KEY CONCEPTS

Silliman Ethics Course

Dr. Ferdinand M. Mangibin
OUTLINE

1. Why Rules?

2. Difference between Moral and Non-

Moral standards Morality and Ethics

3. Dilemmas
RULES

8/13/2020
Rules: Imagine and Think

The rules you find most

constricting
1. The reason behind these
rules?
2. What your school would be
without rules? Your
organization? Your home?
Your country?
Why Rules?

Order
Get things done
We are beings with
others
(Esse est co-esse)
Usual Rules of Our Lives
 Etiquette – standards by which we judge manners to be
good or bad; normally dictated by a socio-economic
elite.
 Legal – standards by which we judge legal right and
wrong; in a democracy, formulated by representatives
of the people.
 Language – standards by which we judge what is
grammatically right or wrong; evolve through use
 Aesthetics – standards by which we judge good or bad
art; usually dictated by a small circle of art
connoisseurs
 Athletic – standards by which we judge how good or
bad a game is played; usually formulated by governing
bodies.
How are non-moral standards different
from
 Rules mandating fair treatment of all
races
 Rules that give women equal rights with
men
 Rules forcing management to treat
workers fairly
 Rules prohibiting parents from abusing
(verbally, emotionally, physically and
sexually) their children
MORAL STANDARDS

8/13/2020
Moral Standards
What distinguishes moral standards from amoral
standards?
1. Moral standards deal with matters that can
seriously injure or benefit human beings. E.g. theft,
rape, fraud, slander, murder.

2. The validity of moral standards rests on the

adequacy of reasons to support and justify them,
not on decisions of majority or authoritative
bodies. E.g. that one ought to tell the truth does
not depend on how many people will vote on it
nor on the legislature. One indication of
justification is the consensus of participants in
communication. (Habermas)
3. Moral standards are to be preferred to
other values, including self-interest. E.g.
honesty is to be preferred than cheating,
although cheating can make me graduate.
4. Moral standards are based on impartial
considerations. Another way of expressing
this “universalizable” or taking the point of
view of an ‘ideal observer’. Still, this
impartiality must be balanced with partiality
towards those we have a special relationship
(family and friends) and the poor and the
disabled.
5. Moral standards are associated with
special emotions such as ‘guilt,’ ‘shame,’
‘remorse,’ ‘praise,’ indignation’.
What is common to all five characteristic? None
other than society taken in its broadest sense, or
in philosophical terms, the ‘other’.

In other words, individual responsibility cannot be

taken in isolation from social responsibility

Non-compliance with moral standards seriously

injure us as human beings. Nababawasan ang
pagkatao.

The challenge of moral standards is that in

violating them, effect is not always immediate and
visible.
Morality and Ethics (Velasquez)

Morality: pertains to standards of right and

wrong, usually inherited from a community.

BUT

Ethics: studies standards of right and wrong,

the act of making a decision, the nature of
the agent who makes the decision.
WHAT, HOW, WHO

Moral, Ethics, Procedural (Habermas)

Questions concerning right and wrong

Procedural=standard is optimality/efficiency

Ethical = standard is ethos, pertaining to the

good life

Moral = standard is justice, how others are

affected by actions
The Study of Ethics

1. Ethics entails a reflective distance to critically examine

standards
- It looks values beneath these moral standards (WHAT
OR WHY)
- E.g. We take for granted that we should marry in
Church. But have we asked why? If we do, this will
affect our attitude to divorce, etc.
- Value: lifelong commitment?

2. It looks at the agent who makes the moral decision:

Mature? Level of moral development (WHO)

3. It is about the moral decision making process.

Ethics is not about theoretical knowledge but application

of that knowledge, transforming it to action in
everyday life.
DILEMMAS

8/13/2020
DILEMMAS

Signaled by being “bothered”

– nababagabag
Why am I bothered?
When did you last have that “bothered”
feeling?

What is dilemma?
Dilemmas are experience where an agent is
confused about the right decision to make
because there are several competing values
that are seemingly equally important and
urgent.
Feelings and Dilemmas

Strong feelings signal the presence of a dilemma.

BUT many people do not always “catch” the dilemma

behind the feeling.

One can be conditioned to be indifferent so that what

used to be NAKAKABAGABAG is no longer a
dilemma.

Dilemmas are not about competing solutions

 We normally handle the “pakabagabag” by
immediately offering solutions instead of
articulating the competing values or issues e.g.
should I cheat or not cheat.
Consider:

Ramon, a grade 5 honor student at an all-boys’

Grade School allows Jose, a large, burly boy seated
next to him, to peek at his math quarterly exam.
Unfortunately, Teacher sees this and immediately
gives both boys a failing mark for the quarter
exam. Ramon feels that a great injustice has been
committed; that Jose should have been punished
more severely that him.

Why does Ramon feel this way about the

Teacher’s punishment?
Why did Ramon allow Jose to copy?
How should we handle a moral dilemma?

Certainly not through feelings

Upsurge of feelings cannot be prevented
What do we do with them, separates the mature
from the immature moral agent

Using reason and impartiality

Reason Defined
• A faculty
• A way of dealing with issues
• Moral judgments are not a matter of personal
preferences or taste.
“…the morally right thing to do, in any circumstance,
is determined by what there are the best reasons
for doing.” Rachels “What is Morality”
Impartiality Defined
 Every stakeholder’s interest is equally important
 There are no special interests or people, thus in
making every moral decision, each stakeholder
interest should be considered
 One must not be arbitrary
 Every person should be treated the same way
unless there is good reason not to do so.

Why Reason? Why Impartiality?

Because dilemmas are complex experiences, hard to
make a good decision

An agent is confused about the right decision to

make because there are several competing values
that different stakeholders protect.
The Case of Baby Jane Doe

In late 1983 there was a great public controversy

over an infant known to the public only as Baby
Jane Doe. This unfortunate baby, born in New
York State suffered from multiple defects
including spina bifida (a broken and protruding
spine), hydrocephaly (excess fluid on the brain),
and perhaps worst of all, microcephaly (an
abnormally small head), suggesting that part of
the brain was missing. Surgery was needed for the
spina bifida; however, the doctors who examined
the baby disagreed about whether the operation
should be performed.
Dr. George Newman believed that surgery
would be pointless because the baby could
never have meaningful human life. Another
physician, Dr. Arjen Keuskamp, did not think
the baby’s condition was hopeless and
advocated immediate surgery. (Both were
pediatric neurologists). The parents decided
to accept Dr. Newman’s recommendation,
and refused permission for surgery. Dr.
Keuskamp then withdrew from the case.
Because such cases have become common,
the plight of Baby Jane Doe would not
have received much attention had it not
been for the intervention of third parties.
Shortly after the parents’ decision,
Lawrence Washburn, a lawyer associated
with some conservative right-to-life groups,
petitioned the courts to set aside the
parents’ wishes and order that surgery be
performed. The New York State Supreme
Court granted that request, but a higher
court quickly overturned the order, calling
Washburn’s suit “offensive”.
The Court was impressed by Dr.
Newman’s testimony: he told the court,

“The decision made by the parents is that

it would be unkind to have the surgery
performed on this child…on the basis of
the combination that are present in this
child, she is not likely to ever achieve any
meaningful interaction with her
environment, nor ever achieve any
interpersonal relationships, the very
qualities which we consider human.”
After Mr. Washburn’s suit was dismissed,
the federal government got in the act. The
Department of Justice file suit demanding
access to the hospital’s records in order to
determine whether a “handicapped
person” – the infant was being
discriminated against. The suit was also
dismissed, with the judge declaring that
the parents’ decision “was reasonable one
based on due consideration of the medical
opinions available and on a genuine
concern for the interest of the child.”
The parents did eventually agree to the use
of a shunt to remove the excess fluid from
the child’s brain. But the major surgery, for
the spina bifida, was not performed.

Was the parents’ decision correct?

What are the facts of the Baby Jane Doe case
If you were the parents (the moral agents),
what was your dilemma?
Who are the two other stakeholders
contesting the parents’ decision?
What was the value behind their position?
Why are we the only moral agents?
Because only human beings are free

Summary: To be ethical requires

Pause
1. to get hold of emotions before they damage
2. distance from what everyone else is saying
Critical Thinking
1. to analyze the situation, consider
stakeholders interest make the right choices
2. to see the bigger picture and align the
choices with what the values important to me
Courage
1. To ACT DELIBERATELY AND WITH
CONVICTION on what reason says is the right
thing to do
END