MODULE 4

FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND OUR MORAL DISPOSITION

FRAMEWORKS

In this module the following question will address:

1.What are the overarching frameworks that dictate the way we make our individual moral
decisions?
2.What is my framework in making my decisions?

Framing our Prior Understanding

Activity:
1. Students are asked to watch the movie “ Second Hand Lion”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0gHibeHfdA
2. Group the class into three
3. Ask them to share their insight about the movie
4. After, each group will prepare their “ Big Question about ethics and morality”

The Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

The philosophical inquiry into ethics began with ancient Greeks. Although the main
preoccupation of the ancient philosopher during that time was about trying to find an answer as
regards the question “where did everything come from” the sophist tried to focus their inquiry
into a man as a human person and as thinking being. From the question on whether the human
person is capable of attaining knowledge or not, philosophers started to inquire about the
function of man as a human person, which led to determining of one’s social responsibility and
the goodness of his social practices. To this, philosopher like; Herodotus (485-430 BCE).
Claimed that what is good is relative to a specific culture. This inspired Protagoras (480-410
BCE) to say that “man is the measure of all things.” This idea led to the question as regards
whether there is really a universal moral principle that will serve as the basis for doing good
deeds. This led to development of the ethical relativism.
Although Socrates(470-399 BCE) was considered to be a relativist, it was proven in the
writings of Plato(427-348) that Socrates believed in the objective ethical standards while
nothing how difficult it was for person to identify what is really the objective ethical standards
that one should uphold(Gensler, et al. eds., 26). Socrates pointed out that the ethical standards
could not be the pleasure and pain but the good and evil. A person who is taking pleasure from
being unjust could not be considered a good person. A good deed is obtained when one is
doing justice to others, justice, for Socrates, is when there is a proper balance between the
rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of every person’s soul. A person will become happy
when he has a well ordered soul. A person who has a well ordered soul is the one who is doing
good deeds for the others. But to be able to do good deeds, one must live an ascetic and
intellectually rigorous way of life.
In order for the human person to live a good life, he must able to realize his function,
Every human person has a function to fulfill. Injustices occur when the human person does not
recognize his own function and instead does the function of others which leads to conflict. Just
as there are the three orders of the soul (Vegetative, sensitive, and rational), so does the
community have the three levels. In Plato’s Republic, he held that society is divided into three
levels (the peasant, the military, and the philosopher-king). Each of these levels has particular
roles to play. Injustice arise when the peasants, for instance, would function as a philosopher-
king. An ethical action happens when the human person performs his function in a society.
These ethical beliefs of Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who was then considered as the most
intelligent student of Plato.

The Philosophy of Aristotle

Aristotle was deeply influenced by Plato but was suspicious of other worldly elements in
his teacher’s thinking, and in particular, the view that knowledge of the world cannot be
accessed via the senses. Aristotle saw dangers in Plato’s rationalistic idealism. After Plato’s
effort to give discussion on the concept of change. Aristotle took his turn in facing the problem
of changing and changeless. According to Aristotle, a thing would undergo change only insofar
as the nature of such things permits it to be such i.e.., there must be a principle within such a
thing to allow for the change. Although the principle varies according to the kind of change
involved, in general, they can be referred to as the principle of actuality, and the principle
of potentiality
(Hakim, 79) or simply act and potency. The act is the perfection of a being while the
potency is the capacity of s being to attain another perfection. In physical thing, Aristotle calls
this principle form, which signifies the act: and matter is called the hylomorphic doctrine.
For Aristotle, a matter has its actuality in a being precise because it is determined by form, as
the actualizing principle, to be this particular individual. Because of this idea, Aristotle is
sometimes called the Father of science because he was the first Western thinker of record to
provide an adequate analysis of a process of change based on the claim that form is
inseparable from matter.

The Human Person for Aristotle

In applying to a human person. Aristotle went away from the concept of Plato.
According to Aristotle, a human being is composed of a body and soul. But unlike Plato,
Aristotle believed that the soul are not separate entities in a human person. Rather, they are
correlative constituents of one being. A human being neither body alone nor soul alone, but a
single substance composed of both the body and soul. According to Aristotle, the soul forms the
entelechy, the definite form of the body (Stumpf&Fieser, 91). Without the body, the soul will
not be called human person. Consequently, without the soul, the body will not be called human
person as well. Aristotle considered the body and the soul to be forming one substance.
For Plato, the soul and body are two separate entities. Hence, Plato could speak of the
pre-existence of the soul and the immortality of the individual soul. Aristotle, however, tied the
soul and the body so closely together that, according to him, with the death of the body, the
soul will also die with it. Inasmuch as Plato believed that the soul has pre-existence, he could
describe learning as a process of recollection. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that the
human mind is a tabula rasa or a blank slate. It has been mentioned earlier that Aristotle
believed that man is composite of body and soul and such composition would be in such a way
that the body and soul could not be separated from one another if a man would continue to be
a human person. The soul is that part of the composite that animates and commands; while the
body is that part that is subordinate, as pencil is to the poet or the slave to the master.
Aristotle, held that the soul has two parts: the rational and the irrational. The
irrational soul, which is closely united with the body, is divided into the vegetative part,
which is manifested by the activities of nutrition, growth and reproduction: and the desiring
part, which further subdivided into three progressive levels the epithumia, the unruly and
irrational sense desires and covetousness, thumos, which is the spontaneous impulses, and
the boulesis, which is the wishes and desires( Reyes).
The rational soul, which is completely independent of the body, is further subdivided
into the fronesic (phronesis), or the to praktikon dianoetkon), otherwise known as the practical
intellect, which is ordained towards action that determines the appropriate means in order to
attain the end. Phronesis aims to control the desiring the part of the irrational soul. The other
division of the rational soul is the theoretike dianoia, or the speculative intellect, which is
pure thought or intellect, the level of contemplation (Reyes). Although man is composed of
body and soul , he however, possesses very distinguishing attribute – reason. Reason elevates
man above any other creatures. It is that which makes man resemble the Supreme Reason,
which rules and guides the destinies of individuals and nations that leads all things to their
proper ends. The speculative intellect is that part of the rational soul that is closely
connected with reason. Through contemplation, man will be able to realize that all things are
leading to their proper ends. It was in this regard that his philosophy is defined as
teleological, from the word telos, which means “ end” or purpose” ( Stumpf & Fieser, 92).
Every action of human person is aiming towards an end. There are two types of ends,
according to Aristotle: the instrumental and the intrinsic end. The instrumental ends is that
which is done as means for others ends, while the intrinsic end is that which is done for the
sake.
A human person has distinctive mode of activity, which is based on nature. The end of the
human person is not merely to exist because that will him be of no difference from the plants
and the animals. The function of the human person is an activity of the human soul that implies
a rational principle. In this sense, an action can only be considered good if the action, which is
actually of the soul, is done in accordance with the rational principle. Such action can be
considered a virtuous act. In this regard, the end or function of the human person must have
something to do with his /her specific activity of a reason brought to its fullest extent, namely,
the total virtues within the framework of the communal life of the Polis and the Act of
Contemplation.

Aristotelian Ethics

The great contribution of Aristotle to the practical science was made known by his
writing on moral philosophy and political theory. There are three different versions of Aristotle’s
moral philosophy. It was said that the two of them Eudemian and Nicomachean ethics
where his notes for lecturing, and the third ( Magna Moralia) was probably the notes of his
lecture made by one of his students. The Eudemian ethics have never been studied by more
than a handful of scholars. The Nicomachean ethics, since the beginning of the Christian era,
was considered as the Ethics of Aristotle. According to Aristotle is not only a science or an
episteme i..e, knowledge that deals with the absolute and eternal truths. Rather, ethics must be
considered as teche arts, i..e, an art which is actually an art of living well (Reyes, 36). Aristotle
regarded ethics as a dialectic method, a comparative opinions regarding the good and bad, ad
arriving at set of prudential directives of limited generality .Ethics is considered, in this regard
as a practical science it concerns the nature and purpose of human life ( Kenny 2004, 68-69).
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle focused on the purpose of human life ( Kolak 1997,
123). His Teleogical views is that each and everything that exist in the world exists for some
purpose. Every human person is naturally seeking towards the attainment of happiness. The
nature and purpose of human action tend towards happiness, which Aristotle termed as
eudemonia (Soccio, 185). Eudaimonia implies that a person is really alive rather than just
merely existing. In other words, the human person is fully aware, vital, and alert. This is more
than being free of cares or worries. It implies a full life, not pinched, restricted one. Happiness,
according to Aristotle, must be connected with pleasure, inasmuch as pleasure is connected
with the irrational part of the soul. A life devoted solely to pleasure is a life that is fit only for a
cattle. Pleasure is not the goal of life; nor is the acquisition of wealth. Aristotle rejected the
fame and public success. He believed that these would not led him to eudaimonia (the highest
of fullest happiness) because, according to him, the more self-sufficient we are, the happier we
will be; and the famous are less self-sufficient than most because they need body guards,
managers, financial adviser, etc. An ordinary man has a greater peace of mind, security, and
satisfaction in knowing that he can provide for his own needs than there is in depending on
others.
The highest and fullest happiness according to Aristotle, comes from a life of reason and
contemplation-not a life of inactivity or imbalance but rationally ordered life in which
intellectual, physical, and social needs are all met under the governance of reason and
moderation (Soccio, 186). According to Aristotle, a reasonable person does not avoid life,
rather, he engages in it fully. From the objective point of view a morally virtuous act consist, of
a measured activity, following the rule of the mesotes, or just middle, i..e, “ neither deficient
nor excessive” According to Aristotle, any action that is done or indulge excessively or
insufficiently would go out of bounds would become unreasonable and improper to the nature
of the human being( Reyes, 38). Therefore, over-activity and complete inactivity are ruled out
by reason as reprehensible, and even injurious to the human person’s well- being. For,
instance, over eating is not good because it results in indigestion. However, eating too little or
not eating at all injures the health. Therefore, people should avoid the two extremes i.. e., too
much and too little. Instead, every person should act according to mesotes.
Furthermore, a virtuous act is that which proceeds for the right intention. This
means that the action is desired solely for its own sake. In this regard, a moral virtue is a
rationally measured activity following the rule of the just middle, motivated by right
intention and proceeding from a permanent disposition acquired through habitual action.
However, the definition here of virtuous act is not yet complete since we will still be left with
question like: where can we find the norm of mesotes? What is the norm for right intention?
More so, in doing a particular action, what kind of disposition will be needed in order to perform
such activity?

An Action that Proceeds from Contemplation

 In order for the human person to sure that his action is done in permanent disposition,
such action should be done in the act of contemplation. Performing such activity is said to be
related to moral virtues. This is because whenever an action is performed based on
contemplation, such action is said to becoming from phronesis or the practical wisdom,
which provides the insight to the truth about the intrinsic worth and excellence and beauty or
goodness or the kalon of the action. As an action the phronesis is the practical intellect that
properly decides to act. It takes the appropriate means in the situation in view of the intended
goal and takes command of one’s desire and passion. In this case, practical wisdom is the
proper activity and virtue of the practical intellect by which the human person, as the source of
action, is the union of. In applying the phronesis, Aristotle, like Plato, viewed the communal
life of the polis as the proper place for the exercise of the moral virtue. In fact, it is the very
life of moral virtues and thus, the polis constitutes one of the ends of the human person. In
which case, Aristotle view on life can be liked to the view of Confucius that life is a blessing
because it is an opportunity to be with the community where happiness really bounds.
Accoridng to Aristotle, the main problem of morality is seen to be how to discipline the
lower desires and passions and how to educate and cultivate the intellect part of the soul in
order to attain man’s fulfilment. Aristotle concept of the good differs from that of Plato’s. For
Plato good, signifies a transcendent, otherworldly end of man. However, for Aristotle, the
moral end is seen as something immanent in human activity and achievable in this life.
Goodness can be obtained when one performs his function in the community. Such action must
be rooted from contemplation and must proceed from the habitual action. When a human
person performs his function, which Aristotle called ergon in a habitual fashion, he must be
able to do such function in consideration of what will be the arête which pertains to excellence.
In order to get the assurance that the action of the human person is good, such action
must originate from contemplation. A person must be able to have a good idea and such idea
must be transformed into action. A person who is performing his action according to his
function ergon, in the most excellent way arête and in habitual fashion is acting as a human
person. If he does his action habitually, such habit will eventually make up his character and
such character will determine his destiny. Aristotle claimed that it is important to establish one’s
character based on his good deeds inasmuch as such character will establish the value of the
human person as a human person.

The Ethics of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born on April 22, 1724, in the small Prussian town of Konigsberg in
northeast Germany. He was the fourth child of 9 children of very religious parents. Although
Kant retained a high regard for religion and had a deep moral sense, he rejected the puritanical
pietism that prevailed in his family. Kant lived an unexciting life. Unlike his predecessors, who
usually maintained a very high travelling spirit, Kant never got beyond 30 miles of his native
town( Hakim, 439).
His education began at the local Collegium Fredericianum. In 1740, he entered the
University of Konigsberg where he studied classics, physics, and philosophy. It was said that he
was extremely studious and competent. However, in terms of thought and views, he showed no
particular flair or originality; certainly, his teacher had no idea that he would one day be
regarded as one of the most important thinkers in modern times.
Kant lived during the Age of Enlightenment, when a Western man, flashed with the
success of modern experimental science and Newton’s physics, felt confident of himself and of
his reason. It was a time for Rationalist, who held that man has access to knowledge by sheer
a priori reason, independent of experience. It was also a time for the Empiricists, who held,
on the other hand, that all knowledge stems from sense experience, and that except for logic
and mathematics, only statements based on experience are considered valid.

Kant’s Epistemology as Foundation of Ethics

Kant disagree with the philosophy of both rationalism and empiricist. Instead of taking
sides between the two, he affirmed that human person possesses a faculty that is capable of
giving knowledge without a appeal to experience. He agreed with David Hume that all our
knowledge is derived from experience. However, he disagrees with Hume on the belief that we
cannot have knowledge of any reality beyond our experience (Stumpf&Fieser, 283). Although
our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow, however, that all our knowledge
arises out of the experience. This is because we have knowledge about causality that we get
this knowledge not from sense experience but directly from the faculty of rational judgement,
and therefore, a priori.
Kant made a distinction between two kinds of judgments, the analytic and the
synthetic. Kant held that judgement is an operation of thought whereby we connect a subject
and a predicate, where the predicate qualities in some way the subject (Hakim, 449). According
to Kant, analytic judgment is that wherein the predicate is already contained in our
understanding of the subject. For instance, in the analysis of the proposition “man is a thinking
being,” we can employ an analytic judgement to determine its validity inasmuch as the
predicate “thinking being” is already implied in our understanding of the subject “man.” At the
same time, the subject “man” is already contained in our understanding of the predicate
“thinking being” in this case, this judgement is considered a priori, because it is only through
the use of reason that we can analyse its validity. Consequently, synthetic judgement is that
wherein the predicate is not contained in our understanding of the subject and the subject is
not also contained in our understanding of the predicate. For instance, in the proposition “a
banana is sweet. The subject “banana” cannot always include sweetness inasmuch as not all
banana are sweet. At the same time the predicate “sweet” does not always imply that it is
pertaining to a banana. Hence, in order to validate the proposition “a banana is sweet,” we can
only apply a synthetic judgement, i.e., a posterior judgment because we can only know that a
banana is sweet by tasting it.
With Hume, Kant agreed that our knowledge begins with experience. But unlike Hume,
Kant sees the mind as an active agent doing something with the object it experiences. The
mind, says Kant, is designate in such a way that it will impose its way of knowing the object.
Kant’s main contention is that a human person, as thinking being, as the unity of
consciousness, as the I-think, is not so much as one is subjected to some object as he who
constitutes the subjective conditions that make possible the object of experience. For Kant the
subject is one that legislates, sets the rules and boundaries, for the emergence of the object .
This is what known as Kant’s transcendental method (Wallace 1997, 305). Transcendental
method views the subject as that which goes beyond itself and transcends itself to constitutes
the ‘” condition of possibility” of the object. Kant believed that human knowledge is limited in its
scope. This limitation takes two forms: first, knowledge is limited to the world of experience.
Second, our knowledge is limited by the manner in which our faculties of perception and
thinking organize the raw data of experience.

The Kantian Concept of Morality

Kant’s transcendental method views the human person not so much as one who is
subject to external impositions coming from some external condition of the object, whether
such object is pleasure, happiness, some utilitarian advantage, or God himself. Rather, it views
man as self-governing, rational will, conforming to the absolute but internal demands immanent
in him as rational will. In applying Kant’s epistemological principle to his moral principles, Kant
held that the task of moral philosophy is to discover how we are able to arrive at principle of
behaviour that are binding upon all humanity. Kant was trying to establish a universally
accepted moral principle. For him, the human person is subject not to the external but to the
internal condition of humanity, i.e.., his good will. The will of man, according to Kant, is
considered to be good when it acts so that it conforms itself to what duty demands. Conformity
to duty is not simply external conformity but true fidelity to what duty demands. In other
words, submission to one’s duty is not due to the external demand imposed upon the human
person but due to the internal decision made by the human person himself.
This ethical view Kant is called Deontologism. The word deontogism comes from the
Greek words deontos, which means “duty,” and logos, which means “study.” The emphasis of
Kantian ethics is duty or obligation. But what precisely is a duty? Kant held that duty is “that
which ought to be done.” The question now is: “how can we determine those actions that
ought to be done?” Kant believed that morality is exclusively within the human personality. He
held that what is morally right or wrong is solely a matter of intent, motive, and will.
Because the human person is a self-governing rational will, morality therefore, is based on the
human person. In other words, the goodness and badness of an action depend on the
intuition, which is the internal motive or intention. Hence, the goodness and badness of an
action depend on the intention of the human person in doing the action. In this sense, Kantian
morality can also be considered as form of intuitionism or form of a motivist theory
(Timbreza 1993, 35).
For Kant, duty can be considered as that which an individual ought to be despite the
inclination to do otherwise. In other words, doing one’s duty is doing what one is obliged to
do. This is why duty is also known as an obligation (Timbreza, 36). However, a teacher who
did his responsibility just for the purpose of obtaining a salary or out a mere desire to do his
duty is not to be considered an immoral person. His action can in itself, be considered at least
as morally indifferent. In this case, his action is considered to be amoral. i.e.., neither moral
nor immoral or simply not possessing any moral value. Into relation this Kant distinguish
between an action done in accord with duty from an action done a sense of duty. When
a student, for instance, performs his function merely out of the desire to pass the subject, or
out of fear of being scolded by his parents, he is considered to be acting in accord with duty.
This action of the student is considered as amoral. In other words, it has no moral significance.
His action of studying may be good but his intention of doing it cannot make the action totally
good.
On the other hand, a student to be acting from a sense of duty if he recognizes that he has a
special obligation of studying and learning things in order to prepare himself for his own future.
In this regard, the essence of morality is to be found in the motive from which an act is done.
The rightness and wrongness of an action are determined by the motive or the intention from
which the action is done, regardless of the consequences, which doing so or not doing so, will
incur. To determine whether a person is acting from a sense of duty in a particular situation or
not, Kant held that a person must judge his action in the light of how it would appear if must
test the universalizability of an action. He has to find out whether his action would be
acceptable to other people when the others are to be placed in a similar situation. In order to
know whether one’s action in accepted universally as moral, he must test his action in the light
of what Kant called the Categorical Imperative, the core of Kant’s ethical theory.

The Categorical Imperative

What is categorical imperative? It is a command or maxim that enjoins a person to do a

certain action without qualification inasmuch as doing such an act is the most universally
accepted things to do. It lays down a universal rule which, if followed, will ensure that a person
is acting from a sense of duty. Such action or moral decision is morally legitimate and just. To
give clear understanding of what a categorical imperative really is, Kant held that there are
three general types of imperatives: (1) the imperative of skill;(2) the imperative of
prudence; (3) the imperative of morality. The imperative of skill is the necessary measure
or means a person must take in view of the end or goal that he wishes to pursue. For instance,
if a person wishes to become a professional basketball player, it becomes imperative for him to
do everything that he can in order to develop his skills in basketball. This imperative is only
conditional or hypothetical because not everybody will desire to become basketball player. The
imperative of prudence is the necessary measure or means that a human person, out act or
practically, must take if he wants to attain happiness. In view of this desire to attain happiness,
a human person must take all the great pains necessary to become a doctor, a teacher, an
entrepreneur, or whatever it is that will bring him to happiness. If a human person wants to be
happy in life, he, therefore, knows that he must learn to live with the others; he must be
patient and tolerant. However, just like the imperative of skill, the imperative of prudence is
also conditional or hypothetical because the actions that demanded attainment of happiness are
all conditional.
The imperative of morality is that which is considered to be already pat of human
nature. Such imperative is said to be intrinsic to the nature of the action being commanded,
independent from may ulterior end or consequences. For instance, the commandment” Thou
shall not kill” is not to be considered optional simply on the basis of the human person’s desire
to earn more friends. Rather, the choice to follow the commandment is simply based on the
reason that killing one’s fellow human being is bad, regardless of any consequences or
advantage that may come out of it. Unlike the imperative of skill and the imperative of
prudence, the imperative of morality is unconditional or categorical. Hence, it becomes the
on strict command or imperative ( Reyes, 59-60).
Kant considered the categorical imperative as something binding for all person. It
commands certain conduct immediately, without having any other purpose or condition. In this
regard, the said imperative is said to be categorical because it applies to all rational beings.
Moreover, this is considered an imperative because it is the principle by which all human
beings ought to act whatever the situation will be. In order to make the categorical imperative
binding, Kant gave three formulations that must be considered if a man is to determine whether
his action is based on the categorical imperative or not.
The firs formulation of the categorical imperative is: act only on that maxim whereby
they can, and at the same time will, that it will become a universal law. Kant said that
everything in nature works according to laws, consequently, rational beings alone have the
faculty of acting according to the conception of laws. Kant believed that this categorical
imperative is our conception of the law of nature as it pertains to human behaivor. Therefore,
he expressed the imperative duty in an alternative way, namely: act as if the maxim of
your action were to become a universal law of nature ( Curtis, Vol. 2,45). For instance, if
were are going to make the precept” Everybody else should cheat as acceptable, this precept
should be made binding to everyone. In other words, this should be made a universal law
mandating everyone to cheat. However, inasmuch as this could not be binding to everyone
because not everyone will consider cheating to be morally just, this law will never be acceptable
to everybody. Therefore, the mandate should be” thou shall not cheat” because this is what is
acceptable to everyone (Timbreza, 37).
The second formulation of the categorical imperative is: act so as to treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in that of any other, every case as an end, never as
means only( Curtis, 46). This formulation is Kant’s principle of justice, which has an
important consequence for democracy. This is interpreted to mean that everybody should be
given the proper respect accorder to everyone else as a human being. This is, therefore,
another way of formulating the chung of Confucius: “ Do not do unto others what you do
not wish others do unto you”
Kant believed that because the categorical imperative is our guide to moral action, he
considers this as a voice of duty, a sense of oughtness. Inasmuch as this imperative is derived
from reason, Kant held that this imperative is a priori. For reason, the categorical imperative is
definite and changeless. In fact Kant considers the categorical imperative as the only thing in
the realm of morals that is definite in a relative and changing world.

The Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarianism is a school of thought, which sets the general thesis that pleasure and
happiness are what everyone desires. Although the previous philosophers like Aristotle,
Epicurus, and Saint Thomas Aquinas had already shown an advocacy on the pursuit of
happiness as the goal of the human person, these philosophers focused on following one’s
happiness. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, upheld the idea that the morality best act is the
one that produces the greatest amount of happiness with everyone considered. According to
the utilitarianism philosophers, good consists in the achievement of the principle of happiness,
which is understood as “ the greatest good of the greatest numner.”
The utilitarianism were a group of writers, politician, and administration of whom
Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill are the leading figures. Both Bentham and Mill held
the idea that the human person should perform an action that will bring happiness to the
greatest number of people. Their ethical doctrine states that the rightness and wrongness
of an action are determined by the goodness and badness of their consequence
( Timbreza 1997, 28).
The previous ethical doctrine upheld the idea that good comes from the dictates of
reason, or from following the human nature, or form the duty to obey the categorical
imperative. As a reaction to these previous ethical beliefs, utilitarianism instead focused its
ethical doctrine on the measurement of the principle of utility by considering the amount of
pleasure and the amount of pain in a particular action. Utilitarianism was actually merely
following the beliefs of the British empiricist. They followed the principle of Thomas Hobbes ,
who put an emphasis on the people’s selfish concern for their own pleasure. The utilitarianism
were also aware of the idea of David Hume, who believed that people would never be able to
know the universal moral law. This is the reason why Hume gave the idea that the whole of
morality is focused on the people’s capacity for sympathy, the tendency to consider the
pleasure of others.

The principle of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism claims that there is one and only one moral principle – the principle of
utility. This principle states that actions are good insofar as they tend to promote
happiness, bad as they tend to produce unhappiness (Timbreza, 28). Utilitarianism is
basically an approach to morality that treats pleasure as the sole element in human good and
which regards the morality of actions as entirely dependent on consequence or results for
human well-being. The concern of utilitarianism is the well-being of the others and
consequently the well-being of the whole society. Although it considers pleasure as the basis of
goodness, it does not follow however the Epicurean concept of pleasure inasmuch as the
epicurean disregard the society as the basis of doing good deeds.
The main concerns of utilitarianism is the consequences, the effects, the result, and the
outcomes of an action. It is for this reason that utilitarianism may be rightly called teleological.
The word teleological comes from the Greek word telos, which means “ end” or purpose”
Utilitarianism considers the consequence of an act as the basis for determining the goodness of
such act. This is the reason why Bentham and the other subsequently followers of utilitarianism
disregard religious tradition and social convention in favour of treating human well-being or
happiness as the touchstone for all moral evaluations.
Bearing the principle of utility in mind, the utilitarianism believed that we should
consider the possible effect of each action or moral decision. Every human person ought to
choose the action, among the many other possible ones, that produces the most benefits, i.e..,
comfort of happiness, at the least cost of ain or unhappiness. Indeed, some pains or
unhappiness may result from the action that human beings take, However, what is important is
that each person should do the action that the greatest possible balance of happiness over
unhappiness for all individuals affected. Both Bentham and Mill were desirous of getting rid of
any strain of individualism and subjectivism. For this reason, they gave an alternative
formulation of the principle of utility – the principle of the greatest number. According to
this principle, an action is good if it produces the greatest happiness for the great number of
people, and bad if it produces more harm than benefit for the greatest number of individual.
The primary consideration was the happiness not of one person but of the greatest number of
people. Hence, the principle of equity is implied in the alternative formulation. This principle
states that an action is good it if provides equal benefits of happiness for the greater number of
individuals concerned (Timbreza, 29).

Justice and Fairness

 The terms justice and fairness are oftentimes used almost interchangeably, we tend
to reserve the word justice for matters that are especially serious, although some authors have
held that that concept of fairness is more fundamental.” (Velasquez, p. 106). When we talk
about Justice we cannot deny that it consist of treating equals equally and unequal’s unequally,
and giving each person his due.
There are three categories of justice and fairness: (1). Distributive Justice: which involve
the fair distribution of benefits and burdens. (2). Compensatory Justice which is concerns the
just way of in compensating someone for a past injustice or what he/she lost when wronged by
others.
(3). Retributive justice: it consist the just imposition of punishment and penalties on those who
do wrong. This is related to procedural justice, referring to fair decision procedures, practices
and agreements.
Distributive Justice; if the issues concerning the common good are at stake, distributive
justices comes into play. The principle of distributive justice simply states: Individuals who
similar in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be given similar
benefits and burdens, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant respects; and individuals
who are dissimilar in a relevant respect ought to be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their
dissimilarity. Furthermore, when talking about distributive justice we need to take of the
following: (1). Distributive justice principle purely formal (2). Principle does not indicate
“relevant respect” for similar or dissimilar treatment. (3). Material principle of justice: different
theories of distributive justice, more fundamental “relevant respect” than just “ first- come-
first-serve principle or” priority for senior citizen.” i..e.., Sales person A and B have the same
job position but at the end of the year , A sold more than B, therefore A gets the merit increase
or promotion.

Theories of Distributive Justice

1. Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism

2. Justice based on Contribution : Capitalist
3. Justice based on Needs and Abilities: Socialism
4. Justice as Freedom: Libertarianism
5. Justice as Fairness: John Rawls

Justice as equality: Egalitarianism. It is said that for egalitarians, justice is no relevant

differences among people can justify unequal treatment. Thus, all burdens an benefits should
be distributed according to the following formula: “ Every person should be given exactly equal
shares of a society’s or a group’s benefits and burden.” In fact if we are going to look at history
equality, is ideal only of US declaration of Independence. Were equality become a driving force
behind emancipation of slaves, elimination of racial, sexual, property, requirements on voting
and holding office, institution of public education. This assertion was based on the proposition
that all human beings are equal in some fundamental respect, and therefore goods should be
allocated to people in equal portions. Principle for entries societies and for members within
groups organizations. E.g, family, work groups with strong feeling of solidarity such as
Japanese firms.
Justice Based on Contribution; Capitalist Justice, this principle is based on the idea on
which benefits should be distributed according to the value of the contribution the individual
makes to a society, a task, group, or an exchange. This principle of contribution is widely used
to determine salaries and wages in U.S. which tends to promote competition that that tend to
result individualistic cultures that is seen in the U.S. Moreover, this idea also base on the
productivity the ones can contribute; the greater the quantity of pa person’s contributed
product, the more that the person should receive. The major problem here is that ignores other
people’s needs and disadvantage group, also there is the problem of objective measure on the
value of person’s product, especially in fields such as science, art, entertainment, etc. To
answer this problem, the capitalist, insist on the market force of supply and demand. Values of
a person’s contribution not on its intrinsic value but on the extent which it is both relatively
scarce and is viewed by buyers as desirable. However, it still ignores people’s need, also market
prices an unjust method of evaluating the value of a person of things. E.g entertainers more
highly paid than doctors. E.g person by chance inherits something scarce that people happen to
want.
Justice based on Needs and Abilities: Socialism, the dictum of socialist justice is that
“each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” this represent socialist view of
distribution and justice. Work burdens should be distributed according to people’s ability, and
benefits should be distributed according to people’s needs.
On the other hand, we ask arise the question what is the basis of socialist principle in
lying down these kinds of ides of justice? In this regards, this is the basis of socialist principle;
(1). People realize their human potential by exercising their abilities in productive work, and
being value, this should be distributed in such a way that a person can be as productive as
possible. Thus, distribute work according to ability. (2). Benefits of work should be used to
promote human happiness and well-being, by distributing them to meet non-basic needs.
Justice as freedom: Libertarianism, this principle was advocate by Robert Nozick, he
states that from each according to what he makes for himself perhaps with contracted aid of
others and what others to do for him and choose to give him of what they’ve been given
previously, under this maxim and haven’t yet expended or transferred.” This is simply means,
from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. The problem in this kind of Justice this
that the main difficulty with libertarianism is enshrining value of freedom from coercion at the
expense of other rights and values without giving any explanation why this should be done. And
the question arise from what about the freedom from hunger? Freedom from ignorance? To
secure these right, society may impose pattern of distribution. Libertarian principle will generate
unjust treatment of the disadvantage. People, through no fault of their own, should not be
made to depend on outside chances that others will provide for their need of survival. Each
person’s life is of value, even if this means coercing others to give their surplus to the other
person.
Justice as Fairness: John Rawls. Rawl’s theory describe justice in a fair method that
resolve conflict. This method serves as principle of distributive justice, were there are two basic
principles involve: first, is that distribution of benefits and burdens in a society is just, if and
only if,: (1). Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible
with similar liberties for all and, (2). Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they
are both; (a). to the greatest benefit of the least advantage person, and (b). attached to offices
and position open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”
Rawl’s theory provides us not only with set of principles of justice but also a general
method for evaluating the adequacy of any moral principle in a fair way. The method consist of
determining what principles a group of rational self-interested persons would choose to live by
if they knew they would live in a society governed by those principles, but they did nor yet
know that each of them would turn out to be like in that society.
Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

The Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

Direction: Identify the following. Write your answer in the space provided before each
number.

1. This philosopher was famous in saying that “Man is the

measure of all things.” Who is this philosopher?

2. According to this philosopher, what is good is relative to a

specific culture. Who is this philosopher?

3. According to historical records, he was the first teacher of

Aristotle. Who was he?
 4. What was the name of the school that Aristotle founded?

5. What do you call the doctrine which states that the body
is the matter and the soul is the form that makes up the
human person?

6-9 . These are three levels of the rational soul.

10 This is the practical intellect or the practical wisdom that is

ordained towards action and determines the appropriate
means in order to attain the end.
11.13. These are the three different version of Aristotle’s moral
philosophy. What are these?
14. This is the term that Aristotle use in order to refer to the
fullest of happiness? What is this Greek term?
15. This is the term that Aristotle used in order to refer to the
just middle principle. What is this Greek term?

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

The Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

Direction: Answer the following question briefly Write your answer in the space provided.

From the point of view of Aristotle, how can a human person determine whether his action is
good or evil? Discuss your answer briefly.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

The Ethics of Immanuel Kant

Direction: Write TRUE if the statement is correct and FALSE if the statement is in correct.
Write your answer in the space provide before each number.

1. Immanuel Kant attempted to reconcile the Philosophy of

rationalism from empiricism.

2. Kant defined synthetic judgment as that wherein the

predicate is contained in our understanding of the subject.

3. For Kant, the task of moral philosophy is to discover how

man is able to arrive at principles of behavior that are
binding upon all humanity.
 4. Man’s will is considered to be good when it acts so that it
conforms itself to what duty demands.

5. The goodness and badness of an action, according to

Kant, depends upon the intention of the human person I
doing the action.
6. Imperative of prudence is the necessary measure or
means that a human person must take if he wants to
attain his goal.
7. The only thing that is definite in the realm of morality is
that we have different duties, and therefore, we will be
incapable of arriving at a universally valid moral principle.
8. Perfect duty is that which a person must always observe
irrespective of time, place, or circumstances.
9. Kantian ethics upheld the idea that the basis of justice is
the mutual respect for autonomy between persons.
10. Kant considered the categorical imperative as the voice of
duty.

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

The Ethics of Immanuel Kant

Direction: Answer the question briefly a write your answer in the space provide.

Can the ethics of Immanuel Kant be the basis of morality? Why or why not? Explain your
answer.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

THE UTILITARIAN ETHICS

Direction: Identify the following. Write your answer in the space provided before each number

1. He placed emphasis on the people’s selfish concern for

their own pleasure. What is the name of this philosopher?

2. He believed that the whole of morality is focused on the

people’s capacity for sympathy. Who is this philosopher?

3. He said that the aptness in us to produce pleasure is what

we should consider as good. Who has this belief?

4. Jeremy Bentham develop his own theory of law after

detecting the fallacies on the lecture on the law given by
 this lawyer. Who is this lawyer whom Bentham criticized?

5. It is the principle that states that the morality of an action

is based on the happiness that the action will produce.
What principle is this?

6. He was known to be the principal shaper of the mind of

John Stuart Mill. Who was this scholar?

7. What do you call the method Bentham used in order to

determine the morality of an action?

8. Instead of the hedonistic calculus, Mill advocated this

principle. What is this principle of Mill called?

9. He is the advocate of the rule utilitarianism. Who is he?

10. He is the advocate of the act utilitarianism. Who is he?

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

THE UTILITARIAN ETHICS

Direction: State your view on the moral dilemma given below. Write your answer in the space
provide.

THE TROLLEY DILEMMA

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railways tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are
five people. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the
train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of
tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track, You have two
options:

1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. These 5 people are
already old.
 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. He is
just a child and he is your brother.

What would you do? Why?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________