A.

Basic Definition of Philosophy

The Greek scholar, Pythagoras (c. 580-497 B.C.), coined the term
philosophy and came up with the term into two Greek words
“philein meaning love or friendship and sophia meaning wisdom”
(Babor, E., 2001). The literal definition of philosophy is therefore,
“love of wisdom” (Zulueta, 2010). According to Babor, love is an
urge, or a drive of the will towards a particular object. As a drive,
love always seeks unity with its object, and it desires to possess its
object. And wisdom means the good exercise or application of
knowledge (Babor, E., 2001).. Hence, loving and seeking wisdom
require the individual to be intimately passionate, responsible of
his/her reflections or actions, and must enjoy what he/she does.

Philosophy is also understood in the context of the Cagayanos’ term siribayat. This Itawit
indigenous vernacular term signifies love of wisdom. The term siribâyat is a fusion of two words
“sirib,” which means wisdom, and “ayat,” love. Etymologically, sirib means an active peering
through reality. And “ayat” adds a personal note to the passion to go beyond what one has already
previously seen or understood (Siribâyat, 2013). Hence, to be wise or siriban means to be keen
towards reality, that is, allowing the “panono” (the Itawit term for “reflection) to extend its capacity
to unveil and rediscover the true meaning of a reality. In the struggle to rediscover the true
meaning of an experience, the lover of wisdom should be responsible to understand reality
practically in a significant way, not just theoretically.

Philosophy is a search for meaning and truth.

The kind of search related to philosophy is more intense than that of the ordinary kind of search. This
seeking, looking, and finding wisdom and truth is a passionate search where we surrender ourselves
into it. That’s why searching for meaning is a personal act. But what distinguishes a philosophical
search from an ordinary search is through the emphasis of the three elements:
1. The object of the search is of real value to the subject. In philosophy, broadly speaking,
“object” refers to a thing, “subject” refers to the person philosophizing (Cruz, C.,2004).
Meaning, the object of our experience or investigation must be within our interest and
concern like a student taking a course that he is passionate about.
2. It “consumes” the whole person- his attention, concentration, interest, effort (Cruz, C.,2004).
Meaning, a person becomes part of the object of investigation, thus, leading oneself into
submission towards the goal. To quote Cruz, he said that “A philosopher can hardly afford
distractions as he goes on his ‘search’.” He observes, reads, reflects, writes on what to him is
the most important aspect in his life (Cruz, C.,2004).
3. It is continued without let-up until (a) the answer is found or (b) the answer is not yet found,
but the conviction is reached that for the moment at least this is the best possible although still
imperfect answer (Cruz, C., 2004). Meaning, a person must not give up into something he
seeks for and must not surrender until the problem is solved. It is like the common notion of
saying: Try and try until you succeed. A human person is considered to be a homo viator
(traveler). As a traveler, along the way, despair, frustrations and problems are always
expected. But philosophy tells us that one must be challenged of it and must never surrender
himself in searching for meaning.
The attainment of truth cannot be the goal of philosophy and “the search for truth, not the possession
of it, is the true aim of philosophy” (John-Terry, C., 1994). What really matters for philosophical
search is not to focus oneself towards the result or end, but rather on the process of searching. The
journey, not the destination, is what matters.

Philosophy is also defined as the science that by natural light of reason studies the first causes or
highest principles of all things (Ramos, C.C., 2010).
Philosophy, as science, is an organized body of knowledge that involves a systematic
investigation of a reality through the natural capacity of man to think (light of reason

B. Main Branches of Philosophy

1. What is Metaphysics?

Timbreza,- metaphysics “is the study of being in

Anything that we can think about that has an
its general aspect.” (Timbreza, F., 2005).
active participation in the ESSENCE of beings
“being” refers to the realities that we see and
is the concern of metaphysics. It has sub-topics
don’t see. it is the study of realities in life.
like teleology, ontology, theodicy, psychology
and cosmology
It deals with human reality and system of human
thought that seeks to explain the fundamental
concepts of man (Cruz, C.,2004)

2. What is Epistemology?

Epistemology (from the Greek word episteme

“knowledge”) truth-value of human knowledge.
It asks the question: “is it possible to know?
Can man ever know anything? Is it possible to
This branch of philosophy deals with all the
attain certain knowledge? Where does
aspects concering the nature of knowledge.
knowledge come from? (Timbreza, F., 2005).
Epistemology has sub-divisions like
agnosticism, skepticism, a posteriori and a
The branch of philosophy that investigates the
priori.
nature, sources, limitations, and validity of
knowledge (Ramos, C.C., 2010).

3. What is Logic?

Logic is the study of the methods and principles

used to distinguish correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning (Copi and Cohen, I. & C.,
This branch of philosophy focuses on
1998).
developing the mind to be critical and logical.
Logic is divided into sub-topics namely:
Logic does not only help us adequately to
Induction, Deduction, Syllogism, and Dialectic.
interpret facts and other people’s perceptions or
views, it also develops in us the habit of clear
and critical thinking (Timbreza, F., 2005).

4. What is Ethics?
Ethics is also called moral philosophy which
 tries to understand the goodness and badness of
a human act. Ethics is divided into three general
subject areas namely: metaethics, normative
Ethics is a practical and normative science, ethics and applied ethics.
based on reason, which studies human acts and
provides norms for their goodness or badness
(Timbreza, F., 2005).. Metaethics investigates where our ethical
principles come from, and what they mean. It
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores focuses on the issues of universal truths, the will
the nature of moral virtue and evaluates human of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments,
actions (Ramos, C.C., 2010). and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.

It studies on the morality (goodness or badness)
of human actions (Conduct) (Cruz, C.,2004).
Ethics takes up the meanings of our moral
concepts- such as right action, obligation and
justice- and formulates principles to guide moral
decisions, whether in private or public life
(Articulo, A., 2008).
Normative ethics is concerned with the criteria
of what is morally right and wrong. It includes
the formulation of moral rules that have direct
implications for what human actions,
institutions, and ways of life should be like.
Applied ethics refers to the practical application
of moral considerations. It is ethics with respect
to real-world actions and their moral
considerations in the areas of private and public
life, the professions, health, technology, law,
and leadership.

C. Definition of Ethics

Etymological
Greek word ethikos which itself is derived from the Greek word
ethos, meaning custom or character. In philosophy, ethical behavior
is that which is “good.” The field of ethics or moral philosophy
involves developing, defending, and recommending concepts of right
and wrong behavior. These concepts do not change as one’s desires
and motivations change. They are not relative to the situation. They
are immutable. (Mintz, S., 2010)

Functional Definition

Ethics is a practical and normative science, based on reason, which studies human acts and provides
norms for their goodness or badness (Timbreza, F., 2005). Ethics is the branch of philosophy that
explores the nature of moral virtue and evaluates human actions (Ramos, C.C., 2010). It studies on
the morality (goodness or badness) of human actions (Conduct) (Cruz, C.,2004). Ethics takes up the
meanings of our moral concepts- such as right action, obligation and justice- and formulates principles
to guide moral decisions, whether in private or public life (Articulo, A., 2008).

Ethics as the ‘general inquiry into what is good’ poses some questions concerning what sort of actions
can bind humans. What constitutes ‘good’ or what is an unacceptable action in a given situation is
tantamount in saying that the subject matter of Ethics is essential. Teaching Ethics in College
Education as a New General Education Core Course under the New Curriculum explores some of the
important theories on the constitution of what is an ethical action, acceptable and binding in all
societies which call for impartiality in decision making (CMO 20 S 2013).
In a general sense, ethics (or moral philosophy) addresses fundamental questions such as: How should
I live my life? That question leads to others such as: What sort of person should I strive to be? What
values are important? What standards or principles should I live by? There are various ways to define
“ethics.” The simplest may be is to say that ethics deals with “right” and “wrong.” However, it is
difficult to judge what may be right or wrong in a particular situation without some frame of reference
(Mintz, S., 2010).
The Material Object of Ethics (What does Ethics study?)
- The Human Act/Action
What are other things that we can moralize or we can judge if they are good or bad?
- Custom, cultures, traditions, and other practices of a certain community or society.
The Formal Object of Ethics (What does Ethics want to see in Human Acts?)
- The goodness or badness of the human act.

The material object or the subject matter of Ethics poses some questions in relation to
answering moral judgment, like ‘What is our criteria or standard of morality'?, 'What can account
actions as ‘good’ and ‘right’ or ‘good’ as ‘pleasurable’ or ‘pleasurable’ as ‘good actions’?, 'Who has
the right to determine what is moral or ethical'?, 'With regard the applicability of an action, when can
we consider it as good or moral?, and the like.
So if Ethics is a branch of Philosophy, how did it find out the norms which it uses to judge if
the action of a certain person is good or bad? It is based purely on thinking, reflecting, and reasoning
on the different moral standards to be used.
Society’s morality calls for a standard which serves as a ‘guiding principle’ of all actions
which answers the question of what is ‘good’ and ‘right’ or ‘bad’ and ‘unacceptable’. Actions are
good or acceptable when they satisfy the standards or ethical codes of a society while they are
unacceptable when they fail to follow its principles. We call these principles, codes or standards as
moral standards.
Standards of Behavior
Ethics must be based on accepted standards of behavior. For example, in virtually all societies and
cultures it is wrong to kill someone or steal property from someone else. These standards have
developed over time and come from a variety of sources including:

 The influence of religious writing and interpretations.

(B) The influence of philosophical thought.
 (C) The influence of community (societal) values. (Mintz, S., 2010)

Norms, Values, and the Law

Ethics deals with well-based standards of how people ought to act. Ethics does not describe the
way people do act. It deals with the way people should act. Ethical people always strive to make
the right decision in all circumstances. They do not rationalize their actions based on their own
perceived self-interests. Ethical decision-making entails following certain well established
norms of behavior. The best way to understand ethics may be to differentiate it from other
concepts.(Mintz, S., 2010)
Values are basic and fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate attitudes or actions. Values are
concerned with how a person will behave in certain situations whereas ethics is concerned with how a
moral person should behave. A person who values prestige, power, and wealth is likely to act out of
self-interest whereas a person who values honesty, integrity and trust will typically act in the best
interests of others. It does not follow that acting in the best interests of others precludes acting in
one’s own self-interest. Indeed, the Golden Rule prescribes that we should treat others the way we
want to be treated. (Mintz, S., 2010)

Good day students! Our lesson for this week will focus on the comparison of ethics and morality. It
compares ethics from other disciplines. And it ends by explicating the importance of ethics.

A. Ethics vs. Morality

Ethics

Etymological meaning

The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethikos which itself is derived from the Greek word
ethos, meaning custom or character. In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is “good.” The
field of ethics or moral philosophy involves developing, defending, and recommending concepts of
right and wrong behavior. (Mintz, S., 2010)

Functional Definition

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of moral virtue and evaluates human
actions (Ramos, C.C., 2010).
It studies on morality (goodness or badness) of human actions (conduct) (Cruz, C.,2004).

Ethics is a practical and normative science, based on reason, which studies human acts and provides
norms for their goodness or badness (Timbreza, F., 2005).

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of moral virtue and evaluates human
actions (Ramos, C.C., 2010). It studies on morality (goodness or badness) of human actions
(Conduct) (Cruz, C.,2004). Ethics takes up the meanings of our moral concepts- such as right action,
obligation, and justice- and formulates principles to guide moral decisions, whether in private or
public life (Articulo, A., 2008).

Morality

Morality is an encompassing concept that serves as the underlying force for every action of an
individual, even of society. Morality takes the crucial role of formulating, establishing, and setting
ethical norms of conduct that govern behaviors and actions of an individual or group of individuals in
order to achieve harmony, unity, and order within a society (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013).

Defining morality, as to its intent and purpose, clarifies the essential features that everyone, who is
subject to moral judgment, determines what kind of actions are normally acceptable and permissible.
Morality establishes the fundamental framework on the true intent and motive behind every action
and decision. Human intelligence can be a powerful guide in working out moral problems. However,
Christians have more than a reason to guide them and this is the person and life of Jesus Christ our
Lord, the perfect norm of morality. (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013).

To compare therefore Ethics and Morality, they both study human acts and their goodness or badness;
they both lay moral norms or principles as guidelines as to how one ought to act and ought to be; they
both use reason in analyzing, interpreting, and deciding proper conduct in situations concerning moral
dilemma; they both aim to form a moral person with mature character and create a just and humane
society. But what differentiates them is the fact that aside from using reason as the source of
evaluating the validity of choice amidst a moral decision making, only morality also uses Divine
Revelation or the use of the Bible and other Church doctrines to support the validity of its moral
claims. It draws its inspiration for such a moral stand from the person and life of Jesus Christ our
Lord. Thus, aside from a temporal goal of creating a better society in the present life, morality also
aims for the more lasting goal which is to build the Kingdom of God and to attain Eternal life.
B. Ethics and the other disciplines

1. Ethics and Psychology

"Ethics has something to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong."

Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of
following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil (withdraw) from doing
what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate (departs) from what is ethical. But it does not mean
that the feeling of empathy, joy, anger, disgust, and other feelings are totally not related to making
moral decisions. According to Aristotle, the very goal of human life is happiness. To reach this is
moderation or the avoidance of extremes which includes the use of his reason and his passion
(extreme emotions). For example: Using inordinate passion (concupiscence) in acting may result in
bad actions. But without the feeling of empathy, I may not also be moved to do a good act like
helping people who are in need. Without the feeling of anger, I may not also be pushed to fight in
defense of what is right.

2. Ethics and Law

“Being ethical has something to do with following the law.”

The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings,
can deviate from what is ethical. Simply abiding or following with what the Constitution says does
not necessarily constitute an ethical act. For example, there are laws that might have been adopted but
are not necessarily ethical, but that they promote the interest of some people like the lawmakers
themselves (Example: Rice Tarrification Law in the Philippines and Divorce Law in America).

Being ethical is not the same as following the law.

Assume you are coming home from the store one day and see a fast-moving fire approach your
neighbor’s house. You notice that the neighbor’s car is in the garage. The garage door entrance to the
house is locked as is the main entrance. You bang on the door and no one answers. You call the
neighbor on your cell phone and no one answers. You don’t think there is enough time to call the fire
department ten miles away before serious damage is done to the house. If you break into the house to
save your neighbor, you break the law. But if you opt not to break into the house, you will not break
the law but you will not be able to save your neighbor. What would you do next and why?

3. Ethics and Sociology

"Ethics has something to do with the standards of behavior our society accepts."

Ethical standards are sometimes based from social norms but social norms are not the sole basis of
ethical standards. Being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society,
most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can
deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Moreover, if being
ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find
out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to
take a survey of Filipino society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one
ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many
issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept
abortion but many others do not. Yet even if everybody does, the issue of abortion may still remain to
be unethical.

4. Ethics and Religion

"Ethics has something to do with my religious beliefs.“

No one should identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical
standards. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical
behavior. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people and
that particular ethical standard only apply to the members of a particular religion. But ethics applies
as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Thus, ethics cannot be
confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.
"I like your Christ, but not your Christianity." In these words of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. J.H. ... Holmes
said, "I believe in the teachings of Christ, but you on the other side of the world do not, I read the
Bible faithfully and see little in Christendom that those who profess faith pretend to see.

"The Christians above all others are seeking after wealth. Their aim is to be rich at the expense of
their neighbors. They come among aliens to exploit them for their own good and cheat them to do so.
Their prosperity is far more essential to them than the life, liberty, and happiness of others.

"The Christians are the most warlike people. CHRISTIAN NATIONS SEEK WEALTH AND FIGHT
MOST WARS.”
In this article, it shows that membership to and beliefs in a particular religion does not necessarily
imply that one is ethical. I may believe in Christ and may be baptized into Christianity but I may
remain to be living in an unethical way of life. On the other hand, I may not have known Christ and
his teachings or may not have been baptized as a Christian (Or I may even be a total Atheist) but I can
still be ethical by the kind of life I live in relation to myself, others and my environment.

The importance of Ethics

Ethics is very significant in the following aspects namely: Individual, Company and Profession.
Ethics deals with the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the society
(community and environment), individual (personal relationship with others) and profession
(company).

Individual

-Personal sense of right and wrong in order to make good decisions

- Helps employees gain the trust of the people with whom they work

Ethics affect this aspect personally because an individual has its own point of reference, view, and
opinion in dealing with personal situations and occurences. It helps the individual develop a sense of
obligation in decision making. Ethics is very crucial in the person’s inner development since it
involves the improvement of oneself, developing a sense of proper disposition as he/she situates
himself/herself from the society. It develops the person to become better by being prudent, just,
courageous and moderate. It aims to make the person have good and proper decisions. Also, it
develops a sense of trust among people in the working setting. As a result, there will be good human
relationship. But this is only possible when actions become habitual and be developed as a good habit
(virtue).

Company

-Business develop ethics to help them determine how to behave

- These ethics reflect a company’s belief about what actions are appropriate and fair among people
- Helps businesses gain the trust of customers, suppliers, and others

With respect to company environment, ethics play a crucial role in the working setting. It “controls
business malpractices among workers (employee and employer), creates a better relation between
employees and employers, improves customer satisfaction, service and issues by having fair and
reasonable business activities, increases profitability, improves business goodwill, better decision
making, and protects business’ reputation.

Profession

- Outlines professional responsibilities, values, standards, and rules of behavior

This apsect focuses on the ethical conduct of a profession. Ethics reminds the person of his
responsibility and obligation in relation to his profession. As the professional disposes his/her duties,
he/she establishes a strong corporate ethical culture. It helps the person conform to the standards and
conduct of his profession. So, the person’s dispostion of his professional duties with others, in work
and society shows what kind of profession he/she manifests.

Good day students! Our lesson for this week focuses on the nature of human acts. It distinguishes
human acts from acts of man. It enumerates the constituents of human acts that are very essential in
determining the morality of an action . It enumerates the three elements in determining the morality
of an action. And it ends by identifying the impediments to human acts.

In studying ethics, it is necessary to consider its material object and its formal object (the goodness or
badness of an act). But what is it that we seek to study in ethics? For the material object of ethics, we
seek to study the nature of a human act. While for its formal object, we seek to study the goodness or
badness of a human act. But first let us examine the nature of a human act through its definition.

Human Acts

HUMAN ACTS are actions that are proper to humans, thus the crucial element of willful consent and
knowledge of the action must be present. One must freely use his/her intellect and freewill when
acting. Human acts reveal the value of responsibility or accountability (Living a Christian Moral Life,
2013).

Human Acts and Acts of Man

Human Acts
Acts that we do with the use of free will and intellect.
They are done freely, deliberate, and voluntary.
These are actions that are proper to humans, thus the crucial element of willful consent and
knowledge of the action must be present (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013).
Example: studying, working, eating healthy foods
Acts of Man
Acts that we do without free will and intellect; some are done by instinct.
The actions are performed without conscious deliberation or knowledge and with the absence of
freewill. Acts of man constitute unconscious and involuntary actions.
Example: breathing, digestion, circulation of air in the body
These are natural processes within the body that continue to function without the use of free will and
reason. They just happen naturally as automatic responses to situations (Living a Christian Moral
Life, 2013).
This clearly shows the differences between human act and act of man. As an object of morality,
human act is done with full knowledge of the action, performed with the use of free will and acted
upon voluntarily. The absence of these three crucial determinants renders the action as mere act of
man (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013).
Human actions are qualified as good or right (moral), bad or wrong (immoral) or indifferent (non
moral). The quality and standard of a human act depends on the relationship of the act with the norms
of morality (Law: Eternal law; Natural law; and Positive law (divine or human)). Both Divine and
human positive laws are specific application of the Eternal Law or the Natural Law. If a Positive Law
does not adhere or respect the Natural Law, then it ruins or damages the development of the human
person.

An act is good when it agrees with the dictates of right reason.(Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013).
An act is bad when it disagrees with the dictates of right reason.(Living a Christian Moral Life,
2013).
An act is indifferent when it stands no relation to the dictates of the right reason (Living a Christian
Moral Life, 2013) (acts or actions that are neither good nor bad).

Please take note that we do not moralize the acts of man, but the human acts.

Constituents of Human Acts

1. Human acts must be known and deliberate.

An individual, as the moral agent, has full knowledge in doing a certain action. There is a prior
knowledge

and a deliberate evaluation whether to fulfill an action or not (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013). It
asks
the questions: Do you know exactly what you are doing? or Do you do the act intentionally? He/she
must have full knowledge and consent of his/her action.

2. Human acts must be free.

An individual as the moral agent is free from any external factors as well as internal pressure to do an
act. He/she is neither forced nor intimidated to do or not to do something (Living a Christian Moral
Life, 2013).
There is obvious absence of constraint from within and outside of the individual. He/she is free to do
the
act without the influence of an outside factor and personal pressure from within. He/she does the act
so
independently and not because of shame, request or control from someone else nor from emotional
disturbance.

3. Human acts are voluntary.

The action proceeds from the willingness of an individual to perform action with a perceived
knowledge of
the end. (Living a Christian Moral Life, 2013). It asks the questions: Are you willing to do the act?
and do

you know what you are doing and where your action is leading into? He/she wills to perform the act
with
the understanding that he/she knows consciously where his/her actions are leading into.

Freedom and Responsibility

Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

Man is condemned to be free, because there is no God, according to Sartre. “Isinumpa ang tao na
maging Malaya.” Whether he likes it or not, man is doomed to freedom, as he himself is freedom.
“Ang tao mismo ay kalayaan.” This follows from Sartre’s perception that man is the only being
whose existence precedes his essence. There is no such thing as God-given essence or nature of man,
insofar as man alone has to create himself and develop his own essence through his freedom
(Timbreza, F., 2005).

Sartre is telling us that man is condemned to be free, because once thrown into the world, he is
responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give (life) a meaning. Sartre believes that
existence precedes essence (Ramos, C.C. 2010). Meaning, Sartre believes that “existence precedes
essence.” Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself (Nabor-Nery, M.I., 2007).

There is no such thing as God-given essence or nature of man, insofar as man alone has to create
himself and develop his own essence through his freedom (Timbreza, F., 2005). Sartre, as an atheist,
tells us that the human person becomes responsible for the projection of one’s life. Since you are a
free being, it is up to you on how you use your freedom to make your life meaningful. Remember
that, for Sartre, the essence of man is freedom. So, freedom should make or create your life.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Heidegger contends that this emphasis on freedom enables us to understand philosophy as a “going-
after-the-whole” that is at the same time a “going-to-our-roots.” In other words, we must search for
the essence of human freedom in the constant presence of being-in-the-world that precedes and
grounds philosophical thinking (Heidegger, M., 2005).
This is manifested in Martin Heidegger’s idea on “Dasein” (Da-means there, Sein-means being).
Heidegger challenges us to understand the meaning of Dasein (of what it means to be there.). He
claimed that man is Dasein (being-there) but Dasein does not necessarily mean man. This means that
being-there has to be made. “Ginagawa ang pagiging tao.” We have to create our being as persons.
Our mere existence does not presuppose that we are living as a person already. Like Sartre, we are
responsible in projecting our lives. So, we must see to it that we are the gardener of our own lives.
This is what makes Heidegger “very interested in the problem of being rather than merely in the
problem of human existence” (Ramos, C.C. 2010).

Other Factors which Affects the Morality of Human Acts

My dear children, if you have noticed, observed, or experienced, while norms or laws are
general, most often, in their implementation, there are many factors to consider especially in judging
the action committed in relation to the law. Example: If two people committed the same crime, how
come that their punishments are not the same? Even in the school setting, sometimes a student would
complain that how come that my classmate was allowed to enter or do such things while I am not?

Aside from the purpose and circumstance that affects the judgment of a certain act, there are
other factors to consider. Other authors would call these Impediments to Human Acts. (Impediment
means hindrance).

Impediments to Human Acts

Human actions, though naturally a product of will and reason, are sometimes influenced by certain
factors, which are called impediments to human actions.
These factors intervene and bar one’s actions from being human or contribute to the reduction of the
quality of a certain action. The impediments affect the quality of human acts.
Ignorance-
pertains to the lack of pertinent information, as to the nature, circumstances and effect of a certain
action. Ignorance takes place when an individual consciously proceeds to act on a certain matter
without due consideration of the relevant or necessary information related to it.

Ignorance is classified into:

a. Invincible Ignorance

There is invincible ignorance when one is totally ignorant of the things surrounding his/her action and
there is no way to remove/dispel it. In situations like this, the culpability of the individual is negated.
A good example of this kind is a person who is illiterate -- one who does not know how to read and
write, who is caught jaywalking.

b. Vincible Ignorance

There is lack of required knowledge to determine the goodness or badness of a certain action, but this
can be dispelled or learned through ordinary efforts, conscientiousness and proper diligence.

Mistakes or wrong actions out of vincible ignorance lessens one’s culpability. An example would be
committing mistake without totally knowing that what you are doing is really wrong.

There are two forms of vincible ignorance:

i. Affected vincible ignorance

One is pretending to be ignorant since he/she just wants to gain the approval of the other for his/her
wrong action. (In your ordinary language children, you call this “agpalusot”.) Naturally, any action,
performed under affected or pretended ignorance, does not excuse a person from his/her action. In
fact, it actually increases his/her culpability. An example would be a student who pretends not to
know the school’s policy on proper haircut to excuse him/her when confronted by the guards.

ii. Supine or crass ignorance

It happens when a person exerts little effort to know something. Giving a wrong medicine to a sick
person may result in the sickness of the person getting worse.

2. Concupiscence

A situation where one’s inordinate passion hinders one to exercise correct reasoning, thus also affects
his/her action.

Passions means our emotional elements like anger, pride, envy, love, joy, etc. Not all passions
are bad. Some are innately bad, but some becomes bad only when they are excessive or called
inordinate. Example is pride and anger, these two becomes bad only when they become excessive that
they already control one’s mind and even push him/her to do a certain action. Still on pride, you must
be proud of your parents; you need pride or else you will be contented with your grades even if they
are all line of seven or even all 75%.

The morality of actions done out of concupiscence depends on how the passions affected the
action of the doer. The culpability may increase or decrease or can be negated.

Antecedent concupiscence

A spontaneous/sudden inordinate passion influences an action before it has been controlled by the
will. Example: Juan was already running late for his class. When he entered the school campus, the
guard confiscated his ID for no apparent reasons. Out of his anger, he unconsciously cursed the guard.
(In ibanag, you call this “gavva lang”, like gavva kang nanampal dahil sa gulat, etc.)

The culpability of bad actions done out of Antecedent Concupiscence can be lessen or even negated
depending on how it happened.

Consequent concupiscence
This happens when one is aware of the inordinate passion and the will chooses to arouse the said
passion to perform the bad action. The passion has already passed through the intellect and controlled
by the will, but still, the individual performs the human act. In other words, you know that you are
very angry at that person, but you still push through with the bad action like punching or kicking or
slapping him/her. You did not do anything to calm down or to cool your anger.

Since the passion is deliberately and voluntarily acted upon, the culpability of the action increases.
Gluttony is a very good example. Pedro is obese. During a town fiesta, he had visited the houses of
his four friends, eating to his satisfaction. On his way back home, he decided to drop by a fast food
restaurant for more food, and later on, he vomited. Clearly, it is within his control to limit his food
intake; however, despite being full from the feast, he deliberately decided to eat more on his way
home. His moral responsibility increases since it is within his will, reason and disposal to decide to
stop, but failed to do so.
3. Fear
affects the performance of a human act since the individual is threatened by the impending dangers
(ginawa or nagawa mo yung isang bagay kasi tinakot ka) The presence of danger and intimidation
affects his/her thought-processes in determining the goodness or badness of his/her actions.

A human act done with fear is considered as voluntary, therefore it will be culpable if it is a bad
act. The act is still culpable because one can still choose not to act despite the fear or danger.
Example: They forced a woman to remove her clothes with a gun pointing at her, the woman can still
choose not to do the act.

However, the culpability of a bad act done out of fear can be lessen, increase or even negated
depending on the gravity of the threat and the circumstance surrounding the action especially in a
situation where one just follows his/her instinct to survive.

While walking on a dark alley, Pedro was accosted by a robber pointing at his head a gun.
Trapped and in danger of being killed, Pedro has no alternative but to fight back. As a result, the
robber was terribly hurt. In this case, Pedro does not have moral responsibility for hurting the robber
because he had performed self-defense to protect himself from a very clear and present danger. Acts
done from fear or through fear, in certain cases are involuntary because the agent is obligated to
choose to avoid the greater evil. This kind of situation lessens voluntariness and thus, decreases moral
responsibility.

3.1 Light Fear: The threat/imminent danger confronting a person is not so serious or grave to
influence or force one to do a certain act.
So, a seriously bad act done under light fear is culpable.
 3.2. Grave Fear: The threat is so serious or grave that it can really influence or force one to do a
certain act.
Example of this are the cases of hold ups wherein people are forced to give their money or belonging
to another just out of fear; and other similar circumstances.
The culpability of a bad act done under grave fear can be lessen or negated.

4. Violence

I will not discuss this in detail since it is very much related to the cases of fear.
The direct message of this is, you must exert all the efforts needed to defend yourself in extreme cases
where your life or your dignity is at stake. Again, this is in the cases of rape or hold ups wherein the
hold uppers even want to kill their victims.
The morality here is that, one is culpable if he/she will not exert all the necessary efforts to defend
herself/ himself from the aggressor if needed, if his life or dignity is at stake. Although, the culpability
can be lessen depending on the circumstance.

In another angle, if a woman is defending herself from a rapist and accidentally, the head of the rapist
hits a wall or stone or hard object and died. In this case, the woman’s action is not culpable since she
was just defending herself and there was no intention to kill the aggressor.

 
 
 
Elements Description    
 
 
 
1.  The Object/Act This is the action itself.  This answers the question
 
WHAT.  It refers to the Human Act itself.  For an act
to be ethically and morally good, the object must be
good in itself, otherwise, it is bad. (Living a Christian
Moral Life, 2013).
 This refers to the persons involved, the time, place, and occasion that surround
an object/act.  In other
words, it answers the questions: WHO, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW.
This can change or completely alter the moral quality of
2.  The Circumstance
a human act.  
The circumstance is a condition modifying human actions,
either by increasing or diminishing the moral responsibility. (Living a Christian
Moral Life, 2013).

Every human act, no matter how trivial or significant, is done with an intention or
purpose – the reason behind
the act.  This answers the question of WHY.  For a human
3.  The Intention or End act to be ethically and morally good, the agent or doer
or Purpose must have a good intention. Many such activities are
said to be morally indifferent in themselves but when performed, their moral
quality lies in the intention and circumstance behind these activities. The end or  
intention
can modify human action in four ways:

a. An indifferent act may become morally good or bad.

b. An objectively good act may become morally bad.
c.  An objectively good act can receive added goodness.

An objectively bad act can never become good in

   
spite of the good motive (Living a Christian Moral
Life, 2013).

 Example:
1. Act /Action – There are actions that we can easily see if they
-Killing is obviously bad
are good or bad.
-Helping is generally good
 
 

Example:
-Helping someone. Is it good or
2. Purpose/Intention - There are actions in which morality can bad?
only be seen upon examining the purpose of the doer. -It depends on the purpose of the
doer.
 
 Example:
-Is punching someone bad? What
if it’s a baby punch or just a
3. Circumstance – (who, what, when, where, how or
friendly punch?
person/doer, action/thing, time, place, and
-What if you slap someone
                                manner)
unintentionally out of panic?
 
-Bawal bang maghubad? How
about in the bathroom?
 

Selfdefense is a classic example in the face of aggression wherein one has to protect himself/herself
from the attacker.

Conditions for Self-defense:

The aggression must be unjust.

The aggression must be actual.
Use minimum violence/it must be proportional
Problems comes when people just kill someone without being attack physically. There was no actual
aggression done. Example is, one is just looking at you intently then suddenly you spank or even kill
him with a gun or any other hard objects. Remember in self-defense, there is no intention to kill but
only to defend oneself or run away from the trouble. Example, you have a gun and one is running
after you with a knife. Which part of the aggressor’s body should you hit with your gun? The head?
Stomach? Neck? Chest? None of the above my dear children. It should be the F……oot or feet.

5. Habit
It is a firm and stable behavior pattern of acting. An individual naturally and consciously performs an
action, as a result of its repetitive performance through time. One acts based on his/her repeated
responses on situations.
Good moral habits are called virtues while bad habits are vices.
People are expected to exert utmost effort to free themselves from vicious habits.
Some examples of your bad habits children are: speaking bad words when you are mad, always
coming late, not attending mass, copying during quizzes and exams, etc.

How do we moralize vices or bad habits?

Vices or bad habits are culpable. The culpability is lessened only when one is exerting effort to
correct or stop his/her vices.

Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuse

the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrong
the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of th
(Virtue

Deontology may sometimes be consistent with Moral Absolutism (the belief that some

are wrong no matter what consequences follow from them), but not neces

The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should adhere to their oblig
and duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in
1.  Deontology Deontology is ethics of doing and

The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or st
(logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of nor
theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other
deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices o
we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of
we are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories). And within the domain of moral theor
assess our choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of mor
stand in opposition to consequentialists (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Character-based ethics
2.  Virtue ethics
A right act is an action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances.
Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character
 person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the conseque
particular actions.

Virtue ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it p
guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviors a good person will seek to achieve

In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a person's life, rather than pa
episodes or actions.

A good person is someone who lives virtuously - who possesses and lives the virtues.

It is ethics of being.  It asks the questions: “what does it mean to be human?”; “what
repetitively?”  or “is it part of your character or very being?”
 
It is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's cond
the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that c
3. Consequentialism
What is the effect of the action? Is the effect good?
Elements in determining the morality of Human Acts

Other Principles/application of the Act, Purpose and Circumstance criteria:

1. The Act is good if the three (Act, Purpose, and Circumstance) are good.

2. If one of the three (Act, Purpose, and Circumstance) is bad, then the act is bad.

3. An indifferent act may become morally good or bad. (depending on the

     intention/purpose of the doer)

4. An objectively good act may become morally bad. (Purpose?)

    Example: when a person gives alms to a poor girl with the intention of seducing her.

5. An objectively bad act can never become good in spite of the good motive. Example: to steal
money with the good intention of giving it to charitable institutions or to the poor, as the legendary
Robin Hood did. As the principle says, “The end does not justify the means.”
 
Types of Ethics

 
Natural Law

Natural Law is the patterns, order, “rules” or “laws” of nature. These are discovered through
observation, experience, common sense, thinking/reasoning, or reflecting.
Note: we are part of nature since we are living on earth/nature. We have a body that connects us with
mother nature.
So even our bodies have patterns or “rules” that it follows like we need to sleep at least 8 hours a day,
we use our feet to walk and not our hands, we need to eat at least three times a day and the other
functions of the body. So there is an order in our body that needs to be followed or maintain or else
you will get sick until you die, etc.
 
This is the same as our Mother Nature or mother earth. There are patterns or orders in it that we need
to maintain like how many trees can we cut, avoid so much air pollution, not polluting our rivers so
much, etc.
         
Important note: Once we do not follow Natural Law or these orders in mother nature or in our bodies,
it will lead to sickness, natural calamities until eventually to total destruction. Think my dear children
that most of the calamities we are suffering now are the result of not following the Natural Law.
People’s abuse to nature will come back to us in the forms of calamities like sudden erosion, untimely
typhoon, flash flood, global warming, etc. Even the Covid-19 that we are facing now is a result of
people trying to manipulate everything. They taught that they can easily control everything.
        
So Natural Law asserts that moral standards that govern human behaviors are objectively derived
from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world.
 
Natural Law affirms that since humans are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that
they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature.
 
In relation to human actions, Natural Law is defined as the light of human reason so we know what to
do and what to avoid.
 
Natural Law is a natural disposition of the human reason ordaining the person to do good and to avoid
evil.
Natural Law could be summed up as the law of human conduct that arises from human nature as
ordered to its ultimate natural end and which is recognized by the natural light of reason.
 
Characteristics of Natural Law
1.       Universal. This law is applicable to all creatures.
2.       Recognizable. It can be noticed through observations, interactions with others, and
through deeper reflection.
3.      Obligatory. Since this is the very law that will lead to our well-being there is no other
choice or better choice than to obey it. Not obeying it would lead to the things that the
human person would like to avoid in life which is destruction and damnation.
4.      Immutable. it will never be changed or is not subject to change.
 
Moreover, the contents of the Natural Law are classified into:
1.       Fundamental moral principles in their general applications such as “Good is to be
done and evil is to be avoided”, “Never do unto another what you would not want him to
do unto you,” “the end does not justify the means,” etc.;
 2.       General moral principles that sustain and preserve the basic relations of the human
person to God, to himself/herself, and to neighbors. Examples: “honor your parents;”
“preserve your own life;” “do not murder;” and others;
3.       Applications of the general principles of morality to specific situations in life and
society which come in the form of specific  laws to govern specific situations and
circumstances; and
4.      Remote conclusions derived by a process of reasoning which require good education
and deeper reflection. Examples of this content are moral problems such as mercy killing,
the indissolubility of marriage, contraceptive practices, and others.
 
So I hope Natural Law is now clear to you my dear children.

          So these are the rules, guides, norms in nature that you will discover through common sense,
observations, and thinking/reasoning or reflecting. In fact, the Ten Commandments except for
Commandment Number 1 and 2 are basically Natural Laws. You do not need to read the Bible before
you discover that you need to honor your parents, not kill, not steal, etc. Sorry if I will say one is too
slow to think/learn if he/she does not know these rules by nature or experience or observation since
we are rational by nature.
 
Positive Law. The word “positive” means being promulgated or “published” or announced. a law
enacted should not take effect unless it is promulgated or announced.

Why is there a need for the positive laws when in fact there is already the existence of the Natural
Law?
            The Natural Law has the tendency to be recognized generally in terms of their aspects, and not
all people easily find the proper application of these laws and their deeper implications in the life of
the human person.
 
The Positive Laws are the specific formulations derived from Natural Law. These are the specific
application of Natural Law in different human or societal contexts. So the Natural Law is seen,
expressed, or applied through the Positive Law. A positive law that does not respect the Natural Law
contributes to the damage to the development of the human person and of the whole creation. It is
territorial or contextual, a law continues until it is changed by another and it is promulgated by a
public authority.

      So my dear children, the positive laws are just the laws that people formulate/specify from the
Natural Law and they impose it to community or society since a lot of people violate a lot of aspect of
the Natural Law or they just ignore it if they think it will not affect them personally without
considering the effect or the damage that it can do to others. Note that all our actions will have an
effect on others either directly or indirectly or affect us now or later. An example is abuse to Mother
Nature; before people just ignored it, and they are only alarmed now that we are suffering from global
warming and other calamities.    
 
Examples of Positive Laws are Constitution, Policies, ordinances, rules, and regulations, etc.
 
The Positive Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one in charge of
the community or by a competent authority.  Examples of human positive laws are the ordinances of a
certain place or the constitution of a certain country.
 1. Ordinance. It is a decree or a command and not a request; it demands obedience. One has to
follow it.

2. Reasonable. It means a certain positive law is based on reason and not on mere emotion. It
must be useful or good which means it must attain its goal. Positive law is also reasonable if it has the
following characteristics: just or fair, honest, possibility of fulfillment, relatively permanent, and must
be promulgated.

3. Common Good. A law must serve the interest of the majority and not favor only a few
individuals.

4. Competent Authority. One who enacts or authors a law could be characterized as someone

who is knowledgeable, just, wise, and respectable.

Conscience
- the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct
or motives, impelling one toward right action.
- is a personal awareness of right and wrong that you use to
guide your actions to do right.
- conscience is the practical judgment of reason allowing
the person to recognize the moral quality of an act. (CCC).
- Conscience would tell, one must abhor the evil/bad and
embrace what is good.
 

The Two General Kinds of Conscience

It is a conscience that judges an act before it is done.

Antecedent
conscience A typical example is during a quiz -- when a student has two options whether to cheat or not to cheat.
Before he/she cheats, the person knows and is able to deliberate whether such action is pleasing to him/her
or not.

It judges an act after it is being done.

Consequent
conscience Going back to the example above, consequent conscience works after the cheating has been executed by
the student and so he/she starts feeling guilty about the act that he/she committed.
Conscience is further classified into different forms such as correct conscience and false conscience; scrupulous conscience
and lax conscience; and certain conscience and doubtful conscience.  These classifications fall either under antecedent or
consequent conscience depending on whether moral assessment happens before or after a human act is being done.
 

a. Correct conscience is a conscience that judges a good act as good and a bad act as indeed bad.
b. False conscience - the opposite of correct conscience. One judges a good act as bad and a bad act as good.
c. Scrupulous conscience - one is always afraid of committing errors; thus not following rules/laws is tantamount to
committing errors.
d. Lax conscience - a person keeps on excusing him/herself from every mistake committed. It is as if, he/she does not
commit any mistake at all.
e. Certain conscience is a firm judgment that one is not in error. It means, it is clear and evident that what a person does is
indeed right.
f. Doubtful conscience - judgment is always suspended because of the uncertainty of the goodness and badness of human
action. The word ‘doubt’ denotes the idea that one is not sure of what he/she is doing.
 

General Principle: Always follow your conscience.

 

Lesson V: Moral Dilemma and Levels of Moral Reasoning

           
Kinds of Valuation
 
Ethics speaks about matters of good things that we should pursue and bad things that we should
avoid; right ways in which we should act and the wrong ways of acting. Ethics as a subject for us to study
is about determining the grounds for the values with particular and special significance to human life.
 
There are instances when we make value judgments that are not considered to be part of ethics.
Movies and music may be described something to be good according to the judgment of the senses.
Moreover, we may say that the right sawsawan for my shanghai is ketchup and not vinegar. These
valuations fall under aesthetics. This refers to the judgments of personal approval or disapproval that is
dependent on what we see, hear, smell and taste. We also have a sense of approval and disapproval
concerning certain actions which are relatively more trivial in nature. For instance, I think it is ‘right’ to
knock the door before entering it, and it is wrong to barge into one’s office. In a fine dining setup, you
should follow the correct usage of utensils, when to use the goblet, glass water, spoon and fork etc. These
examples belong to the category of etiquette which is concerned with right and wrong actions, but they are
not grave enough to be considered part of ethics.
 
Recognizing the characteristics of aesthetic and technical valuation allows us to have a rough guide
as to the discussion of ethics. They involve valuations that make sphere of human actions, characterized by
certain gravity and concern the human well-being or human life itself. Therefore, matters that concern life
and death such as war, capital punishment, abortion and matters that concern human well-bring such as
poverty, inequality or sexual identity are included in the discussion of ethics.
 
 We say that moral issues are issues which are included in ethics and non-moral issues are issues
which are not.
 
 
Moral Dilemma
 
            When you are in a difficult situation and each option looks equally bad, you are in a dilemma.  
Dilemma is a Greek word, which means “double proposition”.  It was originally a technical term of logic,
but we use it now for any time you have a problem with no satisfactory solution.    
 
We may think that dilemma is synonymous to a problem of deciding among options. College is a
paradigm of being anxious because the decisions made during this time are crucial for it may determine
who we are in the near future. Some are hard up in choosing a course to take. In choosing we may consider
passion over wealth, fitted to one’s personality or following barkada’s choice, personal dream or parents’
dream. In this consumeristic times, we may also experience a dilemma when we visit shopee, and was
compelled to decide whether to but it or not, or which among this product is most needed by me. Thus, we
say, a dilemma is a situation where in an individual is forced to choose between two or among many
conflicting options neither of which is acceptable.
 
Ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy where in the fetus is formed outside the uterus.
The mother is in a moral dilemma since she needs to choose whether to abort the child or to let the
pregnancy continue but her life may be endangered which may lead to her death.  When dilemmas
involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or moral dilemmas.
Moral agents are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves
the situation in a morally acceptable manner.

            In a dilemma, a person is in a situation where there is no one obvious right choice or in a
situation where the choice is especially difficult because no solution is appealing.  It is very important
to know that difficult choices need careful decisions.  It is just appropriate to feel guilt no matter what
course of action is taken.  This means that a dilemma is a tough choice.

“What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as
having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have
called situations like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the
agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the
agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no
matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).”
Three Conditions of Moral Dilemma
           

1. If the agent of moral action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best.
2. There must be different courses of action to choose from.
3. No matter what course of action is taken, some moral principles are always compromised.
 
 
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning
 
            Lawrence Kohlberg is considered the first psychologist to do heavy research into human ethics and
how people reacted to dilemmas.  The comprehensive stage theory of moral development was based on
Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment for children (1932) and this was developed by Lawrence Kohlberg
in 1958.  Cognitive in nature, Kohlberg’s theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one
decides whether a behavior is right or wrong.  Thus, the theoretical emphasis is on how one decides to
respond to a moral dilemma, not what one decides or what one actually does.
  
The theory asserts that moral reasoning as the basis for ethical behavior, has six
identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its
predecessor. Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied
earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.
Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was
principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime.

For his studies, Kohlberg relied on the Heinz dilemma.  The Heinz dilemma was a hypothetical
situation that Kohlberg used to see how individuals would justify their actions if placed in a moral
dilemma. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion,  and
classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.

The Heinz dilemma, as used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as

follows:

“A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought
might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The
drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to
produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick
woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get
together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and
asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and
I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the
drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or
why not?”

From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should  do.
Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of
their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:

 Stage one (punishment/obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will
consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine
because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to
pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
 Stage two (rewards): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he
saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine
because prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife's
death.
 Stage three (good intention): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he
wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not
a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
 Stage four (obedience to authority): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law
prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: actions have consequences.
 Stage five (moral versus legal right): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has
a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the
scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
 Stage six (individual principals of conscience): Heinz should steal the medicine, because
saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz
should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are
equally significant.
From the responses to the Heinz dilemma and responses to other similar hypothetical dilemmas, Kohlberg
developed the six stages of moral development.  These stages are summarized in the diagram below.
 
Level 1: Pre Conventional Morality

In Pre-conventional level, right and wrong are determined by rewards or punishment. Reasoners judge the
morality of an action by its direct consequences.
 
Stage One: Punishment/Obedience Orientation
            This is the stage that all young children start at.  Rules are seen as being fixed and absolute. 
Obeying the rules is important because it means avoiding punishment.  The individual will obey in order to
avoid punishment.  Behaviour is determined by consequences.  Whatever leads to punishment is wrong. 
Morality is based on punishment.

Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in prison.
Individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves.
 
Stage Two: Rewards/Self Interest
            As children grow older, they begin to see that other people have their own goals and preferences
and that often there is room for negotiation.  Decisions are made based on the principle of “what’s in it for
me?”  For example, an older child might reason: “If I do what mom or dad wants me to do, they will
reward me.  Therefore, I will do it.”  Morality is based on rewards.   The right way to behave is the way
that is rewarded.  Behaviour is determined again by consequences.  The individual focuses on receiving
rewards or satisfying personal needs.
Right behavior is defined by what is in one’s own best interest.
 
Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have
to serve a prison sentence.

Level 2: Conventional Morality

In this level, views of others matter, there is avoidance of blame, and it seeks approval.   Conformity to
social rules remains important to the individual.  However, the emphasis shifts from self-interest to
relationships with other people and social systems.  The individual strives to support rules that are set forth
by others to win their approval or to maintain social order.  People who reason in a conventional way judge
the morality of actions by comparing these actions to social rules and expectations.
 
Stage 3: Interpersonal Concordance/Good Intentions/ Social Conformity Orientation/ Good boy/
Nice girl orientation
            In this stage, it is behaving in ways that conform to “good behaviour”.  There is a sense of what
“good boys” and “nice girls” do and the emphasis is on living up to social expectations and norms because
of how they impact day to day relationships.  Behaviour is determined by social approval.  The individual
wants to maintain or win the affection and approval of others by being a “good person”.
 
Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it.
Individuals seek approval from other people.
Evaluation of the consequences of the actions is based on person’s relationship.
 
Stage 4: Law and order/Obedience to authority
            Social rules and laws determine behavior.  The individual now takes into consideration a larger
perspective, that of societal laws.  All people have the duty to uphold laws.  Moral decision making
becomes more than consideration of close ties to others.  The individual believes that rules and laws
maintain social order that is worth preserving.  By the time individuals reach adulthood, they usually
consider society as a whole when making judgments.  The focus is on maintaining law and order by
following the rules, doing one’s duty and respecting authority.  The focus is on maintaining social order by
doing one’s duty, obeying laws, and following the rules.
 
Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits it.
Individual thinks it is important to obey the law and conventions of the society.
 
Level 3: Post Conventional Morality

The individual moves beyond the perspective of his or her own society.  Morality is defined in terms of
abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies.  The individual attempts to take the
perspective of all individuals.  There is abstract notion of justice.  Rights of others can override obedience
to laws/rules.
 
Most people do not reach this level of moral reasoning.
 
Stage 5: Human Rights/Social Contract
            Individual rights determine behavior.  The individual views laws and rules as flexible tools for
improving human purposes.  That is, given the right situation, there are exceptions to rules.  When laws are
not consistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority, it does not bring about good for
people and alternatives should be considered.  This stage is defined not by what is legally right but what is
morally right.  Saving the most amount of lives is always the best decision.
 
Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law; or Heinz should
not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation
 
Stage 6: Universal Human Ethics
According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning.  However, he claimed that some
individuals will never reach this level.  At this stage, the appropriate action is determined by one’s self
chosen ethical principles of conscience.  These principles are abstract and universal in application.  This
type of reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be
affected by the decision.
 
Heinz should steal the medicine because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than respecting
the property of another person.
Moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract reasoning using universal principles.