• The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural mores)from which the

adjective moral is derived is equivalent to ethos.

• Etymologically, ethics is but a survey of patterns of behavior that is
done by the human being in general or a society in particular.
• Ethics, generally speaking is about matters such as the good thing
that we should pursue and the bad thing that we should avoid; the
right ways in w/c we could or should act and the wrong ways of
acting. It is about what is acceptable and unacceptable in human
behavior. It may involve obligations that we are. Ethics as a subject
for us to study is about determining the grounds for the values w/
particular and special significance to human life.
• Normative Ethics - The largest branch, it deals with how individuals
can figure out the correct moral action that they should take.
Philosophers such as Socrates and John Stuart Mill are included in this
branch of ethics.
• Meta-Ethics - This branch seeks to understand the nature of ethical
properties and judgments such as if truth values can be found and the
theory behind moral principals.
• Applied Ethics - This is the study of applying theories from
philosophers regarding ethics in everyday life. For example, this area of
ethics asks questions such as "Is it right to have an abortion?" and
"Should you turn in your friend at your workplace for taking home office
supplies?"
• Moral Ethics - This branch questions how individuals develop their
morality, why certain aspects of morality differ between cultures and
why certain aspects of morality are generally universal.
• Descriptive Ethics - This branch is more scientific in its approach and
focuses on how juman beings actually operate in the real world, rather
than attempt to theorize about how they should operate.
• Knowing how to best resolve difficult moral and ethical dilemmas is
never easy especially when any choice violates the societal and ethical
standards by which we have been taught to govern our lives.
• This discussion of ethics and morals would include cognates such as
ethical, unethical, immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we
proceed, we should be careful particularly on the use of the word
“not” when applied to the words “moral” or “ethical” as this can be
ambiguous. One might say that cooking is not ethical, that is, the act
of cooking does not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the other
hand, one might say that lying is not ethical, but the meaning here is
that the act of lying would be an unethical act.
• Let us consider those two words further. The term “morals”
may be used to refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that people have
or to describe acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said
that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to as his morals, and
if he falls short of behaving properly, this can be described as
immoral. However, we also have terms such as “moral judgment” or
“moral reasoning”, w/c suggest a more rational aspect. The term
“ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal ways of thinking.
Thus, ethics is acknowledge as an intellectual discipline belonging
to philosophy. However, acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are
also generally described as ethical and unethical, respectively. In
addition, with regard to the acceptable and unacceptable ways of
behaving in a given field, we have the term “professional ethics”
• Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit a distinction between the
terms “moral” and “ethics” and they may have good reasons for doing
so, but there is no consensus as to how to make that distinction.
Ordinary conversation present as much less rigid distinction between
these terms, and in this book, we will lean in that direction as we do
not need to occupy ourselves here with the question how different
thinkers and writers construe that distinction. So, in this course, we
will be using the terms “ethical” and “moral” (likewise, “ethics” and
“morality”) interchangeably

• LAW - It is supposed the law is one’s guide to ethical behavior. In the

Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as
stated in country’s criminal and civil codes. The term positive law refers
to the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by
an authority figure that require compliance.
• RELIGION –

Does Morality Depend on Religion?

by James Rachels

(Chapter 4 of Rachels, The Elements of Morality 6th ed)

“The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular
moment”.

Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative (1947)

 “I respect deities. I do not rely upon them.”

Musashi Miyamoto, at Ichijohi Temple (CA. 1608)

1. The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion

In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Judge Roy
Moore of Gadsden, Alabama, for displaying the Ten Commandments in
his courtroom. Such a display, it said, violates the separation of church
and state. The ACLU may not have liked Moore, but Alabama voters
did. I 2000, Moore successfully campaigned to become chief Justice of
the Alabama Supreme Court, running on the premise to “restore the
moral foundation of law.” Thus the “Ten Commandments Judge became
the most powerful jurist in the state of Alabama.

Moore was not through making his point, however. In the wee hours of
July 31, 2001, he had a granite monument to the ten Commandments
installed in the Alabama state judicial building. This monument weighed
over five thousand pounds, and was anyone entering the building could
not miss it. Moore was sued again, but the people were behind him:
77% of Americans thought that he should be allowed to display his
monument. Yet the law did not agree. When Moore disobeyed a court
order to remove it, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary fired him, saying
that he had placed himself above the law. Moore, however, believed
that he was putting God above the law.

Few people, at least in the United States, would find this remarkable.
Among western democracies, the U.S. is an unusually religious country.
Nine out of ten Americans say they believe in a personal God; in
Denmark and Sweden, the figure is only one in five. It is not unusual for
priests and ministers to be treated as moral experts. Most hospitals, for
example, have ethics committees, and these committees usually include
three types of members: healthcare professionals to advise about
technical matters, lawyers to handle legal issues, and religious
representatives to address the moral questions. When newspapers
want comments about the ethical dimensions of a story, they call upon
the clergy, and the clergy are happy to oblige. Priests and ministers are
assumed to be wise counselors who will give sound moral advice when
it is needed.
Why are clergymen regarded this way? The reason is not that they have
proven to be better or wiser than other people - as a group, they seem
to be neither better nor worse than the rest of us. There is a deeper
reason why they are regarded as having special moral insight. In
popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People
commonly believe that morality can be understood only in the context of
religion. So because the clergymen are the spokesmen for religion, it is
assumed that they must be spokesmen for morality as well.

It is not hard to see why people think this. When viewed from a
nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless
place, devoid of value and purpose. In his essay, A Free Man’s
Worship, written in 1902, Bertrand Russell expressed what he called the
scientific view of the world:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end
they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his
loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of
atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can
preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the
ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of
human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar
system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must
inevitable be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these
things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no
philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the
scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding
despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

From a religious perspective, however, things look very different.

Judaism and Christianity teach that the world was created by a loving,
all-powerful God to provide a home for us. We, in turn, were created in
his image, to be his children. Thus the world is not devoid of meaning
and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in which God’s plans and
purposes are realized. What could be more natural, then, than to think
that morality is a part of the religious view of the world, whereas the
atheist’s world has no place for values?
 2. The Divine Command Theory

In the major theistic traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and

Islam, God is conceived as a lawgiver who has laid down rules that we
are to obey. He does not compel us to obey them. We were created as
free agents, so we may choose to accept or to reject his
commandments. But if we are to live as we should live, we must follow
God’s laws. This conception has been elaborated by some theologians
into a theory about the nature of right and wrong known as the Divine
Command Theory. Essentially, this theory says that morally right means
commanded by God and morally wrong means forbidden by God.

This theory has a number of attractive features. It immediately solves

the old problem about the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a
matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right
or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it, wrong if
God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command Theory suggests an
answer to the perennial question of why anyone should bother with
morality. Why not forget about ethics and just look out for oneself? If
immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, there is an easy
answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems for the theory, Of course, atheists
would not accept it, because thy do no believe that God exists. But
there are difficulties even for believers. The main problem was first
noted by Plato, the Greek Philosopher who lived 400 years before the
birth of Jesus.

Plato’s writings were in the form of dialogues, usually between Socrates

and one or more interlocutors. In one of these dialogues, the Euthyphro,
there is a discussion concerning whether right can be defined as that
which the gods command. Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct
right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right? This is one of the most famous questions in the
 history of philosophy. The British philosopher Antony Flew suggests that
one good test of a person’s aptitude for philosophy is to discover
whether he can grasp its force and point.

The point is that if we accept the theological conception of right and

wrong, we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates question asks us to clarify
what we mean. There are two things we might mean, and both lead to
trouble.

3. First, we might mean that right conduct is right because God commands
it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful.
On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it.
Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is
God’s command that makes truthfulness right.

But this leads to trouble, for it represents God’s commands as arbitrary.

It means that God could have given different commands just as easily.
He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, not
truthfulness, would be right. (You may be tempted to reply: But God
would never command us to lie. But why not? If he did endorse lying,
God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because his command
would make it right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right
before God commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no more
reason to command it than its opposite; and so, from a moral point of
view, his command is arbitrary.

Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of

God is reduced to nonsense. It is important to religious believers that
God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but the he is also good; yet
if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to
God’s will, this notion is deprived of any meaning. What could it mean to
say that God’s commands are good? If X is good means X is
commanded by God then God’s commands are good would mean only
God’s commands are commanded by God, an empty truism. In 1686,
Leibniz observed in his Discourse on Metaphysics:

So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but
sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without
realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for
what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly
the contrary?

Thus if we choose the first of Socrates two options, we seem to be stuck

with consequences that even the most religious people would find
unacceptable.

2. There is a way to avoid theses troublesome consequences. We

can take the second of Socrates options. We need not say that
right conduct is right because God commands it. Instead, we may
say that God commands us to do certain things because they are
right. God, who is infinitely wise, realizes that truthfulness is better
than deceitfulness, and so he commands us to be truthful; he
sees that killing is wrong, and so he commands us not to kill; and
so on for all the moral rules. If we take this option, we avoid the
troublesome consequences that spoiled the first alternative. God’s
commands are not arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in
knowing what is best. And the doctrine of the goodness of God is
preserved: To say that his commands are good means that he
commands only what, in his perfect wisdom, he sees to be best.

Unfortunately, however, this second option leads to a different problem,

which is equally troublesome. In taking this option, we have abandoned
the theological conception of right and wrong - when we say that God
commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we are
acknowledging a standard of right and wrong that is independent of
God’s will. The rightness exists prior to and independent of God’s
command, and it is the reason for the command. Thus, if we want to
 know why we should be truthful, the reply Because God commands it
does not really tell us, for we may still ask But why does God command
it? and the answer to that question will provide the underlying reason
why truthfulness is a good thing.

All this may be summarized in the following argument:

3. Suppose God commands us to do what is right. Then either (a) the right
actions are right because he commands them or (b) he commands them
because they are right.

2. If we take option (a), the God’s commands are, from a moral point
of view, arbitrary; moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of God
is rendered meaningless.

3. If we take option (b), then we will have acknowledged a standard

of right and wrong that is independent of God’s will. We will have,
in effect, given up the theological conception of right and wrong.

4. Therefore, we must either regard God’s commands as arbitrary,

and give up the doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit that
there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his
will, and give up the theological conception of right and wrong.

5. From a religious point of view, it is unacceptable to regard God’s

commands as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of the goodness
of God.
 6. Therefore, even from a religious point of view, a standard of right
and wrong that is independent of God’s will must be accepted.

Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological

conception of right and wrong because it would be impious no to do so.
They feel, somehow, that if they believe in God, they should say that
right and wrong are to be defined in terms of his will. But this argument
suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the contrary, the Divine
Command Theory itself leads to impious results, so that a devout
person should not accept it. And in fact, some of the greatest
theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), rejected the
theory for just this reason. Thinkers such as Aquinas connect morality
with religion in a different way.

7. The Theory of Natural Law

Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human
beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior.
Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent in
people and are not created by society or court judges.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

o The theory of natural law says that humans possess an intrinsic

sense of right and wrong that governs our reasoning and
behavior.
o The concepts of natural law are ancient, stemming from the times
of Plato and Aristotle.
o Natural law is constant throughout time and across the globe
because it is based on human nature, not on culture or customs.

Understanding Natural Law

Natural law holds that there are universal moral standards that are
inherent in humankind throughout all time, and these standards should
form the basis of a just society. Human beings are not taught natural
law per se, but rather we “discover” it by consistently making choices for
good instead of evil. Some schools of thought believe that natural law is
passed to humans via a divine presence. Although natural law mainly
applies to the realm of ethics and philosophy, it is also used extensively
in theoretical economics.

(Note: Particular Lecture for nature law will be discussed in the

succeeding weeks)

4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues

Some religious people will find the preceding discussion unsatisfying. It

will seem too abstract to have any bearing on their actual moral lives.
For them, the connection between morality and religion is an immediate,
practical matter that centers on particular moral issues. It doesn’t matter
whether right and wrong are defined in terms of God’s will or whether
moral laws are laws of nature: Whatever the merits of such theories,
there are still the moral teachings of one’s religion about particular
issues. The teachings of the Scriptures and the church are regarded as
authoritative, determining the moral positions one must take. To
mention only one example, many Christians think that they have no
choice but to oppose abortion because it is condemned both by the
church and (they assume) by the Scriptures.

Are there, in fact, distinctively religious positions on major moral issues,

which believer are bound to accept? If so, are those positions different
from the views that other people might reach simply by trying to reason
out the best thing to do? The rhetoric of the pulpit suggests that the
answer to both questions is yes. But there are several reasons to think
otherwise.

In the first place, it is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the
Scriptures. Our problems are not the same as the problems faced by
the Jews and the early Christians many centuries ago; thus, it is not
surprising that the Scriptures might be silent about moral issues that
seem urgent to us. The Bible contains a number of general precepts,
such a the injunctions to love one’s neighbor and to treat others as one
would wish to be treated oneself, that might be thought relevant to a
variety of issues. But worthy as those precepts are, they do not yield
definite answers about exactly what position one should take
concerning the rights of workers, the extinction of species, the funding
of medical research, and so on.

Another problem is that in many instances the Scriptures and church

tradition are ambiguous. Authorities disagree, leaving the believer in the
awkward position of having to choose which element of the tradition to
accept and which authority to believe. Read plainly, for example, the
New Testament condemns being rich, and there is a long tradition of
self-denial and charitable giving that affirms this teaching. But there is
also an obscure Old Testament figure named Jabez who asked God to
enlarge my territories (I Chronicles 4:10), and God did. A recent book
urging Christians to adopt Jabez as their model became a best-seller.

Thus when people say that their moral views are derived from their
religious commitments, they are often mistaken. In reality, something
very different is going on. They are making up their minds about the
moral issues first and then interpreting the Scriptures, or church
tradition, in such a way as to support the moral conclusion they have
already reached. Of course this does not happen in every case, but it
seems fair to say that it happens often. The question of riches is one
example; abortion is another.

In the debate over abortion, religious issues are never far from the
center of discussion. Religious conservatives hold that the fetus is a
human being from the moment of conception, and so they say killing it is
really a form of murder. They do not believe it should be the mother’s
choice whether to have an abortion, because that would be like saying
she is free to commit murder.
The key premise in the conservative argument is that the fetus is a
human being from the moment of conception. The fertilized ovum is not
merely a potential human being but an actual human being with a full-
fledged right to life. Liberals, of course, deny this - they say that, at least
during the early weeks of pregnancy, the embryo is something less than
a full human being.

The debate over the humanity of the fetus is enormously complicated,

but here we are concerned with just one small part of it. Conservative
Christians sometimes say that, regardless of how secular thought might
view the fetus, the Christian view is that the fetus is a human being from
its very beginning. But is this view mandatory for Christians? What
evidence might be offered to show this? One might appeal to the
Scriptures or to church tradition.

The Scriptures. It is difficult to derive a prohibition of abortion from either

the Jewish or the Christian Scriptures. The Bible does not speak plainly
on the matter. There are certain passages, however, that are often
quoted by conservatives because they seem to suggest that fetuses
have full human status. One of the most frequently cited passages is
from the first chapter of Jeremiah, in which God is quoted as saying:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born
I consecrated you. These words are presented as though they were
God’s endorsement of the conservative positions: They are taken to
mean that the unborn, as well as the born, are consecrated to God.

In context, however, these words obviously mean something quite

different. Suppose we read the whole passage in which they occur:

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the
womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I
appointed you a prophet to the nations.
Then I said, Ah, Lord God! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am
only a youth. But the Lord said to me,

Do not say I am only a youth for to all to whom I send you you shall go,
and whatever I command you you shall speak. Be not afraid of them, for
I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.

Neither abortion, the sanctity of fetal life, nor anything else of the kind is
being discussed in this passage. Instead, Jeremiah is asserting his
authority as a prophet. He is saying, in effect, God authorized me to
speak for him; even though I resisted, he commanded me to speak. But
Jeremiah puts the point more poetically; he has God saying that God
had intended him to be a prophet even before Jeremiah was born.

This often happens when the Scriptures are cited in connection with
controversial moral issues. A few words are lifted from a passage that is
concerned with something entirely different from the issue at hand, and
those words are then construed in a way that supports a favored moral
position. When this happens, is it accurate to say that the person is
following the moral teachings of the Bible? Or is it more accurate to say
the he or she is searching the Scriptures for support of a moral view he
or she already happens to think is right, and reading the desired
conclusion into the Scriptures? If the latter, it suggests an especially
impious attitude - an attitude that assumes God himself must share
one’s own moral opinions. In the case of the passage from Jeremiah, it
is hard to see how an impartial reader could think the words have
anything to do with abortion, even by implication.

The scriptural passage that comes closest to making a specific

judgment about the moral status of fetuses occurs in the 21st chapter of
Exodus. This chapter is part of a detailed description of the law of the
ancient Israelites. Here the penalty for murder is said to be death;
however, it is also said that if a pregnant woman is caused to have a
miscarriage, the penalty is only a fine, to be paid by her husband.
Murder was not a category that included fetuses. The Law of Israel
apparently regarded fetuses as something less than full human beings.
Church Tradition. Even if there is little scriptural basis for it, the
contemporary church’s stand is strongly antiabortion. The typical
churchgoer will hear ministers, priests, and bishops denouncing
abortion in the strongest terms. It is no wonder, then, that many people
feel that their religious commitment binds them to oppose abortion.

But it is worth noting that the church has not always taken this view. In
fact, the idea that the fetus is a human being from the moment of
conception is a relatively new idea, even within the Christian church. St.
Thomas Aquinas held that an embryo does not have a soul until several
weeks into the pregnancy. Aquinas accepted Aristotle’s view that the
soul is the substantial form of man. We need not go into this somewhat
technical notion, except to note that one implication is that one cannot
have a human soul until one’s body has a recognizably human shape.
Aquinas knew that a human embryo does not have a human shape from
the moment of conception, and he drew the indicated conclusion.
Aquinas’s view of the matter was officially accepted by the church at the
Council of Vienne in 1312, and to this day it has never been officially
repudiated.

However, in the 17th century, a curious view of fetal development came

to be accepted, and this has unexpected consequences for the church’s
view of abortion. Peering through primitive microscopes at fertilized ova,
some scientists imagined that they saw tiny, perfectly formed people.
They called the little person a homunculus, and the idea took hold that
from the very beginning the human embryo is a fully formed creature
that needs only to get bigger and bigger until it is ready to be born.

If the embryo has a human shape from the moment of conception, then
it follows, according to Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s philosophy, that it can
have a human soul from the moment of conception. The church drew
this conclusion and embraced the conservative view of abortion. The
homunculus, it said, is clearly a human being, and so it is wrong to kill it.

However, as our understanding of human biology progressed, scientists

began to realize that this view of fetal development was wrong. There is
no homunculus; that was a mistake. Today we know that Aquinas’s
original thought was right - embryos start out as a cluster of cells;
human form comes later. But when the biological error was corrected,
the church’s moral view did not revert to the older position. Having
adopted the theory that the fetus is a human being from the moment of
conception, the church did not let it go and held fast to the conservative
view of abortion. The council of Vienne notwithstanding, it has held that
view to this day.

Because the church did not traditionally regard abortion as a serious

moral issue, Western law (which developed under the church’s
influence) did not traditionally treat abortion as a crime. Under the
English common law, abortion was tolerated even if performed late in
the pregnancy. In the United States, there were no laws prohibiting it
until well into the 19th century. Thus when the U.S. Supreme Court
declared the absolute prohibition of abortion to be unconstitutional in
1973, the Court was not overturning a long tradition of moral and legal
opinion. It was only restoring a legal situation that had always existed
until quite recently.

The purpose of reviewing this history is not to suggest that the

contemporary church’s position is wrong. For all that has been said
here, its view may be right. I only want to make a point about the
relation between religious authority and moral judgment. Church
tradition, like Scripture, is reinterpreted by every generation to support
its favored moral views. Abortion is just an example of this. We could
just as easily have used shifting moral and religious views about
slavery, or the status of women, or capital punishment, as our example.
In each instance, people’s moral convictions are not so much derived
from their religion as superimposed on it.

The various arguments in this chapter point to a common conclusion.

Right and wrong are not to be defined in terms of God’s will; morality is
a matter of reason and conscience, not religious faith; and in any case,
religious considerations do not provide definitive solutions to the specific
moral problems that confront us. Morality and religion are, in a word,
different. Because this conclusion is contrary to conventional wisdom, it
may strike some readers as anti-religious. Therefore, it should be
emphasized that this conclusion has not been reached by questioning
the validity of religion. The arguments we have considered do not
assume that Christianity or any other theological system is false; these
arguments merely show that even if such a system is true, morality
remains an independent matter.
CULTURE –

Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme

within the bounds of the culture itself.

How is culture defined?

What if someone told you their culture was the internet? Would that
make sense to you? Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other
characteristics shared by groups of people. Given this, someone could
very well say that they are influenced by internet culture, rather than an
ethnicity or a society! Culture could be based on shared ethnicity,
gender, customs, values, or even objects. Can you think of any cultural
objects? Some cultures place significant value in things such as
ceremonial artifacts, jewelry, or even clothing. For example, Christmas
trees can be considered ceremonial or cultural objects. They are
representative in both Western religious and commercial holiday culture.

In addition, culture can also demonstrate the way a group thinks, their
practices, or behavioral patterns, or their views of the world. For
example, in some countries like China, it is acceptable to stare at others
in public, or to stand very close to others in public spaces. In South
Africa, if you board a nearly empty bus or enter a nearly empty movie
theater, it is regarded as polite to sit next to the only person there. On
the other hand, in a recent study of Greyhound bus trips in the US, a
researcher found that the greatest unspoken rule of bus-taking is that if
other seats are available, one should never sit next to another person.
Numerous passengers expressed that “it makes you look weird”. These
are all examples of cultural norms that people in one society may be
used to. Norms that you are used to are neither right nor wrong, just
different. Picture walking into a nearly empty movie theater when visiting
another country, and not sitting next to the only person in the theater.
Another person walks up and tells you off for being rude. You, not used
to these norms, feel confused, and anxious. This disorientation you feel
is an example of culture shock.

Cartoon showing two people in an empty movie theater. One person is

saying "you're a jerk" to the person who sat far away from him.

What is cultural relativism?

Have you ever seen or eaten food from another country, such as dried
squid or fried crickets and think of it as weird and gross? This is an
example of ethnocentrism! That means you use your own culture as the
center and evaluate other cultures based on it. You are judging, or
making assumptions about the food of other countries based on your
own norms, values, or beliefs. Thinking “dried squid is smelly” or
“people shouldn’t eat insects” are examples of ethnocentrism in
societies where people may not eat dried squid or insects.

Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep fried

crickets. The man who is being offered the crickets says "um, I think I'll
pass."

Is ethnocentrism bad or good? On the one hand, ethnocentrism can

lead to negative judgments of the behaviors of groups or societies. It
can also lead to discrimination against people who are different. For
example, in many countries, religious minorities (religions that are not
the dominant religion) often face discrimination. But on the other hand,
ethnocentrism can create loyalty among the same social group or
people in the same society. For example, during the World Cup or
Olympics, you may tend to root for your own country and believe that
the players or teams representing your country are much better.
National pride is also part of ethnocentrism.

To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to

yours, we can use the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism
refers to not judging a culture to our own standards of what is right or
wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we should try to understand cultural
practices of other groups in its own cultural context. For example,
instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting! ” one should instead
ask, “Why do some cultures eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried
crickets or grasshoppers are full of protein and in Mexico, it is famous
Oaxaca regional cuisine and have been eaten for thousands of years as
a healthy food source!

Cartoon showing a person offering another man some deep fried

crickets. The man who is being offered the crickets asks to know more
about them.

Some people worry that the concept of culture can also be abused and
misinterpreted. If one culture behaves one way, does that mean all
cultures can behave that way as well? For example, many countries and
 international organizations oppose the act of whaling (the fishing of
whales) for environmental reasons. These environmental organizations
say that there are not many whales left and such fishing practices
should be stopped. However, other countries argue that whaling is a
cultural practice that has been around for thousands of years. Because
it may be part of a country’s oceanic culture, this country may say that
such a cultural practice should not be opposed based on cultural
differences, say, by an inland country that does not understand. Who
gets to define what a moral cultural behavior is? Is whaling immoral?
Two different cultures may have very different answers, as we saw in
the above example. Another more extreme instance would be female
genital cutting in some parts of the world. Locally, it is argued that the
practice has cultural roots, but such a practice has raised concerns
among many international human rights organizations.

Anthropologists say that when we think about different cultures and

societies, we should think about their customs in a way that helps us
make sense of how their cultural practices fits with their overall cultural
context. For example, having several wives perhaps makes economic
sense among herders who move around frequently. Through such an
understanding, polygamy makes cultural sense.

ETHICAL DILEMMA also known as a moral dilemmas, are situations in which

there is a choice to be made between two options, neither of which resolves
the situation in an ethically acceptable fashion. In such cases, societal and
personal ethical guidelines can provide no satisfactory outcome for the
chooser.

Ethical dilemmas assume that the chooser will abide by societal norms, such
as codes of law or religious teachings, in order to make the choice ethically
impossible.

Ethical Dilemma Situations

Personal Friendships

Michael had several friends including Roger and Daniel. Roger has recently
met and started dating a wonderful lady named Phyllis. He is convinced this is
a long term relationship. Unknown to Roger, Michael observed them at a
restaurant several days ago and realized Phyllis is the wife of his other friend
Daniel.
Michael is deciding whether to tell Roger that Phyllis is married when he
receives a call from Daniel. Daniel suspects his wife is having an affair and
since they and Michael share many friends and contacts, he asks if Michael
has heard anything regarding an affair.

To whom does Michael owe greater friendship to in this situation? No matter

who he tells, he is going to end up hurting one, if not both friends. Does he
remain silent and hope his knowledge is never discovered?

Societal Dilemmas

An article on ListVerse compiled a list of Top 10 moral dilemmas and asked

readers to consider what they would do in those situations. Here is an
example of one of the Top 10 ethical dilemmas they proposed:

A pregnant woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck

in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and
unless she is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the woman, whose
head is out of the cave. Fortunately, (or unfortunately,) someone has with him
a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the pregnant woman loose
without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill her; but if they do not use it
everyone will drown. What should they do?

The Institute for Global Ethics also proposed the following ethical dilemma to
promote a global understanding of ethics and to promote ethical decision
making:

The mood at Baileyville High School is tense with anticipation. For the first
time in many, many years, the varsity basketball team has made it to the state
semifinals. The community is excited too, and everyone is making plans to
attend the big event next Saturday night.Jeff, the varsity coach, has been
waiting for years to field such a team. Speed, teamwork, balance: they've got
it all. Only one more week to practice, he tells his team, and not a rule can be
broken. Everyone must be at practice each night at the regularly scheduled
time: No Exceptions.Brad and Mike are two of the team's starters. From their
perspective, they're indispensable to the team, the guys who will bring victory
to Baileyville. They decide-why, no one will ever know-to show up an hour late
to the next day's practice.
Jeff is furious. They have deliberately disobeyed his orders. The rule says
they should be suspended for one full week. If he follows the rule, Brad and
Mike will not play in the semifinals. But the whole team is depending on them.
What should he do?

• SUBJECTIVISM - The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition

that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all
moral valuations. She is the one who is confronted with the situation
and is burdened with the need to make a decision or judgment. From
this point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim that the individual
is the sole determinant of what is morally good or bad, right or wrong.

ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:

The basic thought of Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that our

moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more. On this
view, there is no such thing as “objective” right and wrong.

Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.

o There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong'

can't be objectively true

Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and teach that moral

statements describe how the speaker feels about a particular ethical
issue.

o Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the
speaker holds on a particular issue
o So if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is telling you that I
disapprove of telling lies

Some forms of subjectivism generalise this idea to come up with:

o Moral statements are just factual statements about the

attitude normal human beings hold on a particular issue

And this may ultimately lead us to this conclusion about moral truths:
 o Moral judgements are dependent on the feelings and attitudes of
the persons who think about such things

Good points of subjectivism

Reflects the subjective elements of morality

o it reflects the close relationship between morality and people's

feelings and opinions - indeed it can cope with the contradictory
moral views we often find ourselves wrestling with

Reflects the evaluative elements of moral statements

o moral statements in everyday life make judgements ("lying is

wrong"), factual statements ("cats have fur") don't

Shows that moral judgements communicate dis/approval

o it reflects the communication of approval and disapproval that

seems to go along with the everyday making of moral statements

May clarify what people are arguing about

o subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the rightness or

wrongness of some issue to see that the real dispute is not about
objective truth but about their own preferences

Reflects the persuasive intentions behind ethical discussions

o subjectivism may also enable people engaging in moral argument

to realise that they are not arguing about objective truths but
trying to persuade their opponent to adopt their point of view

I disapprove: but surely ethics is about more than feelings.

Bad points of subjectivism

The problem with subjectivism is that it seems to imply that moral

statements are less significant than most people think they are - this
may of course be true without rendering moral statements insignificant.

"If I approve of something, it must be good"

 o Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements give
information only about what we feel about moral issues.
o If the simplest form of subjectivism is true then when a person
who genuinely approves of telling lies says "telling lies is good"
that moral statement is unarguably true. It would only be untrue if
the speaker didn't approve of telling lies.
o So under this theory it seems that all the speaker has to do to
prove that lying is good is to show lots of evidence that they do
indeed approve of lying - perhaps that they tell lots of lies and feel
good about it, indeed are surprised if anyone criticizes them for
being a liar, and that they often praise other people for telling lies.
o Most people would find this way of approaching ethics somewhat
unhelpful, and wouldn't think it reflected the way in which most
people talk about ethical issues.

Moral statements seem more than statements about feelings

o By and large if a person says something is wrong we usually get

the message that they disapprove of that something, but most of
us probably think that the other person is doing more than just
telling us about their feelings.

How can we blame people if moral truths are always subjective?

o If moral statements have no objective truth, then how can we

blame people for behaving in a way that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder
is wrong" has no objective truth, then how can we justify punishing
people for murder?
o One answer is that we can justify punishment for murder on the
basis of the objective truth that most normal people in society
disapprove of murder. If we do this, we should not pretend that
our justification is based on anything other than the majority view.
• PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM- “Human beings are naturally self-
centered, so all our action are always already motivated by self-
interest.” This theory that describes the underlying dynamic behind all
human actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not direct one to act in
any particular way. Instead, it points out that there is already an
underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has its desires and
interest, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these interests.
• Ethical egoism
o Ethical egoism differs from psychological egoism in that it does
not suppose all our actions are already inevitably self-serving.
 Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we should make our own
ends, our own interest, as the single overriding concern. We may
act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only
if it ultimately benefits us.
o thical egoism is the view that people ought to pursue their own
self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone
else’s interests. It is thus a normative or prescriptive theory: it is
concerned with how people ought to behave. In this respect,
ethical egoism is quite different from psychological egoism, the
theory that all our actions are ultimately self-interested.
Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive theory that purports
to describe a basic fact about human nature.

Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism

Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723 -

1790).

Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723 -

1790). Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the best way to

promote the general good. This argument was made famous by
Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his poem "The Fable of the
Bees" and by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work on
economics, "The Wealth of Nations."

In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when individuals single-

mindedly pursue “the gratification of their own vain and insatiable
desires” they unintentionally, as if “led by an invisible hand,”
benefit society as a whole. This happy result comes about
because people generally are the best judges of what is in their
own interest, and they are much more motivated to work hard to
benefit themselves than to achieve any other goal.

An obvious objection to this argument, though, is that it doesn’t

really support ethical egoism. It assumes that what really matters
is the well-being of society as a whole, the general good. It then
claims that the best way to achieve this end is for everyone to
look out for themselves. But if it could be proved that this attitude
did not, in fact, promote the general good, then those who
advance this argument would presumably stop advocating
egoism.

Prisoner's Dilemma

Another objection is that what the argument states is not always

true. Consider the prisoner’s dilemma, for instance. This is a
hypothetical situation described in game theory. You and a
comrade, (call him X) are being held in prison. You are both
asked to confess. The terms of the deal you are offered are as
follows:

If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six months and he gets 10
years.

If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six months and you get 10
years.

If you both confess, you both get five years.

If neither of you confesses, you both get two years.

Regardless of what X does, the best thing for you to do is

confess. Because if he doesn’t confess, you’ll get a light
sentence; and if he does confess, you’ll at least avoid getting
extra prison time. But the same reasoning holds for X as well.
According to ethical egoism, you should both pursue your rational
self-interest. But then the outcome is not the best one possible.
You both get five years, whereas if both of you had put your self-
interest on hold, you’d each only get two years.

The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in your best interest to

pursue your own self-interest without concern for others.
Sacrificing your own interests for the good of others denies the
fundamental value of your own life to yourself.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism

This seems to be the sort of argument put forward by Ayn Rand,

the leading exponent of “objectivism” and the author of "The
Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Her complaint is that the
Judeo-Christian moral tradition, which includes—or has fed into—
modern liberalism and socialism, pushes an ethic of altruism.
Altruism means putting the interests of others before your own.

This is something people are routinely praised for doing,

encouraged to do, and in some circumstances even required to
do, such as when you pay taxes to support the needy. According
to Rand, no one has any right to expect or demand that I make
any sacrifices for the sake of anyone other than myself.

Russian-born American author and philosopher Ayn Rand, smiles

and stands outdoors with her arms folded, in front of the Grand
Central building, midtown Manhattan, New York City.

Ayn Rand, 1957. New York Times Co./Getty Images

A problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that there

is generally a conflict between pursuing your own interests and
helping others. In fact, though, most people would say that these
two goals are not necessarily opposed at all. Much of the time
they complement one another.

For instance, one student may help a housemate with her

homework, which is altruistic. But that student also has an interest
in enjoying good relations with her housemates. She may not help
everyone in all circumstances, but she will help if the sacrifice
involved is not too great. Most people behave like this, seeking a
balance between egoism and altruism.

More Objections to Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral philosophy. This is

because it goes against certain basic assumptions that most
people have regarding what ethics involves. Two objections seem
especially powerful.

Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises

involving conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort.
For example, a company wants to empty waste into a river; the
 people living downstream object. Ethical egoism advises that both
parties actively pursue what they want. It doesn’t suggest any sort
of resolution or commonsense compromise.

Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality. A basic

assumption made by many moral philosophers—and many other
people, for that matter—is that we should not discriminate against
people on arbitrary grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual
orientation or ethnic origin. But ethical egoism holds that we
should not even try to be impartial. Rather, we should distinguish
between ourselves and everyone else, and give ourselves
preferential treatment.

To many, this seems to contradict the very essence of morality.

The golden rule—versions of which appear in Confucianism,
Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—says we should treat
others as we would like to be treated. One of the greatest moral
philosophers of modern times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),
argued that the fundamental principle of morality (the “categorical
imperative,” in his jargon) is that we should not make exceptions
of ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t perform an action if
we cannot honestly wish that everyone would behave in a similar
way in the same circumstances.

1. GATHER THE FACTS - Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved

simply by clarifying the facts of the case in question. In those cases that prove
to be more difficult, gathering the facts is the essential first step prior to any
ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analyzing a case, we want to
know the available facts at hand as well as any facts currently not known but
that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking not only “What do we know?”
but also “ What do we need to know?” in order to make an intelligent ethical
decision.

2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES

The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests or goods. It’s
these conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The
issues should be presented ia a ______versus _________ format in order to
reflect the interests that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For
example, in business ethics there is often a conflict between the right of a firm
to make profit and its obligation to the community. In this case, the obligation
pertains to the environment
3. WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE

• In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that
are central to the conflicting positions being taken. It is critical to identify
these principles, and in some cases, to determine whether some
principles are to be weighted more heavily than others. Clearly, biblical
principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may be other
principles that speak to the case that come from other sources. There
may be constitutional principles or principles drawn from natural law that
supplement the biblical principles that come into play here. The
principles that come out of your mission and calling are also important
to consider.

4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES

•
o Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical
dilemma involves coming up with various alternative courses of
action. Although there will be some alternatives that you will rule
out without much thought, in general the more alternatives that
are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some
high-quality ones. In addition, you may come up with some very
creative alternative that you had not considered before.

5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PRINCIPLES

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be
resolved at this point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except
one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear
decision that can be made without further deliberations. If a clear decision is
not forthcoming, then the next part is the model that must be considered. At
the least, some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of
comparison.

6, WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES

If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the

consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both
positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be
informally weighed, since some positive consequences are more detrimental
than others.
7. MAKE A DECISION

• Deliberations cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be

made. Realize that one common element in ethical dilemmas is that
there are no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently the
decision that is made is one that involves the least number of problems
or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.

In recent years, psychologist looked at many of the same question asked by

philosophers have pondered but from their own professional perspective.
Psychologist’s theories of moral development provide an insight into how
moral disagreement developed and even how they untangle it.

Lawrence Kohlberg, a professor of psychology in Harvard University is a

prominent moral development theorist, but his thinking grew out of Jean
Piaget’s writing on children’s intellectual development. His theory is
descriptive, rather than, proven facts.

Kohlberg presumes that there are six stages of moral development that
people go through in much the same way as infants learned first to role over,
to sit, to crawl, to stand and finally to walk. Kohlberg clearly emphasized the
following system of his theory:

1. Everyone goes through each stage in the same order, but not everyone
goes through all the stages and
2. A person at one stage can understand the reasoning of any stage below
him but cannot understand more than one stage above.

These correlates, especially the latter one, are important when it comes to
assessing the nature of disagreement about ethical judgment. Perhaps the
easiest way is to remember them is by differing kinds of justification involved
in each stage. There are three levels in his theory and each level is divided
into stages. The schema will show the stages of moral development:

1. Pre-conventional level
(pre-conventional because individuals do not yet speak as members of
society, instead they see morality as something external to themselves)

Stage Description Content Social Perspective

Right is a literal
obedience to rules
and authority,
avoiding This stage takes an
The first stage
punishment, and egocentric point of
is characterized
not doing physical view, a person at this
by a view that
harm. What is right stage does not
right action is to
is to avoid consider the interests
behave
breaking rules, to of others and does not
according to
obey for relate two points of
social
obedience’s sake view. Actions were
acceptable
and to avoid justified in terms of
norms imposed
physical damage physical consequence
by some
Stage 1 to people and rather in terms
authority figure
authority. Thus psychological interests
(e.g., parent,
Punishment follow and obey of others. Authority’s
teacher) in
because of the perspective is
order to avoid
and consequence of confused with one’s
punishment.
punishment and own.
Obedience due to superior
power of
authorities.
What is right is This stage takes a
following rules concrete individualistic
when it is to perspective. A person
someone’s at this stage separates
immediate interest. his own interests and
Is characterized
Right is acting to points of view from
by a view that
meet one’s those of authorities
right behavior
interests and and others. The
means acting in
needs and letting person integrates or
one’s own best
others do the relates conflicting
interests.
Stage 2 same. Right is individual interests to
also what is fair, one another through
Individual that is, what is an instrumental exchange
equal exchange, a of service, need for
deal, am others and other’s
And agreement. The goodwill. Perhaps
instrumental reason for doing through fairness giving
exchange what is right is to each person the same
serve one’s own amount.
needs/interests in
a world where one
must recognize
that other people
have their interests
as well.

1. Conventional Level

(it speaks on isolated individuals rather than as members of the society. It

sees individual exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the
values of the family/community)

It sees what is right

is living up
according to the This stage takes the
expectations by perspective of the
people that are individual in
Characterized
close to them, like relationship to other
Stage 3 by an attitude
the family, individuals. Thus, a
which one seeks
community. Being person in this stage
Mutual to do that will
good and having is aware of the
gain the
and good behavior shared feelings,
approval of
means having good agreement and
others.
interpersonal motives and expectations that
interpersonal take primacy over the
conformity feelings such as individual interests.
empathy, love,
trust, concern.
Is characterized What is right is This stage
by abiding the fulfilling one’s own differentiates societal
law and duty to which one point of view from
respecting had agreed. The interpersonal
Stage 4 authority and reasons for doing agreement or
performing what is right are to motives. A person at
Law one’s duty so keep the this stage takes the
that social order institutions going viewpoint of the
And is maintained. as a whole. system, which
defines roles and
Order rules, individual
relations in terms of
one’s own place in
the system.

1. Post-conventional level

(moral decisions are generated from the rights, values or principles that are or
that could be agreeable to all individuals composing or creating a society
designed to have fair and beneficial practices)

What is right is the

Is
awareness of the fact This stage takes a
characterized
that people hold a ‘prior-to-society’
by thinking
variety of values and perspective. It
about a
opinion that most means that
society in a
values and rules are individuals are
very
relative to one’s aware of the values
theoretical
group. The reason and rights prior to
way, stepping
for doing what is social attachment
Stage 5 back from
right, is in general, and contract. The
their own
Social feeling obligated to person integrates
established
contract obey the law, perspective by
society and
because one has formal mechanism
considering
And made a social of agreement,
the rights and
contract to make and contract, objective
values of the
Individual abide by laws for the impartiality and due
society ought
rights good of all and to process.
to uphold.
protect their own
 rights and the rights
of others. Like,
family, friend. One is
concerned that laws
and duties be based
from a rational
calculation of the
overall ‘utility’. ‘The
greatest good for the
greatest number’
The right action on
this stage is guided
by universal ethical
principles,
particularly law,
social agreement are
usually valid because
Is This stage takes the
it is anchored to
characterized perspective that a
principles. When law
by an attitude person takes a
perhaps violates the
of respect for stand in view of
universal principle
Stage 6 universal moral principle from
one is often acts in
principle and which social
Universal ethical the demands accordance with the
agreement are
principle. The
of individual derived on which
principles principle of equality,
conscience. they are grounded.
justice, respect and
others. These are not
only values but
regarded as principle
that is of used in
order to generate
decisions.
 What is Ethics?
• Ethics was taken from the Greek word
‘ethos’ which means ‘customs’, ‘usage’
‘characteristic’, thus, the term ethics is
expressed in various ways of
understanding and examining the
moral life of the person
 What is Ethics?
• Ethics, generally speaking is about matters
such as the good thing that we should
pursue and the bad thing that we should
avoid; the right ways in w/c we could or
should act and the wrong ways of acting. It
is about what is acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It may
involve obligations that we are. Ethics as a
subject for us to study is about determining
the grounds for the values w/ particular
and special significance to human life.
 CLARIFICATION AND TERMINOLOGIES
• Our first point of clarification is to recognize
that there are instances when we make
value judgments that are not considered to
be part of ethics.
• Our second point of clarification is on the
use of the words “ethics” and “morals”. This
discussion of ethics and morals would
include cognates such as ethical, unethical,
immoral, amoral, morality, and so on.
• The term “morals” may be used to refer to specific
beliefs or attitudes that people have or to describe
acts that people perform. Thus, it is sometimes said
that an individual’s personal conduct is referred to
as his morals, and if he falls short of behaving
properly, this can be described as immoral.
However, we also have terms such as “moral
judgment” or “moral reasoning”, w/c suggest a
more rational aspect. The term “ethics” can be
spoken of as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and ideal
ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is acknowledge as an
intellectual discipline belonging to philosophy.
 PHILOSOPHY is…
• Philosophy is commonly thought of today as a
particular discipline in a college curriculum,
perhaps a subject that one could take, or a
course in w/c one could get a degree. The word
“philosophy” is rooted in the Greek words that
translate to “love of wisdom” (philia is the noun
often translated into English as “wisdom”). More
specifically, the word “philosophy” had been first
used by thinkers to refer to their striving to better
understand reality in a maintained and systematic
manner.
Some branches of Philosophy
related to ethics
• The different branches or areas of
philosophy : metaphysics wonders as to
what constitutes the whole of reality;
epistemology asks is what our basis for
determining what we know; axiology
refers broadly to the study of value of
beauty, ethics, w/c concerns, itself with
the value of human actions.
 Approaches to Ethics
• Normative approach is an evaluative
one, it is a way of generating and
formulating principles, rules, standards
that will guide human conduct or
action. In normative approach it
includes general normative ethics and
applied ethics.
 Approaches to Ethics
• Nonnormative approach is a non-
evaluative one. It simply considers by
knowing what it is and describes certain
actions, practices and events. It does not
expressed by categorizing that is right or
that is wrong, rather it simply expressed
what is the action and the way an action
was done.
 Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

• Moral issue - a situation that calls for

moral valuation. Used to refer to those
particular situations that are often the
source of considerable and inconclusive
debate (thus, we would often hear topics
such as capital punishment and
euthanasia as moral “issues”).
Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma
• Moral Decision - When one is
placed in a situation and
confronted by the choice of what
act to perform.
• Moral Judgment - When a
person is an observer who makes
an assessment on the actions or
behavior of someone.
Issue, Decision, Judgment, and Dilemma

• Moral Dilemma - the more

complicated situation wherein one
is torn between choosing one of
two good or bad choosing
between the lesser of two evils.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING
1. GATHER THE FACTS - Frequently ethical dilemmas
can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the
case in question. In those cases that prove to be more
difficult, gathering the facts is the essential first step
prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the case.
In analyzing a case, we want to know the available
facts at hand as well as any facts currently not known
but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking not
only “What do we know?” but also “ What do we need
to know?” in order to make an intelligent ethical
decision.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING

2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES

•The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing
interests or goods. It’s these conflicting interests that
actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues
should be presented ia a ______versus _________
format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding
in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, in
business ethics there is often a conflict between the
right of a firm to make profit and its obligation to the
community. In this case, the obligation pertains to the
environment.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING

3. WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A BEARING ON

THE CASE
•In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles
that are central to the conflicting positions being taken. It is critical to
identify these principles, and in some cases, to determine whether
some principles are to be weighted more heavily than others. Clearly,
biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may be
other principles that speak to the case that come from other sources.
There may be constitutional principles or principles drawn from natural
law that supplement the biblical principles that come into play here.
The principles that come out of your mission and calling are also
important to consider.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING

4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES

•Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an
ethical dilemma involves coming up with various
alternative courses of action. Although there will be
some alternatives that you will rule out without much
thought, in general the more alternatives that are listed,
the better the chance that your list will include some
high-quality ones. In addition, you may come up with
some very creative alternative that you had not
considered before.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING

5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE

PRINCIPLES
• At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives
according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the
case. In many instances, the case will be resolved at this point,
since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except one. In
fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear
decision that can be made without further deliberations. If a
clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next part is the
model that must be considered. At the least, some of the
alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING

6. WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES

If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a
consideration of the consequences of the remaining
available alternatives is in order. Both positive and
negative consequences are to be considered. They
should be informally weighed, since some positive
consequences are more detrimental than others.
 A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING

7. MAKE A DECISION
•Deliberations cannot go on forever. At some point, a
decision must be made. Realize that one common
element in ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy
and painless solutions to them. Frequently the
decision that is made is one that involves the least
number of problems or negative consequences, not
one that is devoid of them.
 SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
• LAW - It is supposed the law is one’s guide to
ethical behavior. In the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the land as
stated in country’s criminal and civil codes. The
term positive law refers to the different rules and
regulations that are posited or put forward by an
authority figure that require compliance.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
“Love the Lord, Your God,
therefore, and always heed his
charge: his statutes, decrees, and
commandments.” (New American
Bible)
 SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
• RELIGION – In the Bible, Chapter 11 of the book of
Deuteronomy. It expresses a claim that many people of a
religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid:
the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things.
As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as
the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah,
or Supreme Being commands and one is obliged to obey
her Creator. There are persons and texts that one believes
are linked to the Divine wants her to act. Further,
someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory
might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation
and claim that God “spoke” to her directly to instruct her
what to do..
 SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

• CULTURE – Our exposure to different societies and

their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of
thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that
there is in fact a wide diversity of how different people
believe it is proper to act.
• what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to,
or that is to say, dependent on one’s culture. This position is
referred to as cultural relativism.
• cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to
render judgment on the practices of even our own culture.
 SENSES OF THE SELF
• SUBJECTIVISM
The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition
that the individual thinking person (the subject) is at
the heart of all moral valuations. She is the one who
is confronted with the situation and is burdened with
the need to make a decision or judgment. From this
point, subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim
that the individual is the sole determinant of what is
morally good or bad, right or wrong.
 SENSES OF THE SELF
• PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
• “Human beings are naturally self-
centered, so all our action are always
already motivated by self-interest.”
 SENSES OF THE SELF
• PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
the theory that describes the underlying
dynamic behind all human actions. As a
descriptive theory, it does not direct one
to act in any particular way. Instead, it
points out that there is already an
underlying basis for how one acts. The
ego or self has its desires and interest,
and all our actions are geared toward
satisfying these interests.
 SENSES OF THE SELF
• PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM
This theory has a couple of strong points.
The first is that of simplicity. When an
idea is marked by simplicity, it has a
unique appeal to it; a theory that
conveniently identifies a single basis that
will somehow account for all actions is
good example of this. The second is that
of plausibility. It is plausible that self-
interest is behind a person’s actions.
 SENSES OF THE SELF
• ETHICAL EGOISM
Ethical egoism differs from psychological
egoism in that it does not suppose all our
actions are already inevitably self-serving.
Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that we
should make our own ends, our own interest,
as the single overriding concern. We may act
in a way that is beneficial to others, but we
should do that only if it ultimately benefits us.
 UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that
argues for the goodness of pleasure
and the determination of right
behavior based on the usefulness of
the actions consequences. This
means that pleasure is good and that
the goodness of action is determined
by its usefulness.
 UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means
that the moral value of actions and
decisions is based solely or greatly on the
usefulness of their consequences; it is the
usefulness of results that determines
whether the action or behavior is good or
bad. While this is the case, not all
consequentialist theories are utilitarian.
 JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832)

• (born February 15, 1748,

London, England—died June 6,
1832, London), English
philosopher, economist, and
theoretical jurist, the earliest
and chief expounder of
utilitarianism.
 JEREMY BENTHAM
(1748-1832)
• Bentham defined as the "fundamental axiom" of his
philosophy the principle that "it is the greatest happiness of
the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong".
He became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy
of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the
development of welfarism. He advocated for individual and
economic freedoms, the separation of church and state,
freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to
divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts. He called
for the abolition of slavery, of the death penalty, and of
physical punishment, including that of children. He has also
become known as an early advocate of animal rights. Though
strongly in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, he
opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights (both of
which are considered "divine" or "God-given" in origin), calling
them "nonsense upon stilts". Bentham was also a sharp critic
of legal fictions.
 THE PRINCIPLE OF
UTILITY
• The principle of utility is about our subjection
to these sovereign masters: pleasure and
pain. On one hand, the principle refers to the
motivation of our actions as guided by our
avoidance of pain and our desire for
pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday
actions, we do what is pleasure as good if,
and only if, they produce more happiness
than unhappiness.
 THE PRINCIPLE OF
UTILITY
• For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the
avoidance of pain are not only important principles--
they are in fact the only principle in assessing an
action’s morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private
conversations in instances of treason, rebellion,
espionage, and sedition? Why is it preferable to
alleviate poverty or eliminate criminality? Why is it noble
to build schools and hospitals? Why is it good to
improve the quality of life and the like? There is no other
answer than the principle of utility, that is, to increase
happiness and decrease pain.
 THE PRINCIPLE OF
UTILITY on questions…

• What kind of pleasure is morally preferable

and valuable? Are all pleasures necessarily
and ethically good? Does this mean that
because eating or exercising is good, it is
morally acceptable to eat and exercise
excessively?
 John Stuart Mill
(1806 -1873)
• John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in
Pentonville, London, United Kingdom. He was the son of
James Mill, a friend and disciple of Jeremy Bentham.
John Stuart Mill was home-schooled. He studied Greek
at the age of three and Latin at the age of eight. He
wrote a history of Roman Law age eleven, and suffered
a nervous breakdown at the age of twenty. He was
married to Harriet Taylor after Twenty-one years of
friendship. His ethical theory and his defense of
utilitarian views are found in his long essay entitled
Utilitaranism (1861). Mill died on May 8, 1873 in
Avignon, France from erysipelas.
 John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873)
• Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He
thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish pleasures
qualitatively and not merely quantitatively.
• Human pleasures are qualitatively different from animal
pleasures. It is unfair to assume that we merely pursue
pleasures appropriate for beasts even if there are
instances when we choose to pursue such base pleasures.
• Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An
excessive quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might
result in pain. We can consider, for example, our
experience of excessive eating or exercising Whereas
eating the right amount of food can be pleasurable,
excessive eating may not be.
 John Stuart Mill (1806 -1873)

• “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied

than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the
fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion. It is
because they only know their own side of the
question. The other party to the comparison
knows both sides.”
 PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST
NUMBER
• Equating happiness with pleasure does not
aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent
alone and independently from others. This is
not only about our individual pleasures,
regardless of how high, intellectual, or in
other ways noble it is, but it is also about the
pleasure of the greatest number affected by
the consequences of our actions.
 PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST
NUMBER
• Utilitarianism is interested with the best
consequence for the highest number of
people. It is not interested with the intention
of the agent. Moral value cannot discernible
in the intention or motivation of the person
doing the act; it is based solely and
exclusively on the difference it makes on the
world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.
 JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
• What is a right? Mill understands justice as a respect for
rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a
valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
• Mill expounds that the above mentioned rights referred are
related to the interests that serve general happiness. The
right to due process, the right to free speech or religion,
and others are justified because they contribute to the
general good. This means that society is made happier if its
citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interest
are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it.
Lawrence Kohlberg’s
Stages of Moral Development.
Lawrence Kohlberg, a professor of psychology in Harvard
University is a prominent moral development theorist, but his
thinking grew out of Jean Piaget’s writing on children’s
intellectual development. His theory is descriptive, rather than,
proven facts.
Kohlberg presumes that there are six stages of moral
development that people go through in much the same way as
infants learned first to role over, to sit, to crawl, to stand and
finally to walk. Kohlberg clearly emphasized the following
system of his theory:
• Everyone goes through each stage in the same order, but
not everyone goes through all the stages and
• A person at one stage can understand the reasoning of any
stage below him but cannot understand more than one stage
above.
Stages of Moral Development:
A. Pre-conventional level
• (Pre-conventional because individuals do not yet speak as
members of society, instead they see morality as something
external to themselves)
Stage 1 - Punishment and Obedience
DESCRIPTION: The first stage is characterized by a view that right action is
to behave according to social acceptable norms imposed by some authority
figure (e.g., parent, teacher) in order to avoid punishment.
CONTENT: Right is a literal obedience to rules and authority, avoiding
punishment, and not doing physical harm. What is right is to avoid breaking
rules, to obey for obedience’s sake and to avoid physical damage to people
and authority. Thus follow and obey because of the consequence of
punishment and due to superior power of authorities.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE: This stage takes an egocentric point of view, a
person at this stage does not consider the interests of others and does not
relate two points of view. Actions were justified in terms of physical
consequence rather in terms psychological interests of others. Authority’s
perspective is confused with one’s own.
Stages of Moral Development:
Stage 2 – Individual and instrumental exchange
DESCRIPTION: Is characterized by a view that right behavior means
acting in one’s own best interests.
CONTENT: What is right is following rules when it is to someone’s
immediate interest. Right is acting to meet one’s interests and needs
and letting others do the same. Right is also what is fair, that is, what is
an equal exchange, a deal, an agreement. The reason for doing what
is right is to serve one’s own needs/interests in a world where one
must recognize that other people have their interests as well.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE: This stage takes a concrete individualistic
perspective. A person at this stage separates his own interests and
points of view from those of authorities and others. The person
integrates or relates conflicting individual interests to one another
through instrumental exchange of service, need for others and other’s
goodwill. Perhaps through fairness giving each person the same
amount.
Stages of Moral Development:

B. Conventional Level
• (it speaks on isolated individuals rather than as members of
the society. It sees individual exchanging favors, but there is
still no identification with the values of the family/community)
• Stage 3 - Mutual and interpersonal conformity
• Stage 4 - Law and Order
Stages of Moral Development:
• Stage 3 - Mutual and interpersonal conformity

DESCRIPTION: Characterized by an attitude which one

seeks to do that will gain the approval of others.
CONTENT: It sees what is right is living up according to the
expectations by people that are close to them, like the family,
community. Being good and having good behavior means
having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as
empathy, love, trust, concern.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE: This stage takes the perspective of
the individual in relationship to other individuals. Thus, a
person in this stage is aware of the shared feelings,
agreement and expectations that take primacy over the
individual interests.
Stages of Moral Development:
• Stage 4 - Law and Order

DESCRIPTION: Is characterized by abiding the law and

respecting authority and performing one’s duty so that
social order is maintained.
CONTENT: What is right is fulfilling one’s own duty to
which one had agreed. The reasons for doing what is
right are to keep the institutions going as a whole.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE: This stage differentiates societal
point of view from interpersonal agreement or motives.
A person at this stage takes the viewpoint of the
system, which defines roles and rules, individual
relations in terms of one’s own place in the system.
Stages of Moral Development:

A.Post-conventional level
(moral decisions are generated from the rights, values
or principles that are or that could be agreeable to all
individuals composing or creating a society
designed to have fair and beneficial practices)
Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights
Stage 6 - Universal Ethical Principles
Stages of Moral Development:
Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights
DESCRIPTION: Is characterized by thinking about a society in a
very theoretical way, stepping back from their own established society
and considering the rights and values of the society ought to uphold.
CONTENT: What is right is the awareness of the fact that people hold a
variety of values and opinion that most values and rules are relative to
one’s group. The reason for doing what is right, is in general, feeling
obligated to obey the law, because one has made a social contract to
make and abide by laws for the good of all and to protect their own
rights and the rights of others.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE: This stage takes a ‘prior-to-society’
perspective. It means that individuals are aware of the values and rights
prior to social attachment and contract. The person integrates
perspective by formal mechanism of agreement, contract, objective
impartiality and due process.
Stages of Moral Development:
Stage 6 - Universal Ethical Principles
DESCRIPTION: Is characterized by an attitude of respect for
universal principle and the demands of individual conscience.
CONTENT: The right action on this stage is guided by universal
ethical principles, particularly law, social agreement are usually
valid because it is anchored to principles. When law perhaps
violates the universal principle one is often acts in accordance
with the principle. The principle of equality, justice, respect and
others. These are not only values but regarded as principle that
is of used in order to generate decisions.
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE: This stage takes the perspective that a
person takes a stand in view of moral principle from which
social agreement are derived on which they are grounded.
Stages of Moral Development:
APPLICATION
A nurse and the physician are caring for a
terminally ill man and that the man is in
great pain who is asking the doctor and the
nurse for enough barbiturates to commit
suicide. What are the appropriate
responses that the health care provided
will take based from the moral
development of Kohlberg?
Stages of Moral Development:
APPLICATION
Stage 1: the health professional in stage one
might reply, ‘I will not do it because I could lose
my license if anybody found out I have done that’.
Stage 2: the stage two, professionals
(physician/nurse) might expressed, ‘I will
not do it because if I became known as a
doctor or perhaps a nurse who did that
kind of thing then other doctor or nurse
might not refer patients to me’.
Stages of Moral Development:
APPLICATION
•Stage 3: at this stage the reply could be, ‘I will not
do it because if everyone will do it, then, the
physician/nurse would no longer be trusted to
save lives of people’.
•Stage 4: in this stage, perhaps the physician/
nurse might reply, ‘I will not because it is against
the law and the professional should obey the law’
or maybe, ‘I will not because my colleagues would
no longer respect me if they knew I have done
that’.
 Stages of Moral Development:
APPLICATION
•Stage 5: the stage five, a health professional might
say, ‘yes because no one benefits from keeping
individual alive longer than they want to live’, or
perhaps to say, ‘no even though the patient might
suffer less, we need to be faithful to our respect for life
otherwise we might lose our standards and abuse it’.
•Stage 6: at this stage the reply could be, ‘no because
I personally believe that no one has a right to take his
or her own life and so I cannot be a part to such
action’ or maybe be to say it, YES, ‘the decision to exit
life is such a serious one that it needs to be honored if
it is made reasonably’.