LESSON 1

UTILITARIANISM

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

 analyze the concept of consequentialism; and

 explain Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s
Utilitarianism.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 1! This lesson introduces you to the basics the philosophy
introduced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism. In this lesson,
you will also understand the concept of consequentialism. Moreover, you are given
activities to help you deepen your comprehension to the said topic. Enjoy this lesson
and keep reading!

Duterte places NCR, nearby areas back to MECQ beginning Tuesday, August 4,2020
Published August 2, 2020 11:41pm

President Rodrigo Duterte has placed Metro Manila and other high-risk areas back to
a modified enhanced community quarantine for 15 days effective Tuesday, August 4,
2020 amid the COVID-19 threat. In a briefing on Sunday night, Duterte said that the
National Capital Region and the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, Cavite, and Rizal
under the MECQ until August 18. Duterte made the decision on Sunday night on the
recommendation of the Cabinet led by Health Secretary Francisco Duque III.
See the link below:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/749553/duterte-places-ncr-
nearby-areas-back-to-mecq-beginning-monday-august-3-2020/story/

Page 1 of 32
Analysis

Refer to the activity above and answer the following:

1. Do you agree of the decision made by President Rodrigo R. Duterte? Why?

2. Are you satisfied with the actions / decisions of our government? Why?

3. How can you help our government during this pandemic?

Abstraction

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the production of happiness and

reduction of unhappiness should be the standard by which actions are judged right
or wrong and by which the rules of morality, laws, public policies, and social
institutions are to be critically evaluated. According to utilitarianism, an action is
not right or wrong simply because it is a case of telling the truth or lying; and the
moral rule against lying is not in itself correct. Lying is wrong because, in general, it
has bad consequences. And the moral rule against lying can be subjected to
empirical study to justify some cases of lying, such as to avoid a disastrous
consequence in saving someone’s life.

Page 2 of 32
The Basic Idea of Utilitarianism
The Greatest Happiness Principle:
“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” - John Stuart
Mill
Happiness = pleasure and the absence of pain
Unhappiness = pain and the absence of pleasure
Happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value “pleasure, and freedom from
pain, are the only things desirable as ends...all desirable things are desirable either
for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and
the prevention of pain.”

Background on Utilitarianism
English philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
were the leading proponents of what is now called “classic utilitarianism”.

The philosopher and jurist Jeremy John Stuart Mill, (born May 20, 1806,
Bentham (1748-1832) was born in London, England—died May 8, 1873,
Spitalfields, London, on 15 February 1748. Avignon, France), English philosopher,
He proved to be something of a child economist, and exponent of Utilitarianism.
prodigy: while still a toddler he was He was prominent as a publicist in the
discovered sitting at his father's desk reforming age of the 19th century, and
reading a multi-volume history of England, remains of lasting interest as a logician and
and he began to study Latin at the age of an ethical theorist.
three.
The Utilitarians were Social Reformers

They supported suffrage for women and those without property, and the abolition of
slavery. Utilitarians argued that criminals ought to be reformed and not merely
punished (although Mill did support capital punishment as a deterrent). Bentham
spoke out against cruelty to animals. Mill was a strong supporter of meritocracy.

Proponents emphasized that utilitarianism was an egalitarian doctrine. Everyone’s

happiness counts equally.

Page 3 of 32
The Defining Characteristics of Utilitarianism
1. Consequentialism. It is the view that the rightness and wrongness of acts depends
entirely on facts about the consequences of acts. An action is right if it brings
about the best outcome of the choices available. Otherwise it is wrong.
For example, the claim that an act is right if and only if its consequences are at
least as good as those of any other act that could have been performed instead is a
consequentialist claim.

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism

a. The Good. This pertains to the things (goals, states of affairs) that are worth
pursuing and promoting.
b. The Right. It is the moral rightness (or wrongness) of actions and policies.

Consequentialists say that actions are Right when they maximize the Good.
Rhetorical Argument
a. How could it be wrong to do what produces the most good?
b. Wouldn’t it be irrational to insist that we ought to choose the lesser good in
any situation?
Utilitarianism defines the Good as pleasure without pain.
So, according to Utilitarianism, our one moral duty is to Maximize
pleasure and minimize pain.

2. Welfarism. This refers to the view that the goodness and badness of
consequences, or states of affairs, depends entirely on facts about well-being, or
welfare. This component of utilitarianism is sometimes characterized in terms of
happiness instead of well-being. Such terminology is acceptable as long as
happiness is understood broadly along the lines of general flourishing or thriving
in one’s life, and not merely as a mental state
In any event, an example of a welfarist claim is the claim that one state of affairs is
better than another if and only if it contains a greater amount of well-being.

3. Individualism. It is the view that the sources of value to be found in the world are
individuals, such as persons and animals.
For example, the claim that only individuals are proper objects of moral regard,
and that nations or tribes are not, is an individualist claim.

4. Aggregation. This refers to the view that the value of a state of

affairs is determined by summing the values associated with the individuals in that
state of affairs.

5. Maximization. It is the view that it is desirable for the value of a state of affairs to
be as great as possible. This is perhaps the least controversial of the defining
characteristics of utilitarianism because there is generally thought to be little to be
said for opposing views, such as the view that the value of a state of affairs should
be as small as possible or the view that the value of a state of affairs is not a matter
Page 4 of 32
 of moral significance. However, controversial or not, it is an essential component
of utilitarianism.

Objections to Utilitarianism
1. Utilitarianism = Hedonism?
Objection: There is more to life than pleasure; knowledge, virtue, and other
things are important, too. Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine.

Reply: Utilitarianism requires that we consider everyone’s pleasure, not just

our own. Also, according to Mill, there is more to life than physical pleasure.
Pleasures of the “higher faculties” (including intellectual pleasures
inaccessible to lower animals) are of higher quality than physical pleasures
(and thus count for more).

Mill: "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, are
of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the
question".

2. Is Utilitarianism too Demanding?

Objection: Utilitarianism implies that we should always act in order to
maximize happiness; this is too strict a requirement. It is asking too much of
people to be always motivated to promote the general happiness.

Mill’s Reply: “...no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we
do shall be a feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninety-nine hundredths of all
our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so...the motive has
nothing to do with the morality of the action...the great majority of good
actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of
individuals, of which the good of the world is made up.”

Many people have questioned whether this reply is adequate. Regardless of

motivation, Utilitarianism does require that people always act to maximize
overall happiness.

3. Not enough time?

Objection: In the real world, we don’t have the time to calculate the effects
of our actions on the general happiness. Therefore, utilitarianism is useless.

Mill’s Reply: “There has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration
of the human species. during all that time, mankind have been learning by
experience ...the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs
which have thus come down are the rules of morality...”

In other words, we don’t need to do direct utility calculations in most cases; we

can apply subordinate rules, which are rules of thumb for maximizing happiness.
Page 5 of 32
4. Predicting the Future
Objection: Utilitarianism requires that we know what the consequences of
our actions will be, but this is impossible. We can’t predict the future.

Reply: It’s true that we can’t predict the future with certainty. So, we should
perform the action that we have most reason to believe will bring about the
best consequences of the alternatives available.
Example: You need $2000 to pay some medical bills. To get the extra $,
you can either (a) borrow some money now, and pay it back later by working
extra hours, or (b) spend all of your money on lottery tickets and hope that
you win big. It’s possible that you will win the lottery, but this isn’t likely.
Given the probabilities, it is more reasonable to believe that borrowing money
will bring more happiness.

5. Individual Rights
Objection: Just because something makes people happy doesn’t make it
right. Specifically, it is wrong to harm certain individuals in order to make
other people happy.

A Thought experiment: The Case of the Inhospitable Hospital

Suppose that Jack is in the hospital for routine tests, and there are people
there who need vital organs right away. A doctor has the opportunity to kill
Jack and make his death look natural. It would maximize happiness to cut
Jack up and give his heart to one patient, his liver to another, his kidneys to
still others, and so on. (We are supposing that the organs are good matches,
and the other patients will die if they don’t get them). Utilitarianism seems to
imply that the doctor should kill Jack for his organs. But that would be
morally wrong.

Page 6 of 32
Application

Evaluation: I Can Do It!

Watch the movie UNTHINKABLE 2010 or read the plot summary and answer the
following questions.
Guide Questions:
1. What is the movie all about?

2. If you were Brody, would you do the same strategy of persuading Yusef to reveal
the bomb’s location?

3. How does the philosophy of utilitarianism portrayed in this movie?

4. What have you learned from this movie that you will apply in your life?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed the activities and tasks in

Lesson 1. Should there be questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson,
kindly message your instructor.

Page 7 of 32
 If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to Lesson 2. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

LESSON 2

DEONTOLOGY

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
 explain Immanuel Kant’s Deontology and goodwill;
and
 decide which course of action is best through a case
analysis.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 2! This lesson introduces you to Immanuel Kant’s
Deontology and rational will. Knowing these theories can help you better understand
yourself and help you guide in your morality. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

Make at least 10 examples of right and wrong actions as a student. Put your examples
in the table provided.

Right actions Wrong actions

Example: Example:
As a student, I should not cheat. As a student, I should destroy the
school property.

Page 8 of 32
Application

Consider the questions below:

1. What is the main focus of Deontology?

2. For you, why good will is essential for morality?

Abstraction

“There is nothing in the world- indeed nothing even beyond it- can possibly
be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a
GOOD WILL.” -Immanuel Kant

Relative to most other philosophers,

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a late
bloomer, publishing his first significant work,
The Critique of Pure Reason, in 1781 at age
57. But this didn’t slow him down, as through
his 50s, 60s, and 70s, he published numerous
large and influential works in many areas of
philosophy, including ethics. He published
two large works on ethics, The Critique of
Practical Reason and The Metaphysics of
Morals, but it’s his first short work of ethics,
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Page 9 of 32
that is his most important because it provides a succinct and relatively readable
account of his ethics.

Basic Principles of Deontology

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to differentiate right from
wrong. Deontology is associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant. He believed
that ethical actions follow universal moral laws such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal.
Don’t cheat.”

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires people to follow the rules and
do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural feeling about what is
ethical and what is not.

Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology

doesn’t require weighing the costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity
and uncertainty because you only have to follow set of rules.

Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that
many people find unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and
learn that a nuclear missile is about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the
network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your professional code of ethics to
break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of lying and
cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile
launch, thousands of people will die.

So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means
disregarding the possible consequences of our actions when determining what is right
and what is wrong.

Deontological (Duty-Based) Ethics

1. The chief characteristic of deontological theories is: (moral) right (one's duty,
how one should act) is defined independently of (moral) good. Deontological
theories necessarily generate "categorical imperatives" (that is, duties independent
of any theory of good). Here, the emphasis on acts rather than on outcomes, as in
utilitarianism.

2. Chief problem for deontological theory: defining right without appeal to good.
Examples of how this problem might be solved:
a. Right is what God commands. (Divine Command Theory)
b. Right is what one’s society commands. (Moral Relativism)

3. Deontological theories are not necessarily:

a. rule-based (God might, for example, issue commands case by case);
b. universalist (one society may command what another society forbids); or
c. absolutist (God or society might, for example, lay down general rules allowing
exceptions).

Page 10 of 32
4. What's distinctive about Kant's deontology? Kant claims to derive morality
from reason - without appeal to any theory of the good. Morality limits what can
properly be done rather than commanding conduct. Morality is a "side constraint"
on conduct. (Compare utilitarianism's "demandingness".)
5. Kant's method offers at least three ways to test an act to see whether it is morally
permissible (all—supposedly—equivalent):
a. Universalizability: act only on those maxims one can will to be universal laws.
b. Human dignity: act only on those maxims consistent with treating each person
as an end, not merely as a means.
c. Moral legislation: act only on those maxims that all rational persons could
adopt as universal rules governing all.

6. Recent deontologists:
a. Marcus Singer, Generalization in Ethics (1961)
b. Alan Gewirth, Reason and Morality (1978). [out of favor in 1980s and 1990s]

Kantian Method

1. Identify your act (what you are actually proposing to do), for example, tell
someone something you believe to be false.

2. Identify the end you have in view (your motive, what is actually moving you to do
the act in question), for example, getting something without paying for it.

3. Consider whether (assuming the world otherwise remains as you believe it to be)
you could still achieve that end in the way you propose:
a. if everyone were permitted to act the same whenever they had the same end in
view (universalizability test);
b. if everyone knew you were permitted to act as you propose (disclosure or pre-
publicity test, derived from acknowledging the dignity of others, that is, their
status as agents with ends of their own); or
c. if your doing so required every rational person to approve a general rule
permitting actions of that kind (moral legislation test).

4. Reject the act if you find it would fail any of the three tests above. (You may do
any act passing all three tests.)

The Good Will: The Heart of Kantian Ethics

For Kant, just doing the right thing is NOT sufficient for making an action
have full moral worth. It is also necessary to act with good will, which means
something like the inclination to do good or what is also known as a good character.
He believes that a good will is essential for morality. This is reasonably known
because it seems that if an otherwise good action is done with bad or selfish
intentions, that can rob the action of its moral goodness. If we imagine a man who
goes to work at a soup kitchen to help out the poor, that seems like a good action. But
Page 11 of 32
if he’s going there just to impress someone who works there, then that’s less virtuous.
And if he’s going there to embezzle money from the charity, the action would be
morally wrong.

Application

Case Analysis

Instruction: BRIEFLY AND CONCISELY discuss your points in the cases below.
Maximum of five (5) sentences only.

Case No. 1: The Fetus: No Right?

Some people would say that the fetus does not have any right because of the
absence of autonomy and rationality. Do think this is correct following Kant’s
ethical philosophy? Defend your answer.

Case No. 2: Truth or Consequence?

Suppose a woman relative is fleeing from her abusive husband and comes to your
house begging for help. Since she is your relative and you know how muck she
has suffered from the brutality of her husband, you allow her to take refuge in
your home. Then the husband comes knocking at your door and asks if her wife
is in the house. What are you going to do? Should you lie or tell the truth? What
do you think Kant would say on this?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed the activities and tasks in

Lesson 2. Should there be questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson,
kindly message your instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to move
on to Lesson 3. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

Page 12 of 32
LESSON 3
JUSTICE
Objectives
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
 explain justice; and

 explain John Stuart Mill’s Theory on Justice.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 3! This lesson introduces you on the principle of justice.
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to explain on justice and solve on issues
concerning justice. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

1. What have you observed in the photo above?

Page 13 of 32
2. What comes on your mind when you hear the word, “justice”?

Analysis

Consider the questions below:

1. When can you say that an action is just and unjust? Cite personal experiences.

2. What is the connection of rightness and wrongness of action to pleasure and pain?
Cite personal experiences.

Abstraction

John Stuart Mill

The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill

(1806-1873) is most extensively articulated in
his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal
is to justify the utilitarian principle as the
foundation of morals. This principle says
Page 14 of 32
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness. So,
Mill focuses on consequences of actions and not on rights nor ethical sentiments.

Defining Justice
The word ‘justice’ has sometimes been used in a general way that makes it
virtually indistinguishable from rightness. Aristotle distinguished between ‘universal’
justice that corresponded to ‘virtue as a whole’ and ‘particular’ justice which had a
narrower scope (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, chs. 1–2).

Aristotle also noted that when justice was identified with ‘complete virtue’,
this was always ‘in relation to another person’. In other words, if justice is to be
identified with morality as such, it must be morality in the sense of ‘what we owe to
each other’ (Scanlon, 1998). Justice is often contrasted with charity and mercy on the
other.

The Scope of Justice

The scope of justice asks the questions, “when principles of justice take effect
and among whom?”

According to Hume, there might be circumstances in which justice becomes

irrelevant. There are circumstances in which resources are so abundant that it is
pointless to allocate individual shares. He also believed, in which resources are so
scarce that everyone is permitted to grab what he can in the name of self-preservation.
Who can make claims of justice, and who might have the corresponding obligation to
meet them? Does this depend on the kind of thing that is being claimed? If
comparative principles are being applied, who should be counted as part of the
comparison group? Do some principles of justice have universal scope – they apply
whenever agent A acts towards recipient B, regardless of the relationship between
them – while others are contextual in character, applying only within social or
political relationships of a certain kind? The present section examines some of these
questions in greater detail.

Principle of Utility
This states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote
happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hedonist
believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or
happiness. The feelings of pleasure and pain are biological events involving our
central nervous system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously
experience pleasure when we perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions such
as eating, drinking, and having sex. We also experience pleasure when we perform
certain intellectual activities, such as reading a philosophy textbook, playing guitar, or
drawing a picture. We sometimes, but not always, experience pleasure when we do
the right thing. Conversely, we experience pain when these functions are left
unfulfilled.

Page 15 of 32
The Connection between Justice and Utility
Mill says that throughout history, one of the biggest barriers to the acceptance
of utility has been that it does not allow for a theory of justice. Mill determines
whether the justice or injustice of an action is something intrinsic and distinct from
questions of utility. In examining this, it is necessary to determine whether a sense of
justice exists in itself, or is derivative and formed by a combination of other feelings;
is this sense explicable by our emotional make-up, or is it a "special provision of
nature"?

Mill begins by trying to pin down the meaning of justice, by coming up with a
list of those things that are commonly classified as just or unjust. First, it is
considered unjust to deprive someone of his legal rights. However, this concept has
exceptions. For example, a person may have legal rights he should not have--his
rights may be the provision of a bad law. While people vary on whether bad laws can
be justly disobeyed, all people agree that laws can be unjust. Therefore, law cannot be
the ultimate standard of justice. A second form of injustice comes from depriving
someone of something he has a moral right to possess. Third, it is considered just that
a person receives what he "deserves," and unjust that he obtains something he doesn't
deserve; people are thought to deserve good things if they have done right, and evil
things if they have done wrong. A fourth form of injustice is to violate an agreement
with someone or disappoint expectations that one knowingly nurtured. Fifth, it is
considered unjust to show favoritism and preference in inappropriate circumstances.
However, it is not generally necessary to be impartial; for example, one doesn't have
to be impartial in the selection of friends. The claim is rather that a person should only
be influenced by those considerations that should apply in a given circumstance.
Finally, the idea of equality is seen by many to be a component of justice; some
people may make an exception for the sake of expediency, however.

Page 16 of 32
Application

1. Suppose you are driving through a narrow tunnel and a worker falls onto the road
in front of you. There is not enough time for you to stop. If you keep going
straight,
you will hit the worker and kill him, but if you swerve left into oncoming traffic,
you will collide with a school bus and kill at least five children. What’s the right
thing to do?

2. Suppose you have to choose between rehabilitation of Manila Bay and building a
new hospital in treating COVID-19. What should you choose? Why?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed Lesson 3. Should there be

questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly message your
instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to
move on to the Lesson 4. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

Page 17 of 32
LESSON 4

NATURAL LAW

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
 explain the concepts of Natural Law; and
 distinguish the Orders of Law introduced by St.
Thomas Aquinas.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 4! This lesson introduces you to the Natural Law coined by
St. Thomas Aquinas. In this lesson, you will get to know the orders of laws and how
these connect to you and to God. You will also be able to know and understand why is
there a need to have a law. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

“To one who has faith, no

explanation is necessary. To one
without faith, no explanation is
possible.”

What does this quote mean to you?

Page 18 of 32
Analysis

Consider the questions below:

1. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, what is man’s goal that would adore God?

2. How do holy scriptures like the Bible, Quran, Torah, and others concern man in
his relationship with God?

3. Why is there a need to have law according to St. Thomas Aquinas?

Abstraction

St. Thomas Aquinas

In the 13th Century, Aristotle's works were 'rediscovered' in the West and
translated into Latin. These translations of 'The Philosopher' (as Aquinas called him)
became an integral part of some of Aquinas' most important writings.

Page 19 of 32
 "The ultimate beatitude of man consists in the
use of his highest function, which is the
operation of his intellect...Hence...the blessed
see the essence of God."
(Summa Theologica)

 Reconstructed the classical natural law theory

 Borrowed the Aristotle’s telos (goal) and replaced it with another telos.
 “…man has goals in life to pursue.”
 The central idea is that the grace of God was held not to conflict with or
abolish man’s nature, but to perfect it.
 Modified Aristotle’s teleological perspective so that man’s end was not
only to live socially and seek knowledge, but to live in a Christian
community in which one would come to know, and presumable adore,
God.
 Suggested that man’s goal is not solely to lead a social life, political life,
and to seek knowledge, but also to live in a Christian community, in
which one would adore God.
 Said that human beings were endowed with reasons in order to
participate in the moral enterprise designed by God.

Orders of Law Identified by St. Thomas Aquinas

1. Eternal Law. The whole universe is governed by divine providence or divine
reason, which is the ultimate order imposed by the Creator.
All around us, it is about the world / universe being created by God. It is the
Law of God for man. Eternal law is written law by God.
Example: Does the sea one day decide to cross the shore? Never!
Page 20 of 32
 Does the leaves one day stop producing oxygen? Never!

2. Natural Law. Humans are special creatures (with moral values) and have a
special relationship with God as they are able to participate in the divine
wisdom as they are gifted with reason (man uses reasoning).
Natural Law: We judge what is good and bad. It is about feeling.
Natural Law can be universally understood through human reasons.
Human being must differentiate what right and wrong, and then took a
decision.
Natural Law means moral law. Any law that is good is moral. Any moral law
is good. It is inherent in human nature that is ethically binding law such as
killing someone is wrong.

3. Divine Law. It is the law that is properly revealed by God to man. Such law
emanates from the supreme law. They are contained in the Bible, Quran, and
other holy scriptures.
The best example of Divine Law is the Ten Commandments.
Divine Law most directly concerns man in his relationship with God and
achieving paradise (heaven). It lays down how man is to act in relation to God.

4. Human Law. It is a set of law that enables man to make a deduction from the
general precepts of natural law in order to conveniently deal with particular
matter.
For example, it is a natural law precept that crimes must be punished with a
severity that corresponds with the seriousness of a crime, but it is necessary to
specify the actual punishment that, shall we say, a thief will receive under a
particular legal system, and the use of reason to provide a punishment of, shall
we say, two years is the use of reason called ‘human law’.
This might also be called ‘positive’ law, as it is the actual law posited by legal
institutions.
Human Law means a law regulating the behavior of man for man.

The Need to have Law according to Aquinas

According to Aquinas, people are sometimes virtuous and sometimes be in
certain moods of their lives. To him, people are always in a particular mood of life.
The same people we meet later, have a different way of thinking. The code of conduct
must be fixed and disciple.
However, he stressed out that the Human Law cannot be a counsel of
perfection. Aquinas says that Human law can be a counsel of sanction.

According to Aquinas, a law only obliges in conscience. He did not say “do
not follow the law” but he rather says, “the law may be immoral/cruel on one side,
but finally this will disrupt the whole legal system if not following the human law. The
law might be cruel or immoral but one must follow the law.” Hence, we need natural
law together with human law in order for a legal system to work well in a society.

Page 21 of 32
 He says, that the mere fact that a law is unjust, does not provide someone with
an absolute license to disobey and challenge it.
Aquinas invites us to look at it from a more general point of view as a project
of law in which disobedience might create an enthusiasm amongst people to disobey
and escape the grip of the law for their own selfish motives.

Application

ESSAY: Briefly and concisely explain the following:

1. Distinguish the types of laws identified by St. Thomas Aquinas.

2. If law serves the common good, does that mean that the good of some individuals
can be sacrificed for the good of others?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed Lesson 4. Should there be

questions and clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly message your
instructor.

If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to
move on to Lesson 5. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.
Page 22 of 32
LESSON 5

THE GOLDEN RULE

Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:
 define and explain the concepts of Golden Rule;
 distinguish the relatives of Golden Rule;
 scrutinize the backbone of philosophy behind the
Golden Rule; and
 reflect one’s life in relation to Golden Rule.

Introduction
Welcome to Lesson 5! This lesson introduces you to the Golden Rule. In this
lesson, you are expected to distinguish the Golden Rule introduced by Confucius and
Jesus Christ. Enjoy this lesson and keep learning!

Reflect Yourself!

In the box provided, list down five reasons why you need to do good to others
and list down five reasons why you should not do bad to others.
Reasons I need to do good… Reasons I should not do
bad…

Page 23 of 32
Analysis

Consider the questions below:

1. What is the importance of Golden Rule?

2. Differentiate the Golden Rule introduced by Confucius and Jesus Christ. Cite a
personal example.

Abstraction

Defining Golden Rule

“What you do not wish for yourself, “Do to others whatever you would like them
Page 24 of 32
do not do to others” - Confucius to do to you.” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:12,
NLT)

The Golden Rule guides people to choose for others what they would choose
for themselves. The Golden Rule is often described as ‘putting yourself in someone
else's shoes.’ (Baumrin 2004). The viewpoint held in the Golden Rule is noted in all
the major world religions and cultures, suggesting that this may be an important moral
truth (Cunningham 1998). The Golden Rule underlies acts of kindness, caring, and
altruism that go above and beyond “business as usual” or “usual care” (Huang,
2005).

Types and Relatives of the Golden Rule

1. The Silver Rule - “Do not do unto others as you would not want done to
you.”
2. The Platinum Rule - “Treat others the way they want to be treated.”
3. The Rule of Love – “Love others as you do yourself (or better).”
4. Role-Taking – “Put yourself in other’s shoes in order to know how to treat
them ethically.”
5. Empathy – “Feel and care about the suffering of others.”
6. Kant’s Categorical Imperative
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will
that it should become a universal law.” In other words, “Only follow ethical
rules that you think should be universal.” Philosophers consider Kant’s
Imperative more philosophically air-tight than the golden rule. Some present
it as supporting the golden rule while others would claim the opposite.
7. The Actual Biblical Passage - "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the
prophets." - Matthew 7:12
Conservative Christians taught the deep meaning of the passage is not how the
majority in society look it as a sugar-coated golden rule.

A. Expounding the Rule: (Philosophical Perspective)

The Golden Rule is a moral principle which denotes that you should treat
others the same way you would like to be treated yourself. For example, the Golden
Rule suggests that if you would like people to treat you with respect, then you should
make sure to treat them with respect too.
The Golden Rule is an important philosophical principle, which has been
formulated in various ways by many different groups throughout history, and which
can be used to guide your actions in a variety of situations. As such, in the following

Page 25 of 32
article you will learn more about the golden rule, see how it can be refined, and
understand how you can implement it in practice.

Main Forms of the Golden Rule

The golden rule can be formulated in three main ways:
1. Positive/Directive. This states that you should treat others the same way you
would want to be treated yourself. This suggests, for example, that if you want
people to treat you with respect, then you should treat them with respect. This
abides the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ.
2. Negative/Prohibitive. It states that you should not treat others in ways you
would not want to be treated yourself. This suggests, for example, that if you
don’t want people to say mean things to you, then you shouldn’t say mean
things to them. This abides the Golden Rule of Confucius.
3. Empathic/Responsive. This states that when you wish something upon
others, you also wish it upon yourself. This suggests, for example, that if wish
ill toward someone else, then you are also wishing ill toward yourself.

B. Expounding the Rule (Biblical and Doctrinal Perspective)

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this
sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
Jesus’s Golden Rule cannot be domesticated and downsized to the equivalent
of an insurance aphorism or a fortune-cookie slogan. That’s not to say that many
haven’t tried. Here’s how the Golden Rule is usually quoted: “Whatever you wish
others would do for you, do also for them.”
But that’s not what Jesus said. That version removes God entirely from the
picture, making Jesus’s teaching a godless rule for good people. The real Golden Rule
goes deeper and stretches higher. It’s a God-centered rule for grace-filled people.
Jesus’s actual teaching requires greater effort, provides deeper motivation, and is
intended specifically for Jesus’s followers (see Matthew 5:1–2).

Is God in the Golden Rule?

Here’s what Jesus actually said: “So whatever you wish that others would
do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” - Matthew 7:12

God bookends the Golden Rule. He is the first word (“so”) and the final word
(“for this is the Law and the Prophets”). The word so indicates that Jesus’s teaching is
his conclusion from what he’s said previously. The entire Sermon on the Mount might
be in view. But it may be that Jesus is thinking more specifically of what he has just
Page 26 of 32
said, in Matthew 7:7–11. There he tells his followers that God is their loving Father
and always gives good things to those who ask. Therefore, because God is so
generous to us, we’re to be lavishly generous to others. The Golden Rule is glorious
overflow.
Jesus’s second reason for living out his command is this: “for this is the Law
and the Prophets.” In other words, obey it, because God himself said it — and always
has. The Golden Rule sums up and fulfills God’s commands found throughout the Old
Testament (most pointedly in Leviticus 19:18).

Greatness of the Golden Rule

Many world religions have taught a negative version of the Golden Rule,
saying essentially, “Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.” The
problem with that kind of teaching is that it can be obeyed by simply doing nothing.
Jesus’s command is much more demanding. It requires action, creativity, and ongoing
love toward the people in our lives.

Three Things Jesus Didn’t Say

To see the demand and delight of Jesus’s teaching, consider three things he does
not say.
1. Jesus does not say, “Whatever others have done for you, do also for them.”
He doesn’t limit our good deeds that way. The measure of our service to
others is not their actual service to us, but what we’d like that service to be.
“Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” There’s an
invitation, limited only by our own desire and imagination. One of the
distinctive marks of Jesus’s followers is that they regularly go above and
beyond what others expect.

2. Jesus does not say, “If there are a few things you wish others would do to
you, do these also to them.” He doesn’t limit our good deeds that way.
Instead, he says, “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to
them.” The word “whatever” (literally, “everything whatsoever”) is very
broad. It may include cutting a neighbor’s grass when he’s out of town, having
a lonely friend over for dinner, writing a note to express appreciation, and so
much more. The upper limit is our desire and imagination.

3. Jesus does not say, “Whatever you wish your best friends, and fellow
Christians, and people who like you would do to you, do also to them.” He
doesn’t limit our good deeds that way. He says, “Whatever you wish that
others would do to you, do also to them.” Others encompasses anyone in our
lives. It includes the grumpy neighbor, the kid in your class no one likes, the
spouse or child you’re struggling to understand, even the people who don’t
love you back.

Page 27 of 32
Application

Instruction: Explain your answers by writing EXACLTLY 5

sentences only for each question.

“Lee Fong showed respect to his co-employees because he wants to

be respected as well.”
1. Using the philosophical view of Golden Rule, why is the scenario above
considered as morally good?

2. Using the Biblical-Doctrinal view of Golden Rule, why is the scenario above not
morally good?

Congratulations! You have successfully completed the activities and tasks for
Lesson 5. This is the final Lesson in Module 2. Should there be questions and
clarifications in some part of the lesson, kindly message your instructor.

Page 28 of 32
 If you do not have any questions or clarifications, you are now prepared to
move on to Module 3. Enjoy and keep working! GOD Bless.

MODULE ASSESSMENT:
Test Yourself!
PART 1. Multiple Choice: Encircle the letter of the correct answer.
1. The theory that states the production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness
should be the standard by which actions are judged.
a. Utility c. Golden Rule
b. Natural Law d. Utilitarianism

2. Who introduced Utilitarianism?

a. John Stuart Mill c. Thomas Aquinas
b. Jeremy Bentham d. Both A and B

3. It refers to the view that the goodness and badness of consequences depends
entirely on facts about well-being.
a. Consequentialism c. Individualism
b. Welfarism d. Aggregation

4. Which philosopher introduced the principle of Deontology?

a. Confucius c. Immanuel Kant
b. Jeremy Bentham d. Thomas Aquinas

5. The problem on action that can be corrected using the command of society.
a. Divine Command Theory c. Cultural Relativism
b. Moral Relativism d. Ethnocentrism

6. He introduced the Natural Law Theory

a. Thomas Aquinas c. Jeremy Bentham
b. Jesus Christ d. Immanuel Kant

7. The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Thomas Aquinas in all his
works is centered in which faith?
a. Buddhist c. Catholic
Islam d. Christian

8. Which law is covered contained in the Holy Scriptures?

a. Eternal Law c. Divine Law
Page 29 of 32
 b. Natural Law d. Human Law

9. We judge what is good and bad. It is about feeling. This is identified in which
law?
a. Eternal Law c. Divine Law
b. Natural Law d. Human Law

10. He said, “If what you do not want for yourself, you should not do to others.”
a. Kung Fu Tzu c. Aesop
b. Jesus Christ d. Thomas Aquinas

PART II. True or False: Write True if the statement is correct and write False if the
statement is incorrect. Write your answer after each
statement.
1. In the principle of utilitarianism, happiness means the absence of pain.

2. Aggregation refers to the view that the rightness and wrongness of acts depends
entirely on facts about the consequences of acts.

3. In the principle of Moral Relativism, right is what God commands.

4. John Stuart Mill believes that a good will is essential for morality.

5. There are circumstances in which justice becomes irrelevant.

6. Immanuel Kant determines whether the justice or injustice of an action is

something intrinsic and distinct from questions of utility.

7. Summa Theologica was introduced by Thomas Aquinas.

8. The Greek work telos means purpose or aim.

9. Jesus Christ said, “Do not do to others what you don’t want others do unto you.”

10. The Golden Rule is introduced by Confucius only.

MODULE SUMMARY

 Utilitarianism was introduced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

 Utilitarianism refers to the production of happiness and reduction of

unhappiness should be the standard by which actions are judged.

 In the principle of utility, actions or behaviors are right in so far as they

promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or
pain.
Page 30 of 32
  The defining characteristics of Utilitarianism are: (a) consequentialist, (b)
welfarism, (c) individualism, (d) aggregation, and (e) maximation.

 Deontology is associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant.

 The principle of justice was introduced by John Stuart Mill.

 Natural Law was introduced by St. Thomas Aquinas.

 The orders of law identified by St. Thomas Aquinas are: (a) eternal, (b)
natural, (c) divine, and (d) human.

 The Golden Rule guides people to choose for others what they would choose
for themselves.

 The Golden Rule is associated with Confucius (negative) and Jesus Christ
(positive).

REFERENCES

California State University, Sacramento (2020). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/utilitarianism%20notes.htm

Illinois Institute of Technology (2017). Deontological ethics. Retrieved from

http://ethics.iit.edu/teaching/deontological

Johnson, R. (2016). Kant’s moral philosophy. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#GooWilMorWorDut

Kranak, J. (2017). Kantian deontology. Retrieved from

https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology/

McCombs School of Business – The University of Austin (2020). Deontology.

Retrieved from https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology

Miller, D. (2017). Justice. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/

Rohlf, M. (2020). Immanuel Kant. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

Sparknotes. (2020). Chapter 5: Of the connection between justice and utility (part 1).
Retrieved from
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/section6/#:~:text=Mill
%20argues%20that%20justice%20can,between%20perfect%20and
%20imperfect%20obligations.&text=In%20cases%20of%20justice%2C
%20the,moral%20right%20to%20seek%20restitution.

Page 31 of 32
White, R. F. (2017). The principle of utility. Retrieved from
http://faculty.msj.edu/whiter/UTILITY.htm#:~:text=The%20principle%20of
%20utility%20states,utility%20is%20a%20teleological
%20principle.&text=Many%20utilitarians%20believe%20that%20pleasure,
%2C%20more%20or%20less%2C%20quantified.

Page 32 of 32