Handouts For Module 1 Introduction To Ethics

HANDOUTS FOR
1
MODULE Flexible Learning AY 2020 2021
DISTANCE EDUCATION COURSE HANDOUTS
HANDOUTS for
MODULE 1 : INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS
This Module is divided into two units:

Unit 1: The basic concepts of Philosophy & Ethics.
Unit 2: The Elements of the Ethical Experience
At the End of this Module, the students should be able to:

1. Explain the meaning & the importance of Philosophy and Ethics in human life and society
2. Evaluate the values & principles that are at stake in any given Ethical Dilemma
3. Formulate a personal commitment to using Ethical Reasoning in decision making
UNIT 1: THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY & ETHICS.

Content Outline:
M1.11: Definition of Philosophy, Ethics, Morality
M1.12: Different Types of Ethical Inquiry
M1.13: The Goal of Ethics: Living an authentic Life The place of Values, Principles and
Purpose in Ethics
This General Education course on Ethics is a study about being human. It is an

exploration and discussion on what it means to exist as a person who is rational and free and
seeks to do the good. With the aim to understand the implications of human freedom and
the basis for acting in a way that recognizes and honors that freedom. However, in order to
fully understand what it means to be truly human, the various philosophical understanding
and definition of what is makes an action or decision good, should be explored. This means
engaging in a dialogue with certain philosophers and studying their philosophical traditions.
Thus this course, will give a guided tour on some of the most important and often used
theories of ethical reflection, showing that different people from different traditions
understand ethical human behavior differently that present understanding of ethical behavior
developed over time and built upon other traditions and that an awareness of the various
traditions gives a person a broader perspective of creative and insightful human behavior.
Although what is good is not an arbitrary concept, it is a recognized reality that in any society,
competing and evolving understanding and definition of what is good, exist. It is hoped that
~* * * ~
HANDOUTS for Ethics Module 1: Introduction to Ethics | Page 1 of 36
THIS DOCUMENT IS AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. LA SALLE.
UNAUTHORIZED COPYING IS NOT ALLOWED
this course will guide the students in their quest for understanding authentic human behavior
and live it. (Pasco, et al., 2018).
M1.11: Definition of Philosophy, Ethics, Morality

The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, which originally means custom or
character. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of a human
action (Dimmock, and Fisher, 2017). In particular, this branch of philosophy is concerned with
questions of how human persons ought to act, and the search for a definition of a right
conduct and the good life. It is for this reason that the attempt to seek the “good” through
the aid of reason is the traditional goal of ethicists (Denise, Peterfreund, and White, 1999).
It must be stated at the start that there is no single, absolute definition of ethics. This is
because ethics as well as philosophy has constantly evolved through time brought about by
changing social, political landscape. For example, in the Greek tradition, especially of
Aristotle’s, Ethics was conceived as relating to the concept of the “good life”. Thus, the
ethical inquiry during this time was directed toward discovering the nature of happiness. In
fact, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics does not only present a theory of happiness but also
provides ways in which happiness is attained. Now, centuries later, a quite different orientation
was introduced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. In this ethical tradition, the ideals of
righteousness before God and the love of God and neighbor, especially following the
teachings and examples of Jesus Christ (for the Christian Tradition) became the substance of
ethics, the happy or pleasant life simply became a good fruit of this Christian Ethical lifestyle.
Indeed, if we make an effort to reconcile these views, we are faced with the difficult task of
defining the relationship between “doing what is right” and “being happy”. Again, it is for
this reason that we cannot have an absolute definition of ethics. The least that we can do, is to
describe the nature and dynamics of ethics based on a specific time and context.
It is also important to note that ethics has a very close relationship with morality, to the
point that many philosophers believe that the two terms can be used interchangeably. This is
because Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, and the Morality
indicates the practice of doing the right human actions and avoiding the wrong human action.
In other words, ethics undertakes the systematic study (that is, questioning and critical
examination) of the underlying principles of moral living. Hence, it is interested primarily in the
illustration of a more general problem and the examination of underlying assumptions and the
critical evaluation of moral principles.
Morality, on the other hand, is more prescriptive and even normative in nature. It tells us
what we ought to do and exhorts us to follow the right way. According to Terrance McConnell
(1994), “morality is characterized as an ‘end-governed rational enterprise’ whose object is to
equip people with a body of norms (rules and values) that make for peaceful and collectively
~* * * ~
satisfying coexistence by facilitating their living together and interacting in a way that is
productive for the realization of the general benefit”. For example, a religious leader may ask
his followers to be good at all times. In this way, a moralist may want to keep alive the values
he considers to be worthwhile and to improve the moral quality of the community where he
belongs. Hence, morality, at the very least, aims to guide one’s action by reason and gives
equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s decision. Indeed, this gives
us a picture of what it really means to be a morally upright person.
Based on the brief discussion above, we may conclude that ethics is the science of
morals, while morality is the practice of ethics.
M1.12: Different Types of Ethical Inquiry
During the mid-20th century, according to Sumner (1967), a “certain theory in the
methodology of ethics has gradually become more and more widely accepted, at least by
British and American moral philosophers”. According to this position, there are two ways of
doing ethical inquiry, namely, Normative ethics and Descriptive ethics.
Normative ethics is prescriptive (it prescribes or commands) in nature as it seeks to set

norms or standards that regulate right and wrong or good and bad conduct. This may involve
articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the
consequences of our behavior on others. Hence, normative ethics normally attempts to
develop guidelines or theories that tell us how we ought to behave. For example, Immanuel
Kant’s claim that an act is morally right if it is done for the sake of duty is an example of a
normative ethics.
Descriptive Ethics or Meta-ethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According

to Sumner (1967), “metaethics is allegedly constituted, at least in part, by questions of the
meanings of the various ethical terms and functions of ethical utterances.” Hence, if a
normative ethical inquiry is evaluative and prescriptive, metaethics is analytical and
descriptive. Put simply, metaethics is a type of ethical inquiry that aims to understand the
nature and dynamics of ethical principles. It asks questions about the nature and origin of
moral facts, as well as the way in which we learn and acquire moral beliefs. Thus, for example,
if normative ethics urges us to do good at all times, metaethics asks the question “What is
good?”. For sure, if a moral philosopher attempts to address the questions “What is good?”,
“What is justice?”, “Why should I be moral?”, then that moral philosopher is doing
metaethics. Hence, when Plato proposed an answer to the question “Why should I be moral”,
Plato was doing metaethics―indeed, Plato raised a metaethical question.
In the course of the development of ethics, Applied ethics became its third major type.
As its name suggests, applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for
~* * * ~
the purpose of deciding which ethical or moral actions are appropriate in a given situation.
For this reason, casuists (that is, the adherents of applied ethics) are concerned with individual
moral problems, such as abortion or euthanasia, and attempt to resolve the conflicting issues
that surround these particular moral problems. Casuists may also act on some occasions in an
advisory capacity, such as guiding individuals in their choice of actions. For example, they may
attempt to resolve the conflicting duties of a mother suffering from ectopic pregnancy who
has no other option than to abort the fetus.
Applied ethics is usually divided into different fields of human professions. For example,
we may talk about business ethics, which deals with ethical behavior in the corporate
world; biomedical and environmental ethics, which deal with issues relating to health, welfare,
and the responsibility we have towards people and our environment; and social ethics, which
deals with the principles and guidelines that regulate corporate welfare within societies.
Finally, imagine that Ethics is like Basketball, let us consider the following analogy on the
role of players to the game:
1. The Players, and Coaches are the ones involved in applying the rules of the games
and deciding what is a good play from bad ones. Based on their experience of playing the
game, they’re the ones who develop an Applied Ethic to the game of basketball. So, the
Applied Ethicists are like the players. They “get their hands [or feet] dirty”. They take the
general rules of normative ethics and “play” under them. What interests them is how we
should act in specific areas. For example, they make decisions like: “should I foul in order
to stop the time?” or “should I flop, so the other guy will be called foul?” things like these
are decisions and ethical choices that players make as they play the game.
2. The Referees and Officials are the ones involved in implementing the rules of the
games and calling out fouls for those who violate them and may even penalize players
who committed blatant fouls by sending them out of the game or even preventing them
from playing future games. In our Ethics paradigm, they can be considered as
implementing “Normative Ethics”, with their definite rules and guidelines. The normative
ethicist, like a referee, is interested in the rules governing play. What interests him is the
general theories that govern our moral behaviour; how do we work out what is right and
what is wrong?
3. The Game Commentators, and especially the Board of Governors and

Commissioners of the Basketball Association can be considered as involved in doing
“Meta-Ethics” for the game of Basketball. They’re the ones who describe which play was
truly good or bad, analyzing the game, play by play, describing players by stats, or they
sets rules that protects players, the team, or even the whole league or they change the
rules that affects how basketball is played. As the Meta-ethicist in the game of Basketball,
Commentators point of interests is how the very practice of ethics works. For example, the
~* * * ~
metaethicist might discuss how people use moral language; or comment on the
psychology of immoral people; or ask whether moral properties exist.
M1.13: The Goal of Ethics: Living an authentic Life The place of Values, Principles and
Purpose in Ethics
Ethics’s main goal is the realization of the fullest potential of what it is to be truly
human: as a Person with the capacity to know the truth, gifted with the power to choose the
best option among the many options and has the freewill to act out those good that he/she
has discerned to be the true, good and beautiful. Thereby living a life that is authentically free
as an individual
In most situation, eating or drinking a beverage, like tea for example, can be
considered as an ordinary human activity that requires no ethical evaluation. However, if a
person learns that such a tea company has an abusive work practice that reduces its workers
into slavery or inhuman condition, patronizing their tea product becomes an action that
demands an ethical consideration. Continue buying the products of such a tea company
means supporting the company’s inhuman policy towards its workers. Boycotting such
company becomes an Ethical stand against slavery and human abuse.
This task of making a rational evaluation of the goodness of our action that Ethics asks
us to do, is primarily about realizing what people believes and defines to be good. We
understand that human life is not just about existing or survival, and human actions are not
just about what is practical or easy or efficient. Somehow human beings sense that there is
this thing they call the Ultimate Good which the are bound to realize or achieve through hard
work, in order to genuinely be human and to build better societies, where human life can truly
thrive in the best way possible.
However, there is no ready-made way to deal with ethical situations, where the good act
we know we should do, have an unavoidable negative consequences. However, a sign of
maturity or entering into adulthood, requires that we begin to make good decisions out of the
tools that have been handed down to us by those who formed us, our parents, teachers and
other significant formators or formative situations in our life. At the end however, is that we
have to make difficult decisions on our own, and be responsible for those decisions. These
Ethical situations require us to respond with the best that we have as a person: such as our
values, principles and our purpose.
1. Values tell us what is good – they’re the things we strive for, desire and seek to
protect. Example of values are Honesty, Life, Justice, Friendship, and many more. These
values are what we consider to be good, because we want it for ourselves and for those
~* * * ~
whom we care for. For instance, we value life, especially of our loved ones, that is why if
necessary we are capable of making personal sacrifices just to save the life of our loved ones
when they are in danger, and we hope that when it is our time to be in critical condition, they
too will go out of their way to save our own life. We value Justice in our society that is why we
are shocked and appalled at the senseless injustices that we see in the news. Values are what
we considered sacred and important for us to acquire, nurture and even promote.
2. Principles tell us what’s right, outlining how we may or may not achieve our values.
Our Principles are the rules, norms or other social conventions that we have authenticated to
be true and right, so we uphold them, by following them and insisting or at least expecting
that others follow them. These are the rules we live by. Principles could serve as the pillar of
our character, the strength of our will over temptation, and the safe boundary of our freedom.
With our Principles, we draw the line that separates the “good side” from the “dark side or
the Bad side.” It is easier to speak of our Principles when we are in front of others and our
actions are seen. But when we are alone or seemed to be anonymous in a crowd, the
Principles we live by, becomes an even stronger pillar of our character.
3. Purpose is your reason for being – it gives life to your values and principles. You may
identify an immediate purpose and Life long purpose. Our purpose is like the bright star that
guides our values and principles to their true goal. Our purpose could be the reason why we
wake up each morning and do the good things we are doing, or it becomes the Light to our
Reason, showing us how to navigate the confusing world of our moral dilemmas. Maybe your
purpose is to be the best version of yourself: the best student (a Magna Cum Laude), the best
athlete, the best nurse, etc., Or maybe living a life of meaning, a legendary life that people
will remember.
Trying to make decisions without our values, principles and purpose, is like being at
sea without a rudder, where we are pushed around by the waves of our desires, unconscious
biases, moods, group pressures and unvalidated social rules. The choices we make are not
really ours, we might simply be another cheap copy cat of someone else’ decision, or a pawn
in the games of someone else whom we allowed to decide for us.
Ethics as the process of questioning, discovering and defending our values, principles
and purpose is an important element of what it is to be truly human. It’s about finding out who
we are and staying true to that in the face of temptations, challenges and uncertainty. It’s not
always fun and it’s hardly ever easy, but if we commit to it, we set ourselves up to make
decisions we can stand by, building a life that’s truly our own and a future we want to be a part
of (The Ethics Centre, Feb 2020).
This course explores how philosophers have tried to explain humanities’ mysterious
capacity to continually explore , understand and uphold the concept of what is good that
~* * * ~
promotes a civilization where true humanity can flourish and thrive. This course aims to help
you, our dear students to understand that the quest for ethical standards for living a full
authentic human life is an evolving task that you have to engage in and realize for you to be
promote or realize your full maturity as an individual human person.
REFERENCES:
Denise, T.C, Peterfreund, S.P, and White, N.P., (1999) Great traditions in ethics Belmont, CA : Wadsworth Pub.
McConnell, T. (1994). Review: On the Nature and Scope of Morality. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, 54(2), pp. 421-425. (retrieved from: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/
T_McConnell_On_1994.pdf)
Pasco, M.O., Suarez, V.F, and Rodriguez, A.M. (2018), Ethics. C&E Publishing, Inc., Quezon City
Rachels, James. (2004). Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th edition
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/what-is-ethics/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr7U49RPpTs
https://youtu.be/u399XmkjeXo
https://youtu.be/FOoffXFpAlU?list=PLa_ZSYFNmJvvtaPCcfY-xQljsJDyhMtWe
~* * * ~
UNIT 2: THE ELEMENTS OF THE ETHICAL EXPERIENCE
Content Outline:
M1.21: The Moral Agent.
M1.22: The Influences of Culture in Moral Behavior
M1.23: The Development of the Moral Person
M1.24: The Elements & Determinants of the Moral Act
M1.21: The Human Being as the Moral Agent.

Human beings are complex organisms. Unlike bacterias’ who are driven solely to
replicate, plants which only seek nourishment and growth, and animals that are driven by
desires and instincts to satisfy their hunger and need to reproduce, We Human beings are
capable of acting against our natural desires or passions, by using our human powers of
Reason, Freedom and Will in the specific practical situation.
These capacity of Reason enables us to discover the truth allowing us to see reality with
imaginative and calculative lenses. Freedom enables us to determine the best possible
options from the wide array of possibilities available for us to choose from and our Will
enables us to put into action the good that we have rationally deliberated and freely chosen
to do. These three powers stops us from simply giving in to our natural desires, and allows us
to make judgements about what action should be done in such a situation. Ethics enables us
to determine what is good from what is bad, what is Right from what is Wrong action. With all
the options available for us to act out, which is the best? Of all the possibilities, which one
should you bring into reality? That’s the question ethics seeks to answer.
On top of our these three powers, we have feelings which play a crucial part in
determining the way we navigate through various situations that we experience. We do not
simply know the world and others, we also feel their existence and their values (Pasco, et al.
2018).
~* * * ~
For these reasons, the Human Person is defined as a Moral Agent because, He alone is
capable of committing intelligently deliberated actions with full use of reason and the capacity
to willfully commit an action, which is the basis what Ethics mean by Moral Agency. By having
moral agency, man is deemed morally responsible over the actions he made with full use of
his reason, freedom and will. When faced with a situation where it is not easy to choose the
best course of action, experience tells us, it is always easy to choose the option of acting
according to what others are doing, and if it fails, we can simply pass the blame to others.
Ethics on the other hand asks us to take Moral responsibility for our beliefs and our actions,
and live a life that’s authentically our own. Furthermore, with Moral Responsibility is placed on
the shoulders of humanity because whenever we make a choice, it was possible for us to have
made a different one. The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard captures this sense when he
describes the experience of standing on the edge of a cliff. The only thing that prevents us
from falling into the cliff is: us – our choice to do otherwise. So for example, when a person is
so angry that it brought him to the choice to kill another human being, it is not simply
because he/she has no to choice other than to kill. Rather, it is because, taking aside all the
other options, the person chose to the brutal and even inhuman act of killing another human
being. In short, Man is morally responsible for his actions. That is why human society has
made it a point to make Ethical norms that sets a higher standards on what human actions are
acceptable and which human acts are deplorable and should not be done.
a. Moral Dilemma, why is it difficult to make Ethical Decision?

On paper, it is somewhat easy to know what is right from what is wrong, simply by
looking at their results. But we realize ethical decisions are not done simply on paper. Ethical
decisions are done in the midst of conflicting emotions, social situations such as fear of being
stigmatized, the need for approval and acceptance, and so many other forces that pulls us
from one option to the other. If we are made to choose between two good actions, which one
is right for the occasion? or if the good actions that we are made to choose from have
negative results? which one should we choose?Situations like these are called Moral or Ethical
Dilemma .
Moral dilemmas are situations in which the decision-maker must consider two or more
moral values or duties but can only honor one of them; thus, the individual will violate at least
one important moral concern, regardless of the decision (Kvalnes Ø., 2019). Before
proceeding, we need to make a distinction between real and false dilemmas. The Real
Dilemmas are situations in which the tension is between moral values or duties that are, more
or less, on equal footing. It could be a choice between two good options, but with conflicting
results, or two equally wrong actions but with varying positive results. The False Dilemmas on
the other hand are situations in which the decision-maker has a moral duty to act in one way
but is tempted or pressured to act in another way. In a false dilemma, the choice is actually
between a right and a wrong. Put simply, the decision maker should find it easy to decide
~* * * ~
between a right and a wrong choice, if he/she only set aside the temptation. The reality with
moral dilemma is that whichever one chooses to act on, she/he will have to sacrifice another
equally important value or principle. To take the risk in making such a decision is what makes
us mature individual, capable of making decisions and be held accountable for these actions.
b. Three (3) Levels of Ethical or Moral Dilemmas

1. Individual Ethical Dilemma, are those which affects an individual and needs to be
settled by the individual. The effect of the person’s decision in solving this dilemma may
involve others, but nonetheless, the choice of action lies on the individual.
For example, when you knew that your friend cheated in an exam by copying your
answers, do you tell your teacher about it, or do you keep silent? If you value honesty, then
you tell your teacher, but then, you sacrifice your friendship. But if you save your friendship by
being silent, then you become dishonest and when the teacher discovers the cheating, you
will also be blamed. What would you do?, since the burden to make a choice of action lies on
your shoulder, then you are facing an Individual Ethical dilemma.
2. Organizational Ethical Dilemma Are those which an organization as whole, such as a

business corporation, a profession, or a league of persons, has to settle because of their
obligation to the bigger society and because it is part and parcel of their avowed role or duty
to society. Deciding which course of action should be taken to settle this type of dilemma,
may fall upon the shoulders of management or leaders of the organization, nonetheless, all
members of the organization are affected and must take part in the solution. Most of the time,
what is at stake in an organizational ethical dilemma, is the reputation or integrity of the
organization since as a public figure, they are answerable to the people.
For example, if you are the Head of a Pharmaceutical Company tasked to search for the
vaccine for Covid19, do you: (a) Rush your research, and set aside the safety standards of
human clinical trial so you can have a vaccine in the soonest possible time to stop people
from dying and help countries go back to normal life, or (b) Observe all safety standards of
human clinical trial even if it is slow, in order to come up with a sure vaccine that has none or
has minimal side effects only, even if more people are dying each day, and more countries are
kept in quarantine due to this covid pandemic? What will you demand from your research
team?
3. Systemic Ethical Dilemma are those which are faced by a network of institutions with
their operative theoretical paradigms like: universal health care, imposition of taxes to
tobacco and alcohol products, and many others. Usually systemic dilemma are of such
magnitude that it could affect a whole nation because it strikes to the very “system” or core
belief or framework of the mind that a country or network of institutions uses in order to solve
their biggest problem. Mostly, these dilemmas require a national legislations to solve it or a
shakeup in the way network of institutions operate.
~* * * ~
For example, in the Philippines, the lack of business and economic opportunities in the
provinces is oftentimes blamed to the concentration of power and opportunities in the
National Capital Region and its nearby provinces and so a solution was proposed that the
Republic be changed into Federalism, where every provinces or region can be considered as
a Federal State within the Republic of the Philippines, thereby ushering in a more dynamic
economic growth to the regions. However, critics of this proposal pointed out that this could
strengthen the hold to power of the Political Dynasties and this could bring the provinces into
worse poverty because of the concentration of power and riches only to the hands of the few
influential families with which, a Federal Government would have less powers to intervene
with. So, should the Philippines adapt a new form of government and face a new monster in
its political and economic landscape, or should it just retain the present form and deal with
the issue of poverty in the provinces in another way?
If you are involved in these Dilemmas, how do you decide? what are the tools in your
sleeves that you can use to navigate through these dilemmas?, with False dilemmas, it would
be easy, one simply has to choose doing the right thing and turn your back from the wrong
course of action. But with Real dilemmas, it is always hard, because no matter which one you
choose, you will always hurt or frustrate another group.
M1.22: Influences of Culture in Moral Behavior

Ethics as the practical philosophy that studies the principles which defines the rightness
or wrongness of the human action, has several major contributory elements like religion,
philosophical school, culture, geography, economics, law, and many others. Because the
human person is always a product of its society, we cannot escape the reality, that even the
way we look at human actions, their rightness or wrongness can be influenced by how our
society evaluates these actions.
a. Culture and its role in moral behavior

Culture is defined as: the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of
people, encompassing language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts,
(Zimmermann, 2017). Cultures serves as the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede,
1997). This collective programming of the people’s mind or “Herd Mentality” (Mañebog,
2014), makes people think that their traditions are already clear and unquestionable to serve
as basis for how they should act, how we understand the ultimate meaning of life. Culture is
our code that shapes how we understand, what life is worth living and what it means to be
human.
~* * * ~
This special role of culture in contributing to the uniqueness of individuals makes it as
one of the “External Contributory Factor” to Ethics. Culture’s influence are both objective
through Laws, Public Regulations that sets limits to what people and organizations can do,
and culture can also influence the normative aspects of an individual’s personal ethics.
Since culture vary from country to country, anthropologist and sociologist would use
the term Cultural Relativism to refer to the various and seemingly irreconcilable differences in
the practices, moral and legal codes and values of people from various cultural background.
b. What is cultural relativism?
Cultural Relativism is a descriptive claim that ethical practices differ among cultures,
that as a matter of fact, what is considered right in one culture may be considered wrong in
another culture, (Bowie, 2013). The word descriptive is significant because it means that the
claims of cultural relativism are not based on speculations and prescriptions for moral
behavior. Rather, they are anchored on direct observations of the undeniable differences of
mores, practices, legal codes and ethical beliefs of various societies and cultures. Bowie
(2013), further stresses that “there is a widespread consensus among social scientists that
cultural relativism is true.”
Here in the Philippines, divorce, death penalty, euthanasia or artificial contraceptives
are highly debated issues of right or wrong, and to some degree, even carries with it some
social stigma on persons who committed these acts, such that these actions are best talked
about in gossip circles than in public official forums. But in some countries, these are already
part of their “old normal.” In some cultures, women have so many restrictions, they can’t drive
a car, can’t vote, while in some cultures, women have equal opportunities and obligations as
men. The ancient historian Herodotus, illustrates a story of King Darius of ancient Persia, who
was intrigued by the variety of cultures he encountered in his conquests. He had found a tribe
of Indians called the Callatians who customarily ate the body of their dead fathers. The Greeks
of course did not do these, as it is their custom to cremate the body of their dead and
regarded the funeral pyre as the most natural and honorable way of disposing the dead body.
One day, the King called on the Greeks, in front of everyone in his court to ask them, what
would they want to receive in return if the King will ask them to eat the body of their dead, of
course the Greeks were shocked and told the king that nothing the King could offer would
ever persuade them to eat the body of their dead. Then the King called on the Callatians and
asked them what would they want in return if the King will ask them to burn the body of their
~* * * ~
dead, and they of course were horrified and told the king that nothing can ever make them
do such dreadful thing to their dead.
At one point, King Darius of ancient Persia had exclaimed after observing radical
differences in the practices of several groups of people: “Culture is the Lord over them all,
(Rachels & Rachels 2010).” Rachels, (2004) notes on the interesting but seemingly scandalous
practices of the Eskimos. They practice infanticide (especially baby girls are left to die in the
snow), lend their wives to their visitors as a sign of hospitality, and just abandon their old and
feeble people in the snow to die. To most of us, these are disturbing revelations. Our own
way of living, our standards of what is right and wrong seemed to be so natural and right that
it is hard to conceive that there are other people living differently, and when we hear of such
customs, we tend to label them as “primitive” or “uncivilized.” But to anthropologists, these
differences among cultures are normal, and those who are scandalized of it are considered
naive.
c. Ethical Relativism vs Moral Objectivism, Where does your Ethics Stand?

This differences in culture as validly claimed by cultural relativism, gave birth to an
ethical theory called: ETHICAL /MORAL RELATIVISM. Bowie (1996) defines it as the claim
that what is really right or wrong is what culture says is right or wrong. Moral relativists, accept
cultural relativism as true, but they claim much more. If a culture sincerely and reflectively
adopts a basic moral principle, then it is morally obligatory for members of that culture to act
in accordance with that moral principle. In short, the only way to judge the Ethical value of an
action, is by using the standards of that culture. Thus we often hear in the movies such adage
as: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Because cultural ethical relativist stresses that
“one has to abide by the ethical norms of the culture where one is located,” (Bowie, 1996).
In the article “The Challenges of Cultural Relativism,” Rachels, (2004) outlined the
fundamental claims of cultural relativism and Ethical Relativism which says that since various
societies have varying ethical beliefs and codes, thus:
1. There are no Moral Principles that are true to all societies
2. The Moral Standards of a society determines what is right or wrong at least within that society.
3. There is no objective standards that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than
others.
4. There is no privileged and special culture that others need to follow or “upgrade” themselves
into, to be called civilized culture. In line with this, there is no inferior culture, there is only
differences.
~* * * ~
At the first glance, one may find cultural relativism attractive, realistic and reasonable.
But deeper analysis would reveal that the said theory is not without inherent problems.
Rachels, (2004) analyzed the serious logical error in the way ethical relativism is argued: lets
look at it again from the examples:
1. The Greek believe it is wrong to eat the dead, whereas, the Callatians it was right to eat the
dead.
2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture.
Now, if we use the argument on Infanticide from the example above:
1. The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas the Americans believe that infanticide
is immoral.
2. Therefore, Infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of
opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
This is the kind of error present in the argument of Ethical Relativism:
1. Different cultures have different moral codes
2. Therefore, there is no objective “Truth” in morality. Right or Wrong are only matters of opinion
which varies from culture to culture .
This argument is called the “Cultural Difference Argument” and it may look and sounds
persuasive, but in the logical point of view, it is full of error, since the conclusion do not follow
logically from the premises. Since the Greek and the Callatians disagree about eating the
dead, it does not follow that there is no “Objective Truth” about the matter. Rather, it could
be, that one of them is wrong and the other is right. When it comes to moral beliefs, it is
possible that one belief is correct and the other one is misguided (Rachels 2004). For
example, contrary to popular beliefs, there are cultures that believed that sickness is caused
by evil spirits, or that the earth is flat. But because there is a disagreement, we do not make a
conclusion that there is no Absolute Truth in geography or in medicine, instead we conclude
that in some cultures people are better informed than in others. Similarly, disagreement in
Ethics might signal that in some cultures, people are better informed than in others. Enderle
(2005), says it directly: “Cultural diversity does not necessarily mean ethical relativism.”
Another argument against cultural relativism is that: If every culture is the sole arbiter of
what is right for it, that means no culture can actually be wrong. That means, the Aztec culture
of human sacrifice is right even if aside from slicing out the hearts of victims and spilling their
blood on temple altars, the Aztecs priests also practiced a form of ritual cannibalism, (Roos,
2018.) Or, that the gladiatorial battles of Ancient Rome is good, even if these gladiators most
~* * * ~
often fight to death for freedom or for money, (Andrews, 2018). Are we suppose to accept
that the beheadings, rape, and murder committed by the Islamic State of Iran & Syria (ISIS),
are ethically okay, simply because their society is at civil war when these actions were
committed?
If your answers to these questions are a unanimous NO. Then, it must be because you
believe that there are inherently good actions and inherently bad actions no matter what
place, time or other cultural circumstance may surround the human. This leads us to the moral
stand which is opposite to that of Cultural Ethical Relativism, which is called Moral
Objectivism.
MORAL OBJECTIVISM, (also known as Moral Realism) claims that there are moral
absolutes that cuts across culture because we share a common humanity. Not only that, moral
objectivism believes that these moral absolutes do not change, across time. For example,
murder, stealing, and many other crimes are considered inherently wrong across generations.
Moral Truth applies constantly and as universally as gravity, or buoyancy or the speed of light.
Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral
judgments are independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that morality is
about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person or group’s subjective judgment,
(Mañego, 2020). Central to the belief of Moral Objectivism is the sense of Moral Obligation
and Accountability which applies to every human person, regardless of nationality, citizenship,
culture, race, gender, sexual preferences, religion, or other differentiating factors. Thus, Ethics
is understood as the normative science that prescribed what man “ought” to do, by virtue of
who he is. William Lane Craig, a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of
Theology, claims that there is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values
than the objective reality of physical objects. He argues that actions like rape, torture, and
child abuse are not just socially unacceptable behavior but are moral abominations (1994, p.
124 in Mañebog 2020). Even Michael Ruse himself, a known secularist and Darwinist, admits,
“The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the
man who says 2+2=5.”(1982, p. 27, in Mañebog 2020).
Moral Objectivism believed that some actions are in fact wrong. In the same way, some
things like love, honesty, justice, and respect are truly good. Correspondingly, we can also
identify some obvious moral absolutes that exist and apply to everyone. One example is the
moral absolute that “you ought not to torture, kill and spill the blood of babies on the
~* * * ~
temple during the feast days of certain war gods,” which was a practice among the Aztecs
in South America, before Europe Colonized them (Roos, 2018). Moral rules of this kind are
self-evident that regardless of who you are, where you are, or what time or culture you are in,
it is hard to imagine that acts like it could ever be morally justified or how they could ever be
considered anything less than evil (Mañebog 2020).
This stand of Moral Objectivism is only possible because of the belief on the existence
of an objective Universal Moral Law. In his book “The Case for Christianity,” the philosopher
and novelist C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), demonstrates the existence of a moral law or standard by
pointing to men who quarrel. He points out that whenever two persons quarrel, they often
accuse each other of breaking a certain law or standards of behavior and not just how one
irritates or hurts the other, in response, the other would typically try to prove or reason out
that his action did not violate the law or a standard or that if it does, there is some special
excuse or special reason in that particular case. This appeal to an agreed upon, or a binding
“rules of the game” is what makes human actions as a Moral or Ethical Action. Moral
Objectivists believe that every human being has the capacity to know the Moral Law simply
because Man is capable of reason, freedom and will.
To explain the variability of moral codes present among different cultures, Moral
Objectivists explains that beneath the superficial differences in moral behavior, there are
inherent moral beliefs which serves as deeper foundations for these behaviors. For example,
Rachels (2004) made an example of a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows.
This may even be a poor country where people need to have more options for their food, yet,
they believe that cows are not to be eaten. Such people may appear to have a moral belief
different than our own, but is it really so? If we ask these people why they have such a practice
of not eating cows, we may probably discover their belief on the reincarnation wherein the
soul of their beloved dead may inhabit the body of an animal in the next life, especially cows.
So that, a cow may be someone else’s grandmother. Now, shall we say that they values are
different from ours? No. The difference is in our belief in the afterlife, not in our value towards
life. Since we value life, we all agree that we should not eat Grandma. However, we can
disagree that this specific cow is (or could be) Grandma.
CS Lewis adds another remarkable thing, which is: whenever we find a person who
claims that he do not believe in an objective moral law, for example, that “Stealing is wrong,”
instead claims on a relativist view that its: “finder’s keepers”, we will surely discover, that if this
~* * * ~
person himself becomes a victim of another thief, he will also cry “unfair, because he would
find that stealing is wrong.” That is why the tagalogs have saying: “Galit ang Magnanakaw sa
kapwa nya magnanakaw.”
This long lasting debate between Ethical Relativism versus Moral Objectivism, actually
highlights what Philosophers call as the “Grounding Problem of Ethics,” which is the search
for the foundation of our ethical beliefs, something solid that would make them true in a way
that is clear, objective and unmoving. This debate has even become much more significance
in the advent of Globalization, and upgrades in Social Communications Technology which has
caused our view of the world as a “common home,” where we have become much more
aware of the reality that there are people in this planet who have different values and
behaviors different from ours.
Between the two ethical theories, Cultural Ethical Relativism seemed to gain much
popularity, because it favors inclusivity and respect on diversity among people from different
culture. If you are not sure what is right or wrong, just simply follow the adage: “when in
Rome, do as the Romans do.” However, the confusion brought about by cultural diversity,
makes this theory difficult to defend nor to maintain since it requires that one has to change
their behavior, relative to the culture of people one is situated in. Moral objectivism, on the
other hand is widely accepted for it is sensible and highly defensible. As an ethical theory, it
can be considered as a solid ground for the foundation of a a strong ethical lifestyle. Moral
Objectivism could prove, that the objective moral law exists and that it can be known by
people, such rules like justice, fairness, right to life and many others are knowable and
binding even to those who deny their existence.
Even if Cultural Ethical Relativism is considered like a shifting sand that cannot be used
as the foundation for our Ethical life, it still offers us two very important lesson:
(1) the theory reminds us about the danger of assuming that all our preferences and
moral feelings about certain human actions are right away based on a rational standard.
Many of our feelings and preferences are peculiar to our own society’s culture. Like Funeral
preferences, wedding practices, and many other customs and beliefs, may not be
altogether thought of in terms of an objective right and wrong because these are only
social conventions, or customs.
(2) Thus, the second lesson we can learn from Ethical Subjectivism is that we need to
have an open mind when faced with a cultural practices which is different and even at
~* * * ~
times, “scandalous” compared to ours. Before we judge a cultural practices to either be
moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, we need to understand the reason why these
culture practices such behavior. To have an open mind involves that we must become
aware of our prejudices and biases and make Ethical decisions free from these prejudices
and biases but rather based on the clarity of our reasons.
However, no one is ever free from the influence of one’s culture. It is thus necessary in
building an ethical lifestyle, to be a critical thinker in analyzing the strength and weaknesses of
one’s culture. At this point, I would like to present the essay of Professor Jensen De Guzman
Mañebog on the Pros and Cons of the Filipino Moral Character.
M1.23: The Development of a Moral Person
a. Character Defines a Person:

What is the most likely reason that motivates you into doing good? Is it fear of
punishment, the likelihood of a reward, the praises & honor of being considered a good guy,
the awareness of being a law abiding citizen, or a rational-principled character? Think about
your personal heroes, what motivates them to do good action? what enables a man to be
honest even in the face of so many tempting bribes and under the table offers? What keeps a
nurse professional and caring in her duties despite the fatigue? What keeps a student
motivated to study even if the situation are not the same as before, where there are no more
teacher by their side and there are too many distractions on the web that calls his attention?
How do you know that the news anchor who delivers the news remains to be trustworthy?
Questions like these leads us to one of the basic foundation of Ethics: The
Development of a Moral Person. You see, only human persons are able to develop rational,
dependable calculated actions that can contribute to the greatest good in this world, as well
as the worst evil. For example, a human person can bring about such great invention that can
heal millions of sick people through an effective vaccine, yet the same human person may
develop a nuclear bomb, that can wipe out an entire city in just a matter of seconds. Yet we
cannot know before hand whether this baby will turn out as a good guy or a bad guy. We can
only hope that with the good nurturing environment that a loving family can provide, this
young person will develop what we call a good moral character and become a productive
member of his family and his society.
~* * * ~
The greek philosopher, Socrates, believes that it is not enough to simply know how to
practice virtue, what is necessary in ethical life is to have the good moral character to
determine with regularity and reliability what actions are appropriate and reasonable in ethical
situations. This is why Aristotle states “that it is not easy to define in rules which actions
deserve moral praise and blame, and that these matters require the judgment of the virtuous
person” (Homiak, 2019).
The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, is credited for this beautiful teachings: “Watch your
thoughts, they become words; Watch your words, they become Actions;Watch your Actions,
they become Habits; Watch your Habits, they become Character; Watch your Character, it
becomes Your destiny.” So, for Lao Tzu, character is developed out of our habitual thoughts,
words, & actions.
St. Pope John Paul II calls the man as the acting person, which means the character of
the person is revealed in his carefully deliberated moral actions. For example, a person who is
covetous by heart will always find a way to steal the goods of others that he/she covets. A
lustful person will always see the other as someone whom he/she can use to satisfy his/her
lust. Action reveals the heart of a person, because it is what is overflowing in the heart that the
lips speaks and what we program in the mind that the hands do.
Lawrence Kohlberg provide another perspective of how moral development of person
happens. In his observations, Kohlberg classified 3 levels of moral development with two
stages in each level.
b. Stages of Moral Development

The 3 levels of morality that Kohlberg identified are: (1) Pre-conventional level of
morality,(2) Conventional Level of morality is when the youth understands the two main basis
of these norms such as social conventions or acceptability and the legal basis and the third
level is (3) Post-conventional level of morality, when the adult see the bigger picture of why
these norms expected upon us, because of social contract and it is the universally principled
action to do. Each of these
Pre-conventional level of Morality:
In this level, the child follows the norms of his immediate society (family, school,
friends) without understanding the basis of these norms. The moral character of the child may
~* * * ~
operate in two stages of orientation: Punishment and Obedience orientation and
Instrumental-Relativist Orientation.
Stage One: Punishment and Obedience Orientation
In this stage, children are motivated to avoid doing bad because they are motivated by
fear of punishment. For the child, it is the physical consequence of the action that determines
the goodness or badness of the act, irregardless whether the action is truly good or not. The
following are some responses of children operating in the first stage:
2.1.1.“It is wrong to get somebody’s cookies because mom will scold me”
2.1.2.“It is wrong to bully someone in school, because my teacher will get angry at me.”
2.1.3.“It is good to do my chores because dad will not give me allowance if I don’t do my chores.”
In other words, something is bad because doing it will result to bad consequences for
him or her in the form of physical punishment. For the child, the motive for doing a good act
and avoiding a bad act is to avoid physical punishment.
Kohlberg however observed that there are even older people who operates on this
stage. There are people who mature physically, but not morally. If a college student submits
his/her class requirements on time so as not to receive a failing grade, or if a nurse report to
work so that his/her salary will not have deduction, then their motivation for doing their good
actions is only to avoid the sure punishment associated with not doing that good act.
Externally, one may see these actions as done by a good person, but on a deeper analysis of
his motives may reveal something: that the person is doing good only to avoid punishment,
but what if there is 100% guarantee that a bad act will not be caught and therefore there will
be no punishment? The person operating on this first stage is more likely to do the bad act or
is more likely not going to do the good act.
Stage Two: Instrumentalist or Rewards Orientation

This second stage in the pre-conventional level is most common among children who
are not yet aware of the rules and regulations of the community and the society at large. Here,
the child is oriented to the value of an act based on the favors and rewards that he can get by
performing the said action. Right action consists of that which instrumentally satisfies one’s
own need and occasionally the needs of others. Human relationship are viewed like those of
the marketplace. Elements of fairness, or reciprocity and of equal sharing are present, but
they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. So, a kid may share his toy to
another only if the other kid will share his toy in exchange. Kohlberg observes that children
~* * * ~
are not only driven by fear of punishment, they are also motivated to do good actions if they
can get something in return, a sort of a favor or a reward.
Again, even adult persons, may still be primarily operating on this instrumentalist
attitude. So a college student may only befriend her seatmate because she can get
something out of the friendship, but when she can no longer get favors, she can easily ignore
the friendship and look for another victim. Or a politician may visit the houses of their
constituents, even share food packs or other help to them only because he is still asking for
their votes during election time, but when he/she is elected and can no longer get something
from the voters, then he is no longer visible and has no more time for them. An adult who
operates on this second stage sees other people as mere objects that are readily available for
his or her disposal. He or she demonstrates goodness only because he or she can get
something in return which can be a big return of investment or atleast an equivalent benefit.
Conventional level of Morality:
For Kohlberg’s development theory, it is during adolescence that majority of people
move from pre-conventional to conventional level of morality. In this level, the person become
aware that he or she is living in a society of countless people with countless interests. The
person realizes that the self-centeredness that characterizes the pre-conventional level has to
be given up if he or she wants to be accepted and to survive in a society of grown up persons.
This level has two stages or orientation: The social acceptance orientation and the Law &
Order orientation
Stage Three: Social Acceptance (or Good Boy-NiceGirl) Orientation
During this stage, the young adolescent becomes conscious of his or her image and
identity. He or she becomes more concerned not only about his or her physical appearance
but also with his or her “image” projected to his or her immediate circle of relationships:
family, friends, schoolmates, etc. Social acceptance or approval becomes the main motivation
in doing good. All these craze on becoming famous, or “viral” on social media is an example
of being in this stage of moral development. A person is motivated to do good only because
it earns social acceptance or approval and avoidance of doing bad action is caused by fear of
being socially reprimanded, bashed or criticized.
An adolescent might say:
2.1.1.“I will not cheat during exams because It would be humiliating if I get caught”
2.1.2.“I won’t tell my teachers even if my classmates cheats because I might lose the trust of my friends”
2.1.3.“This act may be morally questionable but it’s cool and trendy”
~* * * ~
Many adults somehow may still be operating in this stage like the attention seeking
politician who always have a ‘photo-ops’ or press releases whenever he meets his
constituents, or prints a big tarpaulin with his name on it on every government projects he
implements using people’s taxes. In the heart of these persons, Doing Good actions are those
which makes you famous, socially acceptable and gain lots of social approval, or likes in your
social media postings. It is important to point out that a person in this stage, may still be likely
do a bad act if there is a certainty of not getting caught. It is because his or her main concern
is not really the nature of the act but what other people will say.
Stage Four: Law and Order Orientation
Moral development is manifested when a person is not just concerned about being
punished, getting a reward or being too consious about the expectation of family and friends,
rather if the person simply realizes that the law must always be upheld, respected and
obeyed. This is the main characteristic of a person operating on the fourth stage of moral
development. A good person is one who abides by the law and respects the authority of the
law giver. It is because he or she realizes that laws in an organization or in the bigger society
are needed to ensure orderly, harmonious and peaceful living. Thus a person who operates in
this stage may be prepared to disagree with family members or even to become unpopular
among his circle of relationship in order to uphold the letters of the law.
The following are some examples of expressions on this stage:
2.1.1.“I will pay my taxes even if my friends do not and even if I doubt the honesty of our government,
because it is the law.”
2.1.2.“It might be difficult for our part to stay at home during this time of pandemic, but it is the law, so
we must obey.”
2.1.3.Even if your child is sick and you do not have money to buy medicine, you should not steal,
because it is against the law.”
One may observe rightly that in stage four of moral development, the person is not just
concerned with himself or with his immediate relationships, rather he or she considers the
harmony in his or her larger society. He or she is starting to be mindful of the common good
through systems of laws, codes and authority. The person does not just obey the rules out of
fear but out of respect for the law, recognition of the authority of law givers and concern for
social order.
Post Conventional Level of Morality:
~* * * ~
It seems that having a legalist mindset marks sufficient for moral reasoning, however
according to Kohlberg the legalist mindset may be a sign of greater maturity in moral
reasoning compared to the earlier stages, but a person can still advance in moral
development. Kohlberg calls the next level as post-conventional morality. It is because on this
level, the person is no longer determined and conditioned by “social conventions” such as
law, written codes or agreed standards, rather, the person exercises freedom and foresight
and becomes more conscious on the foundation of the society’s norms such as the social
contract and the universal ethical principles of human rights, justice, fairness, equality, human
dignity and common good.
In this level, the person is no longer enslaved by the letters of the law. He sees the law
as simply prescribing the bare minimum in doing what is good and knows that there is a
higher standard for human than what the law dictates, thus, if necessary, the law can be
repealed, revised or improved to better address the bigger demands of human society. There
are two stages in this level of moral development: the Social contract orientation and the
Universal Ethical Principle orientation.
Stage Five: Social Contract Orientation
Adults Persons at this stage of moral development are able to see beyond the letters of
the law and recognizes the “spirit of the Law” as anchored on the promotion of the greatest
benefit for all the members of society. These adults realize that laws are written to promote
the common good, which every citizen has to follow as our duty based on our contract to
society. The concept of fulfilling one’s social contract becomes the basis of doing good, which
at times may go above the minimum requirements of the law.
At this stage of moral development, the person can be critical of laws that seem to be
oppressive, unjust and opposed to the promotion of the common good. When the human
laws of the land are absolutized by the implementors, they seemed to be placed higher than
the value of life and dignity of persons. For example, at the start of implementing the rules on
Enhanced Community Quarantine, we heard of news that some local government units
prohibits even the transport of food. But this implementation seemed to be against the
common good, as there are many people who go hungry because of low supply of food,
while the farmers are loosing money, because they cannot sell their produce. And so, in
situations like these, Stage five persons take into action to clarify, revise or repeal an unjust
law or unjust implementation of it.
~* * * ~
Here are some example of moral reasoning of persons in this stage:
2.1.1.“I should not steal because it is a violation of the person’s basic rights to property.”
2.1.2.“My employees shall receive their salary even if there are no work due to the government
imposed quarantine, because my employees need to feed their family.”
2.1.3.“I may own the titles of many hectares of land, but those lands belong to my tenants too because
they were the ones who cultivated them, and besides I already have more than what I need.”
It is because of Stage-five moral thinking that there are some revolutionaries in society
who defy oppressive leadership and authoritarian regimes. These revolutionaries see that
when laws become oppressive and unjust, they cease to be called laws because they
contradict and defeat the very purpose of law and law making. Social innovators are also
operating on this stage, because they embark on projects or programs to improve on what
society has accepted as the status quo.
Stage Six: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation
For Kohlberg, this is the pinnacle of moral reasoning, according to him only few people
reach this stage. Here the morally mature person is no longer governed by fear of punishment
nor motivated by material reward or by social expectations, by societal laws or even by basic
social contracts. The person who operates on this stage is simply propelled by the “RIGHT”
thing to do. This right act is neither subjective nor relative because it is anchored on the
universal ethical principles that are valid for all people at all times. Therefore, one’s conscience
is formed and developed based on these universal ethical principles.
One of the best example of an act that reflects Stage six is the phenomenon of
“Whistleblowing.” A person who discloses the illegal and unethical activities of his or her
company or organization may endanger not only his or her job security but even his or her
own life and that of his/her family. However, the person courageously carries on blowing the
whistle because he/she knows that it is the right thing to do, that it is what his or her
conscience is telling him or her and that he or she is now a completely free and autonomous
person governed only by his or her personally adopted universal ethical standards.
The stories of heroes and other people who risk their lives for the sake of truth and
justice attest to the human person’s capacity to reach the apex of moral reasoning.
c. Reason and impartiality as requirement for ethics

We can learn two (2) main points from all these stages of moral development. The first
is that moral judgements must be backed up by good reasons. Good reason tells us that
avoiding negative consequences, or going after rewards are not enough reasons for doing
~* * * ~
good or avoiding bad actions since these are based so much on feelings such that if the
person feels that the punishment is not too scary or the reward is not too appealing or if the
person feels comfortable with his social circle, then he or she might no longer be motivated to
do good or avoid bad action. Following the letter of the law blindly is good at certain
occasions but is not even enough on all cases, since there are certain laws that remains
unethical either because it is biased against the minority or favors only a few. The second
lesson in moral development is that solving moral dilemmas, requires impartial
considerations of each individual’s interests.
Moral Reasoning: as a requirement for ethics involves setting aside our strong feelings
towards a situation because these might lead us to be biased in our decision. In the classic
18th century English case of Dudley & Stephen who were accused of killing and eating the
body of their sick crew member, Richard Parker, when they were marooned in the middle of
the sea for more than 20 days without any sign of rescue. For Dudley and Stephen, their
strong feelings of hunger, longing for their family, fear of death and hopelessness for rescue,
led them to an inhuman decision of killing and eating the body of their youngest shipmate, a
person whom they were supposed to protect since Dudley was the captain of their
shipwrecked vessel. It seems their moral reasoning were greatly affected by their strong
feelings. But the judges and those involved in their indictment saw a crime was committed
because their reasons were not overpowered by their feelings. Feelings are neither good nor
bad, they are our personal response to the various stimuli in our surrounding, and feelings
could be influenced by our prejudices, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. However, feelings
could affect our Moral Reasoning, as certain truth necessary for moral deliberation may be set
aside because of our strong feelings. So how do we know if our moral reasoning is good? (1.)
Get the complete truth about of the case, and (2) apply the moral principles correctly on the
case.
If we make a habit of making moral decisions based on good reasons and not just on
strong feelings, then we can make an impartial moral decision which we can be proud of.
M1.24: The Ethical Action

The Human Person as a Moral Agent, is capable of performing actions that are
rationally evaluated, freely chosen and willfully performed, technically, these are called:
“Human Acts”. These human powers that are used in performing the human act such as
~* * * ~
Reason, Freedom & Will, makes the human person as the moral agent, as someone who is
responsible for his/her action, that means, he/she can be praised or rewarded for a good act
or punished for a bad action. However, there are actions performed by the human person
which do not made use of the full powers of reason or freedom or will. These actions are
technically called “Acts of Man” and they refer to those actions which are automatic like
breathing, snoring, sleep walking, etc. What is common among these Acts of man is that
these actions may happen without the full consciousness or awareness of the person and so
these actions are considered involuntary actions and are not subjected to moral or ethical
evaluation.
An Ethical or Moral action is never done in a vacuum. Since human beings are
intelligent, and free our actions will always have a source or a motivation and an end, or
purpose, it also has so many other nuances such as who are affected, who are involved, etc.
When we try to determine the moral quality of the action, we must look at these three factors
that are involved in the whole act in order to make a good moral evaluation of such action.
These three factors are: Action, Intention & Circumstances, in Ethics, we call them the
Determinants of the Human act, because these are the factors that we need to take a closer
look into in order to determine the morality of that human act.
a. Determinants of the Morality of an Act.
First we ask the question, “What happened?” or specifically, what human action was
committed? In most ethical situation, there might be several actions that are inter-related, with
one action causing the other, like a ripple effect and which may increase the goodness or
badness of the action. In examining this determinant of the human act, we are looking for the
main human action and ask what is the natural end of this act? or what is its direct result,
without yet looking at the moral agent’s intention. When looking closer at the action, we can
then check its relationship with the moral standard, the law, the principles whether it is
supported by the standard or if it violates the standard. There are actions that by itself, can
right away be considered immoral or actions that should not be done because we are humans
and these actions are outright violations of the moral norms. we call these actions as
inherently immoral actions. Like for example: Killing, stealing, committing adultery, or
stealing your friend’s boyfriend. Since the end of the act of killing which is to terminate the life
of another person, violates the right of that person to life, therefore killing is inherently
immoral and should not be done. On the other hand, there are actions that are by
themselves really good because they are clearly a support or an observance of the natural
~* * * ~
moral law. We call these actions as inherently moral actions. Like for example: giving birth to
a new baby, returning to the owner who lost an item that you have found, telling the truth and
many more. Since the end result of human act of giving birth is to allow a new person to have
life, is an observance of the natural moral law then this action is truly good and should be
done. However, there are many actions which by themselves are neither inherently bad nor
inherently good, rather, their moral quality will be dependent on the other two determinants:
Intention and circumstance. So we call these acts as temporarily amoral actions. For
example, singing, walking, smiling are not necessarily good nor bad by themselves, but lets
say you are singing a song to insult another person, then your act of singing is bad, or if you
smile to show you approval to another person who is doing a good action, then your act of
smiling serves as an encouragement to another person to do more good. The end of the act
or the Action is also called in ethics as the “Means” used by the moral agent to achieve his
goal or his intention which is the second determinants of the morality of the human act.
The Second question in determining the morality of the human act is to ask: “Why did
the moral agent did such action?” Here we are looking at the intention of the doer of the act
and so this second determinant morality is also called: “End of the Agent,” or simply:
Intention. Intentions by itself can be considered either “Good or Bad.” So, A good intention
is one that follows the standards set by the Natural Moral Law, while a Bad intention is one
that violates the standards set by the Natural Moral Law. For example, if a person has the
intention of feeding his family, but steal in order to fulfill this intention, then his action is still
wrong, or if he befriends a classmate (which is a good action) but has the bad intention of
tricking that classmate of his money, (which is a bad intention), then his whole action is
completely wrong. This is why the Principle in Ethics says: “The End, does not justify the
Means.” We cannot do a wrong action to fulfill even a good intention.
The Third determinant of Morality is called the “Circumstances.” These are the many
other factors that surrounds the action. So we ask: Who did the act, Who was affected by the
act, Where did the action took place, When did it happen, with what tools was it done, How
was the action committed? These are questions about elements surrounding the action which
could increase the gravity or the degree of badness or goodness of the action. For example, if
one steals from a rich guy, the action is wrong, but if one steals from a poor beggar, the action
becomes even more despicable. so in trying to determine the morality of the action, we look
at the surrounding circumstances which can alter significantly the morality of the whole act. So
a circumstance can have the following effect on the morality of the action:
~* * * ~
1. Aggravate: when the presence of a circumstance worsens the gravity of the
act. For example: Killing (inherently wrong action) plus there was evidence that the victim was
killed with 100 stab wounds (circumstance of how). So this aggravating circumstance (the
presence of 100 stab wounds) made the action even worse.
2. Mitigate: when the presence of a circumstance lessens the gravity of the act,
that is, it can make a bad action, less bad, but never fully good. For example: Killing
(inherently wrong action) by road accident, in a highway without street lights while there was a
heavy rain and the driver brought the victim to the hospital, (circumstances of how and what
happens next), these circumstances shows that the moral agent did not have the intention to
kill, the condition in the road prevented him from seeing the victim, and he had the sense of
emergency and duty to bring the person to the hospital, so in the presence of these
circumstances, the driver may not be guilty of murder but only with a lesser degree of a crime.
3. Exempting: when the presence of a circumstance removes the responsibility
or liability from the moral agent because of the absence of any of the elements which makes
the action or omission voluntary, such as absence of freedom, intelligent or rational
consciousness or lack of due care or willingness in doing the act. These circumstance pertains
to the actor and not the act. They are personal to the accused in whom they are present and
the effects do not extend to the other participants of the act. Thus if a principal accused is
acquitted, the other participants in the act, accessories and accomplices are still liable. For
example, when a crime is committed by a minor, one who have not reached the age of
criminal liability defined by our laws, the age of the minor becomes an exempting
circumstance in such situation. This gives rise to a situation where the accused committed a
crime but is not criminally liable.
4. Justifying: These are circumstances in which the accused is deemed to have
acted in accordance with the law and therefore the act is lawful. Since the act is lawful, it
follows that there is no criminal, no criminal liability and no civil liability. It requires that: there
was no criminal intention, the act in questions is justified by law, or social conventions. For
example, killing as a form of self defense. Since there was no criminal intent to kill but there
was a clear and present danger to one’s life and in the process of defending one’s self, the
defender was able to kill the aggressor, then the presence of the Justifying circumstance of
self defense, “defender” is not criminally liable. So the policeman who, in the process of
apprehending a drug pusher was ambushed by the criminal gang, and if the police defended
~* * * ~
his own life and killed those criminals, then the police is not liable of murder because his
action was justified by the law.
In our experiences, it is the intention that is deliberated first by the moral agent. In
doing an action, we normally decide first on what goal we want to accomplish, and then
choose the means or the actions necessary to achieve such goal, then, when situation permits,
we also take note of the various circumstances that may influence the morality of our actions.
That is why ethicist would always advocate, that we think first before we act. So that, we can
decide on our best intention, deliberate on the best course of action and avoid circumstances
that may negatively affect the morality of our action.
However, it is not always true that we are able to think clearly before we make our
decisions. Many times, Feelings gets into the way, and we are able to make many decisions
prompted by very strong feelings such as fear, excitement, disgust or shame.
b. Feelings and Ethical Decision making
Feelings and intuitions or emotions, play a significant role in many of the ethical
decisions that we human persons make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions
direct their moral choices. But experts think it is impossible to make any important moral
judgments without emotions. Emotions can be negative or positive.
Negative emotions like guilt, shame, embarrassment often motivates people to act
ethically, these are called “inner-directed negative emotions.” There are times when we
direct our negative emotions to other people, to prevent them or discourage them from
behaving unethically, these are called “outer-directed negative emotions.”
Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which people may feel when they see
another acting with compassion or kindness, can prompt people to help others.
Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act
ethically toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly
motivates prosocial activity such as altruism, cooperation, and generosity.
So, while we may believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our
philosophy or religious values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our ethical
decision-making. And as we noted on our previous discussions in ethics, our emotions can be
conditioned by our society especially by our culture.
c. Models in Making Ethical Decisions
~* * * ~
In order to navigate through the many Ethical Dilemmas that we encounter, and in
order to have a better practice of moral reasoning, while keeping in check our strong feelings
or emotions about that ethical situation, it is necessary to follow certain established stems in
making an ethical decision.
There are several Models in making an Ethical Decision. One such model is developed
by the Josephson Institute of Ethics which focuses on six steps to ethical decision making.
The steps consist of stop and think, clarify goals, determine facts, develop options,
consider consequences, choose, and monitor/modify.
First step is to stop and think. When we stop to think, this avoids rash decisions and allows us to
focus on the right decision-making process. It also allows us to determine if the
situation we are facing is legal or ethical.
Second step is to clarify our goals, where we allow ourselves to focus on expected and desired
outcomes.
Third step is to determine the facts in the situation. Where are we getting our facts? Is the
person who is providing the facts to us credible? Is there bias in the facts or
assumptions that may not be correct?
Fourth step is to create a list of options. This can be a brainstormed list with all possible
solutions.
Fifth step, is to look at the possible consequences of our actions. For example, who will be
helped and who might be hurt?
The Sixth step and the most important is to Choose, or Decide and Monitor or Modify your
decision when necessary. Since all ethical decisions we make may not always be
perfect, considering how you feel and the outcome of your decisions will help you to
make better ethical decisions in the future.
The 8 Steps Approach to Ethical Decision Making

by Corey, G., Corey, M . S., & Callanan, P. (1998).
This model was created in the late 1990s for the counseling profession but can apply to
nearly every profession from health care to business. In this model, the authors propose eight
steps to the decision-making process. As you will note, the process is similar to Josephson’s
model, with a few variations:
Step 1: Identify the problem. Sometimes just realizing a particular situation is ethical can be the
important first step. Occasionally in our organizations, we may feel that it’s just the “way
of doing business” and not think to question the ethical nature.
Step 2: Identify the potential issues involved. Who could get hurt? What are the issues that
could negatively impact people and/or the company? What is the worst-case scenario if
we choose to do nothing?
~* * * ~
Step 3: Review relevant ethical guidelines. Does the organization have policies and procedures
in place to handle this situation? For example, if a client gives you a gift, there may be a
rule in place as to whether you can accept gifts and if so, the value limit of the gift you
can accept.
Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. If the company doesn’t necessarily have a rule
against it, could it be looked at as illegal?
Step 5: Obtain consultation. Seek support from supervisors, coworkers, friends, and family, and
especially seek advice from people who you feel are moral and ethical.
Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. What are all of the possible solutions
for solving the problem? Brainstorm a list of solutions—all solutions are options during
this phase.
Step 7: List the consequences of the probable courses of action. What are both the positive and
negative benefits of each proposed solution? Who can the decision affect?
Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. With the facts we have and the
analysis done, choosing the best course of action is the final step. There may not always
be a “perfect” solution, but the best solution is the one that seems to create the most
good and the least harm.
These discussion on the Ethical Action, from the factors that determines the morality of
the action up to the steps in making a moral decision, are very important issues in ethics
because of the notion that we are ultimately to be held responsible for the actions that we
have performed under the full control of our will. We call this concept as the Control
Principle. This means that if after careful deliberation of the best ethical decision, we
encountered an unexpected & uncontrolled circumstance which changed the gravity of the
act, then we should not be held liable for such wrong turn of events, or if ever the
unexpected & uncontrolled circumstance brought about a greater good result, then the
person cannot gain applause for it. For example, you cannot blame a person who stepped on
your foot, if that person can prove that he/she was simply pushed by the crowd, (where the
pushing of the crowd was the unexpected & uncontrolled circumstance) or we cannot give an
award to the policemen, for the decrease in petty crime rate in their area during the
implementation of the Enhanced Community Quarantine, because the policemen did not
caused the emergence of the covid19 pandemic which triggered the government in
implementing the ECQ nationwide. This then leads us to the one difficult issue in ethics raised
by contemporary philosophers Bernard Williams (1981), and Thomas Nagel (1979), which they
called: Moral Luck.
d. Moral Luck vs Moral Responsibility
~* * * ~
Moral luck occurs when there are factors in the human person’s actions which had a
significant effect on its morality, but these factors are outside the control of such person.
Because these factors are outside the control of such person who committed the act, then the
person may not be blamed for a bad action, or praised if its a good action. We can only say
that He got Lucky or unlucky.
For example, let’s say two drivers who both came out of a party, went home driving
while drunk. Driver A, came home safe without any incident, but Driver B, met an accident
due to his impaired focus in driving and his response time was slow due to the alcohol so he
was not able to step on the break in time to prevent hitting a crossing pedestrian on the
street. Of course, we seem to think that Driver B is guilty for acting unethically by driving
while intoxicated of alcohol, but can we simply brush Driver A’s equally unethical action simply
because he was lucky that the street he drove into was deserted? or are they both going to be
blamed for their unethical decision?
In reality, there are so many criminals out there who are not punished nor blamed for
their mistakes because they were “lucky” enough that they were not caught on the act, or
many good intentioned individual who suffered the consequence of a carefully deliberated
ethical decisions because of an unexpected and uncontrolled circumstance which “unluckily”
came into play in their situations. Like those many doctors who were infected by the Covid19
virus, in early February or March 2020 because they were not yet fully aware how infectious
this COVID19 virus is, and so they treated patients without complete personal protective
equipment.
Nagel identifies four kinds of luck that may be present in our moral actions:
D1.Resultant or Consequential Luck, D2.Circumstantial Luck, D3.Constitutive Luck, and
D4.Causal or Antecedent Luck.
D1. Resultant or Consequential Luck. Resultant luck is luck in the way things turn out.
Example, let say two assassins shot their guns towards their victim, but only Assassin A, hit
their target victim and killed him, can we say that Assassin B is not to be blamed for this
action? Each of them has exactly the same intentions, has acted out the same plans, and so
on, but things turn out very differently and so both are subject to resultant luck. If in either
case, we can correctly offer different moral assessments for each member of the pair, then we
have a case of resultant moral luck. Actually, our laws differentiates this actions in our example
as Homicide (for Assassin A) and Attempted Homicide (for Assassin B).
~* * * ~
D2. Circumstantial luck. Circumstantial luck is luck in the circumstances in which one
finds oneself. For example, consider Nazi collaborators in 1930s Germany who are
condemned for committing morally atrocious acts, even though their very presence in Nazi
Germany was due to factors beyond their control (Nagel 1979). Had those very people been
transferred by the companies for which they worked to Argentina in 1929, perhaps they would
have led exemplary lives. If we correctly morally assess the Nazi collaborators differently from
their imaginary counterparts in Argentina, then we have a case of circumstantial moral luck.
D3. Constitutive luck. Constitutive luck is luck in who one is, or in the traits and
dispositions that one has. Since our genes, care-givers, peers, and other environmental
influences all contribute to making us who we are (and since we have no control over these) it
seems that who we are is at least largely a matter of luck. Since how we act is partly a function
of who we are, the existence of constitutive luck entails that what actions we perform depends
on luck, too. For example, if we correctly blame someone for being cowardly or self-righteous
or selfish, when his being so depends on factors beyond his control, because that was how
he/she was raised up by his parents, then we have a case of constitutive moral luck. Further,
if a person acts on one of these very character traits over which he lacks control by, let’s say,
running away instead of helping to save his child, and we correctly blame him for so acting,
then we also have a case of constitutive moral luck. Thus, since both actions and agents are
objects of moral assessment, constitutive moral luck undermines the Control Principle when it
comes to the assessment of both actions and agents.
D4. Causal or Antecedent luck. Finally, there is causal luck, or luck in “how one is
determined by antecedent circumstances” (Nagel 1979, 60). For example, if a father of a
family, who has recently lost his job, due to the economic downturn resulting from the
Covid19 pandemic, becomes desperate and decided to keep the money bag which he found
in the bus which he rode on his way home, then this person has a bad causal luck. Had this
guy been in a much stable company, he could have retained his job and he wouldn’t have
been tempted to do such unethical action. Or if a poor person gets sick and has no money,
chances are, he/she will decide not to go to a hospital for fear of the costly medical treatment
that he cant afford and so he will simply stay home waiting for his good causal luck to recover
from the sickness or if he has bad luck, then he perish from that sickness, his poverty then
becomes the antecedent circumstance which determined the way he decided with regards
going to the hospital or not.
~* * * ~
The arguments raised by Williams and Nagel about Moral Luck, actually questions the
idea of the “Control Principle” and raises the concept of Determination where we are not
actually in control of our lives and our decisions, and so we live our lives only as part of a
sequence of events which we are not in control of. Thus, many make the excuse that they
were not criminals but simply victims of circumstances or were simply having a series of “Bad
Luck.”
However, with the concept of moral luck, we can no longer determine if we are truly
morally responsible for our action. The concept of blame and praise becomes questionable.
To address this, Thomas Nagel calls for a deeper analysis of our actions and ascribe better
way of assigning blame or praise on a given person for the specific action that he/she did on
his own control, while leaving no blame or praise for those actions that he did not willfully has
a control of. Moral Responsibility is retained in the sense that a person, when he/she pauses
and utilizes completely his/her innate power of reason, freedom and will, is able to make a
deliberate choice on the best action to perform in such a particular ethical situation. Society
through its laws and norms will continue to ascribe praise for good actions and blame for bad
actions because these are necessary for social order. Thus it is necessary to be aware of the
“moral Luck” that may be present in our actions when we are assessing the morality of our
action, but we should never be dependent of such luck, because most of the time, our actions
are within the best control of our reason, freedom and will.
REFERENCES:
Andrews, D. (2018) “10 Things You May Not Know About Roman Gladiator,” in History stories at history.com.
Retrieved from the website: https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-roman-
gladiators
Biasucci, Cara (n.d.) ed. “Moral Emotions” in Ethics Unwrapped website by McCombs School of Business – The
University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from the web address: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/
glossary/moral-
emotions#:~:text=Emotions%20%E2%80%93%20that%20is%20to%20say,the%20ethical%20decisions
%20people%20make.&text=But%20experts%20think%20it%20is,motivate%20people%20to%20act%2
0ethically.
Bowie, N. (1996) “Relativism: Cultural and Moral.” in Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, Fifth
Ed. Thomas Donaldson, and Patricia Werhane. New Jersey:Prentice Hall. in Bowie, N. (2013). Business
Ethics in the 21st Century. Netherlands:Springer.
Corey, G., Corey, M . S., & Callanan, P. (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Toronto: Brooks/
Cole Publishing Company; Syracuse School of Education. (n.d.). An ethical decision making model,
~* * * ~
accessed from the website, http://soe.syr.edu/academic/counseling_and_human_services/modules/
Common_Ethical_Issues/ethical_decision_making_model.aspx
Cortez, F.G.F, (2016) Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Vibal Group Inc. Quezon City Philippines.
Craig, W. (1994) Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossways. cited in Mañebog JDG, (2020) Moral Realism and
Objectivism Do They Make Sense? in MyInfoBasket.com, retrieved from the website: https://
myinfobasket.com/moral-realism-and-objectivism-do-they-make-sense/
Enderle, George (2005). “Business Ethics in China.” In Patricia Werhane, and Edward Freeman. The Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Management. Business Ethics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Gaudine, Alice & Thorne, Linda. (2001). Emotion and Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics. 31. 175-187. 10.1023/A:1010711413444
George, Marie I. (2017). "What moral character is and is not". The Linacre Quarterly. 84 (3): 261–
274. doi:10.1080/00243639.2017.1338442. PMC 5592308. PMID 28912619
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
Homiak, Marcia, (2019) “Moral Character", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
Retrieved from the web address: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/moral-
character/
Mañebog, JDG (2020) Moral Realism and Objectivism Do They Make Sense? in MyInfoBasket.com, retrieved
from the website: https://myinfobasket.com/moral-realism-and-objectivism-do-they-make-sense/
McConnell, T. (1994). Review: On the Nature and Scope of Morality. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, 54(2), pp. 421-425. (retrieved from: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/
T_McConnell_On_1994.pdf)
Nagel, Thomas, 1979, Mortal Questions, New York: Cambridge University Press; page reference is to the
reprint of chapter 3 in Statman 1993.
Nagel, Thomas, 1986, The View from Nowhere, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nash, L. (1981). Ethics without the sermon. Howard Business Review, 59 79–90, accessed from the
website, http://www.cs.bgsu.edu/maner/heuristics/1981Nash.htm
Prentice, Robert J.D. “Moral Emotions,” in Ethics Unwrapped website by McCombs School of Business – The
University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from the web address: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/
video/moral-emotions
Rachels, James. (2004). Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th edition New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Rachels, James & Rachels, Stuart (2010) “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” In The Elements of Moral
Philosophy, Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Roos, D. (2018), Human Sacrifice: Why the Aztecs Practiced This Gory Ritual. In History Stories at history.com.
Retrieved from the website: https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion.
Ruse, M. (1982) Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Cited in Mañebog, JDG (2020) Moral Realism and Objectivism Do They Make Sense? in
MyInfoBasket.com, retrieved from the website: https://myinfobasket.com/moral-realism-and-
objectivism-do-they-make-sense/
Santa Clara University. (n.d.). A framework for thinking ethically, accessed from the website: http://
www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html
Statman, Daniel, (ed.), (1993) ,Moral Luck, Albany: State University of New York Press.
~* * * ~
Williams, Bernard, (1981), Moral Luck, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; page reference is to the reprint
of chapter 2 in Statman 1993.
Williams, Bernard, (1993), “Postscript”, in Moral Luck, D. Statman (ed.), Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Zimmermann, K. A. (2017), What Is Culture?, in livescience.com by Future US, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street, 15th
Floor, New York, NY 10036. retrieved from the web address: https://www.livescience.com/21478-what-
is-culture-definition-of-culture.html
~* * * ~

Handouts For Module 1 Introduction To Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handouts For Module 1 Introduction To Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HANDOUTS FOR

This Module is divided into two units:

At the End of this Module, the students should be able to:

UNIT 1: THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY & ETHICS.

This General Education course on Ethics is a study about being human. It is an

M1.11: Definition of Philosophy, Ethics, Morality

M1.12: Different Types of Ethical Inquiry

Normative ethics is prescriptive (it prescribes or commands) in nature as it seeks to set

Descriptive Ethics or Meta-ethics, on the other hand, is descriptive in nature. According

3. The Game Commentators, and especially the Board of Governors and

M1.21: The Human Being as the Moral Agent.

a. Moral Dilemma, why is it difficult to make Ethical Decision?

b. Three (3) Levels of Ethical or Moral Dilemmas

2. Organizational Ethical Dilemma Are those which an organization as whole, such as a

M1.22: Influences of Culture in Moral Behavior

a. Culture and its role in moral behavior

c. Ethical Relativism vs Moral Objectivism, Where does your Ethics Stand?

M1.23: The Development of a Moral Person

a. Character Defines a Person:

b. Stages of Moral Development

Stage Two: Instrumentalist or Rewards Orientation

Post Conventional Level of Morality:

c. Reason and impartiality as requirement for ethics

M1.24: The Ethical Action

The 8 Steps Approach to Ethical Decision Making

d. Moral Luck vs Moral Responsibility

You might also like