
INTRODUCTION human beings.
 The validity of moral standards rests on the adequacy of reasons to
An attempt to define the subject matter…. support and justify them, not on the decision of majority or
authoritative bodies.
 There are various definitions of Ethics such that anyone would be led
 Moral standards are to be preferred to other values, including self-
to think a universal one is impossible to formulate.
interest.
 Hence, many ethical discussions end in controversies; some result to
 Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.
even more divergent views about the subject.
 Moral standards are expressed in universalizable view point from an
Related concepts (philosphyforum.com) ideal observer.
 Moral standards are associated with special emotions such as ‘guilt’,
 Some views relate ethics to other words like right, value, morals, ‘shame’, ‘remorse’, ‘praise’, ‘pity’, ‘indignation’.
good, evil, happiness in their attempt to define the term.
 Some provide practical and common questions that relate to acts, So what is common to all these characteristics?
desires and needs from which individuals find life’s meanings and
 No other than society taken in broadest sense….society is interpreted
purposes.
philosophically as the “other”.
 There are different definitions of ethics because there are numerous
 Noncompliance with moral standards would seriously injure us as
questions entailed in our views regarding rightness and wrongness;
human beings.
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.
 Legal: standards by which legal right or wrong is judged in a
democracy; formulated by representatives of 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
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.
LECTURE 2
MORAL DILEMMAS AND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF
MORALITY
WHAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA?
 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.
 The process of making a moral decision can be as important as the
decision itself.
 Many ethical decisions that people encounter are so complex that it is
easy to exhaust oneself talking around the problem without actually
making any progress towards resolving it.
THREE LEVELS OF MORAL DILEMMAS
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
3. Systematic/Structural Dilemma
A, Dean Torres is also employed as an academic officer in
o This dilemma refers to ongoing search for satisfactory system.
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.
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?