The Importance of Rules to Social Beings

(Excerpted from De Guzman, J.M., et.al. Ethics, 2018)

Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

1. Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior. Rules build boundaries

that pace limits on behavior. Rules are usually coupled with means to impose
consequences on those who violate them, one of the reasons people follow
accepted rules is to avoid negative consequences.

2. Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom. Rules from
frameworks for society. Nations are generally nations of laws and the governing
principles are outlined in what is called constitution. Because the majority has
agreed to follow and consent to be governed by such constitution, the freedoms
outlined exist. One of the advantages of such a system is that each person is
guaranteed certain rights as the government is limited in its power to ensure that
it does not become powerful enough to suppress liberty (freedom).

3. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings. Rules are needed in
order to keep the strong from dominating the weak, that is, to prevent exploitation
and domination. Without rules, schemes in which those with power control the
system, would take over. In effect, rules generate a stable system that provides
justice, in which even the richest and most powerful have limitations on what they
can do. If they transgress rules such as laws and ordinances and take advantage
of people, there are consequences both socially and criminally.

4. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules regulating
business, power would centralize around monopolies and threaten the strength
and competitiveness of the system. Rules are needed to ensure product safety,
employee safety, and product quality. Copyright and patents help protect
people’s intellectual property. Rules and regulations also keep the banking
system stable so as to avoid depression and the like.

In short, society could not soundly function without rules and regulations. Rules
are necessary to protect the greater good. Even the freest societies ought to have rules
in order to avoid exploitations and tyranny while upholding the common welfare. (De
Guzman, 2018)
 Moral Standards versus Non-moral Ones
Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?
(Retrieved from: https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are
deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral
implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in
traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have
to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such
as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in Western
societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the
Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring
dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear
hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter
of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a
matter of moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which
may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know,
violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is,
of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a matter
of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but
understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once
we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the
principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may
guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will
be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking
complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of
one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral (that
is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such standards
are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may have the right to force others
to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing
not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to
be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good
or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being
of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what
humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other
words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as
general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are always under
the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is
absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or statements
about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the poor is good” or
“Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 1) moral
standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the
environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are not established or
changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on
the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need
a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral
standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations,
especially of self-interest; 4) moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral
standards are fair and just; and 5) moral standards are associated with special emotions (such
as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong
in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we
judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal
or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should
not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous
observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said
standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard says
“Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text while
driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.
 What are Moral Dilemmas?
(Retrieved from: https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and dynamics of moral
dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person has choices
to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor faces a dilemma
about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers
for economic development in the town.

It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose
between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can say is
that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical
thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.
When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or
moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in ethics,
are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves the
situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example:

Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an
ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the
fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus.
Now, if this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if
Lindsay continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According
to experts, the best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing
the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting options, namely,
either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time jeopardizes her moral
integrity or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay
is faced with a huge moral dilemma.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be
considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a
decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best option
and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as
the best course of action. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from.
Hence, as already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose
from for moral dilemmas to occur. And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some moral
principles are always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is no perfect
solution to the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in moral dilemmas,
the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that she is bound to
morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In
other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”
 Freedom
(Excerpted from Ethics by Gallinero, W.B., et.al. 2018)
Used for class study and reflection purposes only-not for circulation

“Why Only Human Beings can be Ethical?

There has been some claim that morality is not unique to human beings. For example,
Dame Jane Morris Goodall DBE, a British primatologist, ethologist, anthropologist, and UN
Messenger of peace reported that sometimes chimpanzees show a truly selfless concern for the
well-being of others (Goodall, 1990). However, other thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Rene
Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, Peter Carruthers, and various religious theories believed that only
human beings can be ethical (Wilson, 2017). According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the
fundamental difference between animal ethics and human ethics is that animals behave
instinctively while human behavior is rational (BBC, 2014).
Instinctive behavior is a hard-wired, inborn, characteristic response to specific
environmental stimuli; an example is the altruistic behavior of social animals (Spink, 2010).
However, researchers found that the animal's intent of self-sacrifice is more on ensuring
reproductive success (kin selection) rather than out of true selfless motive (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2009). An example of this would be the suicide attacks of worker honeybees in defense
of their colony against intruders. There is also reciprocal altruism where the animal will provide
for another animal’s need because it expects the similar act in a similar manner at a later time
period. Chimpanzees scratching each other's back are an example of reciprocal altruism (Trivers,
1971).
Rational behavior is a decision-making process where the person acts in ways the best
achieved his or her needs in accordance with his or her set preferences, priorities, and principles
(Information Resources Management Association, 2015). Rational behavior is tide to moral
standards. Additionally, the human person in his or her decision-making process is free to decide
what to do and free to act on his or her decisions. Thus, only human beings can be ethical because
only humans have the capacity for free moral judgment.

The Foundation of Morality

C. S. Lewis, A novelist, poet, academic, literary critic essayist, lay theologian, broadcaster,
lecturer, and Christian apologist used an interesting metaphor to explain morality. He likened
morality to a fleet of ships. According to Lewis, though each ship must sail well on its own, each
must also coordinate with the other ships at all times to stay in formation and avoid collisions.
Finally, the fleet must have a destination or purpose for the journey (Lewis, 2012) because if the
ship was just aimlessly sailing then it has failed its ultimate purpose that of getting from one point
to the next.
This is a very helpful way to think about morality in relation to self, to others, and your
ultimate end. However, there is one crucial difference between a ship and a person (aside, of
course, from the obvious) - a ship is under the command of a ship captain. However, a person is
someone who is free to decide his or her course.

Why is Freedom Crucial in your Ability to Make Moral Decisions?

The personal aspect of morality is about developing virtue so that thinking morally,
performing moral acts, and choosing to do what is good becomes a habit. The Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy open and close (2016) explain that virtue is your thought or behavior
guided by, and displays, high moral standards. Virtues are habits developed through learning and
practice period once you have it, your virtues become your characteristic. Moreover, a virtuous
person characteristically acts in ways consistent with his or her moral principles. Thus, a virtuous
person goes beyond moral behavior. A virtuous person not only does what is right but his or her
behavior also becomes a standard for everyone to follow.
An efficiently run ship is like a virtuous person: both have internalized the practices that
make them weather storms. However, a ship is under the control of a captain while a virtuous
person is free to cultivate his or her values. At the same time, he or she is also free to abandon
it. Hence, there is no virtue in self-restraint if, in the 1st place, you are prohibited from indulging.
And there is no virtue in giving if someone is forcing you to give up your possessions. Although
cultural traditions and social institutions can guide virtues, it cannot be coerced. Freedom, then,
is the foundation of moral acts. For a person to be virtuous, he or she must also be free.

The Human Person as a Free Being

First, what does “human person” mean? In philosophy, a human being is more than its
biological components. The human being is a person endowed with characteristics that are
material, spiritual, rational, and free. A human person is a being (the Aristotelian idea of being
connotes actuality; Existence; An actual condition or circumstance) we had inborn properties that
he or she uses to direct his or her own development toward self-fulfillment. One of the inborn
properties of the human person is freedom.

Freedom Demands Responsibility

Jean Paul Sartre said “you are free” because he believed a person always has a choice.
Thus, according to Sartre, you must choose. His idea was that freedom is the capacity to choose,
that even not choosing is a choice (Gallinero, 2014). It is important to note however, that he also
added the concept of responsibility to freedom. According to Sartre, even though individuals
must make their own choices because they are free, these choices (though freely made) also
have consequences to it. These consequences to freedom are something that the person must
endure. Therefore, it can be said that‘s concept, responsibility follows freedom (Gallinero, 2014).
Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu also discussed freedom and responsibility. Lao Tzu
advocated that a person can and should choose to act, but his or her actions should be that which
would result in harmony. Lao Tzu’s idea was that in any society, the exercise of one’s freedom is
not absolute. The person is free to do anything; but it is not without consequences of one's actions
(Gallinero, 2014). Responsibility, as a moral quality serves as a voluntary check and balance of
one's freedom. Without proper balance limitless freedom is as dangerous as an extremely
controlling social group. Great social injustices have resulted from such radical mindsets.”