READINGS IN ETHICS

(General Education 8)
 2

COURSE OUTLINE: ETHICS

The course is organized according to three main elements of the moral experience: agent; the act;
and reason and framework (for the act).

I. Introduction: Key Concepts

A. Definition and Key Terms

B. Relevance of Morality/Ethics
C. Moral Problems and Dilemmas
D. Freedom and Responsibility

II. Elements of a Moral Experience

A. The Moral Agent

1. The Person as the only Moral Being

2. Culture in Moral Behavior

a. Culture and its role in Moral Behavior
b. The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

3. The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as Habit

a. Development of the Moral Character
b. Stages of Moral Development
c. Moral Courage

B. The Act

1. Human Acts and Acts of Man

2. Reason and Impartiality

C. Reason: Ethical Frameworks and Traditions

1. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

2. St. Thomas’s Natural Law
3. Kant’s Good Will and the Categorical Imperative
4. Utilitarianism
5. Rawls’ Theory of Justice

III. Making Informed Decisions: Moral Deliberation and Judgment

A. Steps for Moral Deliberation

B. Ethical Issues for Analysis
1. The Taking of Human Life
2. Marriage and Human Sexuality
3. Ethical Issues in Medicine
4. Ethical Issues in Business
5. Environmental Issues

IV. Ethical Challenges

1. Globalization and Pluralism

2. Religion and Ethics
 3

I. INTRODUCTION: KEY CONCEPTS

Definition and Key Terms:

A. Definition

“Ethics is the practical and philosophical science of the morality of human acts or human conduct.”

 Ethics is said to be a science insofar as it is a body of systematized knowledge arranged with its
accompanying explanation. In terms of content, however, it is not to be classified as a course in
science.
 Ethics as a practical science means that it consists of principle and laws that are applied in daily
living. In this sense, Ethics is not a course taken for the sake of contemplation; rather, it is a study
taken for application in man’s everyday course of action. Ethics is applied knowledge.
 As a philosophical science, Ethics is not a technical course nor a laboratory study. It presents
and deliberates its subject matter “in the light of the its deepest principles by means of human reason
alone.” – Ethics investigates facts, analyzes them and draws from them practical applications to
particular actions.

“Morality is the quality of right and wrong in human acts.”

Human conduct implies the free and deliberate use of the will, which is characteristic of human acts. Ethics
deals only with human acts insofar as they are performed with knowledge and consent. This entails personal
responsibility. And so acts of irrational animals and insane persons are devoid of moral significance.

B. Ethical, Moral, Unethical, Immoral

 When we speak of people as a being, moral or ethical, we usually mean that they are good people,
and we speak of them as being immoral or unethical, we mean that they are bad people. When we
refer to certain human actions as being moral, ethical, immoral, and unethical, we mean that they are
right or wrong. The simplicity of these definitions, however, ends here, for how do we define right
or wrong action or a good or bad person? What are the human standards by which such decisions
can be made? These are the more difficult questions that make up the greater part of the study of
morality… The important thing to remember here is that moral, ethical, immoral and unethical,
essentially mean good, right, bad, and wrong, often depending upon whether one is referring to
people themselves or to their actions.

C. Amoral

 Amoral means “having no moral sense,” or being indifferent to right and wrong.” This term can
be applied to very few people. …And there are a few human beings who, despite moral education,
have remained or become amoral. These tend to be found among certain criminal types who can’t
seem to realize they’ve done anything wrong. They tend not to have any remorse, regret, or concern
for what they have done.
 It is defined as “a person characterized by emotional instability, lack of sound judgment, perverse
and impulsive (often criminal) behavior, inability to learn from experience, amoral and asocial
feelings, and other serious personality defects.”
 4

 He knows what the ethical rules are, at least he can repeat them parrotlike, but they are
void of meaning to him.”
 “No sense of conscience, guilt, or remorse is present. Harmful acts are committed
without discomfort or shame.”

 All of this doesn’t mean that amoral criminals should not be morally blamed and punished for
their wrongdoings. In fact, such people are even more dangerous to society than those who can
distinguish right from wrong because usually they are morally uneducable. Society, therefore, needs
even more protection from such criminals.

D. Nonmoral

 The word nonmoral means “out of the realm of morality altogether.” For example, inanimate
objects such as cars and guns are neither moral nor immoral.
 A person using the car or gun may use it immorally, but the things themselves are nonmoral.
Many areas of study (for instances, mathematics, astronomy, and physics) are in themselves
nonmoral, but because human beings are involved in these areas, morality also may be involved. A
mathematics problem is neither moral nor immoral in itself; however, if it provides the means by
which a hydrogen bomb can be exploded, then moral issues certainly will be forthcoming.

** In summary, then, the immoral person knowingly violates human moral standards by doing something
wrong or by being bad. The amoral person may also violate moral standards because he or she has no moral
sense. Something that is nonmoral can neither be good nor bad nor do anything right or wrong simply
because it does not fall within the scope of morality.

Source: Thiroux, Jacques. (2012). Ethics: Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Relevance of Morality

Human Being as Co-existent


SOCIETY

Structures:

 Government
 Economy * Mutual Benefit
 Education  * Unity and Harmony
 Church
 Health
 Defense

People

But  Society at present
 ILLNESSES
 Corruption
 Poverty
 5

 Unemployment
 Underemployment
 Terrorism
 High crime rate
 Prostitution
 Human rights violations


Who’s to blame?

The Structures? - change them

The People running the structures?

- problem on moral uprightness
- problem on the value system

Moral Problem and Dilemma

A. Moral Problem

 Morality is not a mere cerebral affair, it is applied ethics. Therefore it is also real or concrete. It
becomes real perhaps, through the following:
1. When one encounters a moral experience
2. A moral experience could ensure when one encounters a moral problem; and
3. A person encounters a moral problem when the problem injuncts him a moral obligation.

 It is obligation that makes the problem or experience moral. There can be no morality apart from
obligation. That is why morality is always associated with the “ought”. What is the meaning of the
“ought”? “Ought” is only one of the degrees of moral obligations. In reality, moral obligation is of
three degrees, namely: “should”, “must”, and “ought”. Any of these degrees singles out man to be
responsible for his actions. But, since man has freedom, it is “ought” that fits in morality.

B. Moral/Ethical Dilemma

 A Moral Dilemma is a complicated situation wherein one is torn between choosing one of two goods
or choosing between the lesser of two evils. We have a moral dilemma when an individual can
choose only one from a number of possible actions, and there are compelling ethical reasons for the
various choices.
 Example 1: A mother is conflicted between wanting to feed her hungry child, but then recognizing
that it would be wrong for her to steal.
 Example 2: Robin Hood – “Is it right to steal from the rich in order to feed the poor?”
 Three Levels:
1. Individual Dilemma (personal)
2. Organizational Dilemma (business, medical and public sector)
3. Structural Dilemma (network of institutions and operative theoretical paradigms – universal
health care)

Sources:
Babor, E. (2006) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action. Manila: Rex Printing Co.
Bulaong, O., Calano, Mark Joseph T., Lagliva, Albert M., Mariano, Michael Ner E., Principe, Jesus Deogracias Z. (2018). Ethics:
Foundations of Moral Valuation. Manila: Rex Book Store.
 6

Freedom and Responsibility

A. FREEDOM IMPLIES RESPONSIBILITY

 According to the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, because a human person is free, he/she is
responsible not only for himself/herself but also for others and ultimately for humanity. Here are
the two reasons:
 First, a person is in-charge of his/her own life.
- A person is the “master of his/her fate and captain of his/her soul” an adage says. A
person has no excuse; he/she has to live his/her own life. Proxy is not allowed. He/she
cannot afford to be complacent and irresponsible. He/she has to think for everything in
his/her own life.
- Other people (parents, friends, teachers) can give you pieces of advice and suggestions,
but it is you who are going to make a choice. It is your life and it is your responsibility to
live it. It is not your fault if you were born to a poor or a broken family. But it is your
responsibility to change your condition. We are thrown into different limiting conditions,
but we are free to transform them. The possibilities are boundless; it is a matter of
choosing the path you want to take.
 Secondly, a person is not only responsible of himself/herself; he/she is also responsible for
others.
- A person is free but freedom does not mean a license to do anything he/she wants.
- A person is free but he/she does not exist alone; he/she co-exists with others and his/her
actions surely affects others. This is the reason why a person cannot just think about
himself/herself, but also about others. His or her actions should not only be self-
regarding but also other-regarding.
- And so whenever he/she decides and acts, he/she has to take into consideration his/her
family, friends, relatives, and other people. Hence, to be free is to be responsible not only
for oneself, but also for others and ultimately for humanity.

B. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY IN CONCRETE SITUATIONS

 Making a choice implies responsibility by the fact that it is freely chosen. In every action a
person makes, there will always be consequences that he/she has to face.
 There are times that the doer of the action personally reaps the consequences of his/her own
actions.
Situation 1:
There was this case that happened to a college student. After taking up his final
examinations, the student immediately went on a vacation, thinking that he already gave his
best to be able to pass all his subjects and eventually be able to graduate. He expected
everything was fine and so he went on a trip, a way of celebrating his success. A week
before the graduation ceremony, he went back to school to get his toga and commencement
exercise invitation. Unfortunately, his name was not in the list of the graduating students. He
failed in one subject, and his grade had already been finalized and no request for
reconsideration was entertained. The student was not able to graduate and he had to go back
to school for one semester just for one subject.
- What is the consequence the college student’s action?
- What should have been the responsibility of the college student in this given
situation?
 Chosen actions do not only affect the doer; they also affect other persons.
Situation 2:
Suppose you got angry with your teacher and since you could not confront him/her
personally, you posted hateful remarks about him/her on Facebook. Your messages went
viral and they are already damaging the reputation of your teacher. He/she wanted to hold
you responsible. First he/she filed an expulsion cate against you in school. Second, he/she
 7

filed an online libel case based on the country’s Anti-Cybercrime law. Now you have to face
both cases. You cannot use anger as an excuse because you were fully aware of what you
did. You were free and you were responsible for your actions.
- What is the consequence of the action done?
- What should have been your responsibility in this given situation?
 Our actions do not only affect other persons, but also, the larger society as a whole.
Situation 3:
Although it comes in different forms, vote-buying in the Philippines has been rather
consistent in terms of methods. Here are some observable patterns: It is systematic. The
candidates themselves do not do the actual vote buying. Instead they have coordinators
working in the barangay and purok levels who do the dirty work for them. No amount is ever
too small or too big. In a documented case in Cagayan de Oro, vote-buying goes for as low as
P1,000 per head. Meanwhile, in Samar, one of the country’s poorest provinces, rates could go
as high as P5,000 to P7,000. It happened even after poll automation. One might think that the
country's transition to an automated election would eliminate vote-buying. The truth,
however, is far from that. (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/122509-vote-buying-education-
comelec)
- What would be the possible consequences of the voters actions?
- What should be the responsibility of the voters involved?
Source:
Camiloza, Loreto G., Garnace, Edgardo B., Mazo, Rommel M. and Perez, Evelyn D. (2016). Philosophy of the Human
Person: An Introductory Text for Senior High School. Quezon City: The Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. 169-178

II. ELEMENTS OF A MORAL EXPERIENCE

A. The Moral Agent

The Person as the only Moral Being

1. Man is a being of action. Man acts and knows his acts. Because he knows his acts, he knows that he is
responsible for his actions.

2. Man has intellect. His intellect enables him to know what is right or wrong and good or bad actions.
Because he is capable of knowing, he is therefore mandated to face the consequences of his actions.

3. Man has will. Man is free to act or not to act. Man’s will equips him with the power to choose either
good or bad and right or wrong actions. It is his will that enables him to enjoy freedom to act or not to
act and the freedom to choose what course of action to perform. Man’s will therefore, requires a
decision which obligates a person to be responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Babor, E. (2006) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action. Manila: Rex Printing Co.

Culture in Moral Behavior

Culture and its role in Moral Behavior

Culture is a system of codes that gives the world meaning and shapes the behavior of people. It also
determines proper behavior. This includes what we eat and how we prepare food, how we talk and what
language we use, what we make and how we make and utilize things, how we understand the meaning of
life and death, and how we recognize the ultimate meaning of life. Culture is our code that shapes how
we understand, why life is worth living, and what it means to be human.
 8

Examples:
The Filipino sense of respect for the elders as the reason why Filipinos are good caregivers.
Filipino religiosity leads to optimism and hope amidst calamities and personal sufferings.

Conception of the good is shaped by culture as it is the basic system of codes that shapes human
behavior. But does culture serve as the sole basis of the conception or understanding of what is good?

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Right or good in cultural relativism is always relative to a particular culture or society. To narrow that
down, the moral opinion of one individual is as good as any other. Different societies or cultures have
different moral codes. Hence, there is no objective basis of saying that a particular action is good or bad
apart from a specific social group. As what the society or culture dictates as good, it is considered as
already good. To state it in another way, what the people normally do, within their cultural and personal
context, is good.
In realizing these cultural or societal differences, some societies or cultures consider as right several
kinds of actions or practices that other societies or cultures consider to be wrong. There is no problem
with that within the ethical relativist’s perspective. It is because an action or practice is evaluated on the
culture or society the doer belongs.

Hence, cultural relativism emphasizes the following points:

1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among the many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics – that is, there are no absolute and objective ethical
principles that are true, valid and binding on all peoples.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society: that is, if the moral code
of a society weighs that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that
society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other people.

Wrongness or badness of an act under Ethical Relativism is also relative or dependent on the given
culture or society. If the society or culture dictates that an act or practice is wrong, then it is indeed
wrong. This understanding again boils down to the differences of moral codes in every culture that in
themselves are acceptable depending on the culture.

It is then wrong or bad to commit the following:

1. Applying an absolute or universal ethical principle
2. Judging one society by an objective standard, hence, using it in identifying a societal code as
better than another.
3. Considering one culture as superior over others, hence, applying the principles of that superior
culture to the “inferior” ones (E.g. Western Culture as superior)

Problems of Cultural Relativism:

1. Not all cultures and conception of the good reflect the good or what ought to be.
Some cultures can be destructive to human beings.
 9

Example: Some cultures tend to encourage war and colonial plunder; Because of culture, people
are oriented toward violent behavior and do not even realize that they do violence toward their
neighbor.
2. Every culture evolves.
Cultures will eventually influence one another and practices change.
Example: Inculturation
3. There is a sense of universality among all people.
Example: United Nations, killing of an innocent man

What can we learn from Cultural Relativism:

1. Cultural Relativism warns us about the dangers of assuming all our preferences are based on
some absolute rational standard… Many (but not all) of our practices are merely peculiar to our
society, and it is easy to lose sight of the that fact.
2. Cultural Relativism can help open and broaden our minds. It provides an antidote for close-
minded dogmatism.

Pasco, Marc Oliver S., Suarez, V. Fullente, Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. (2018). Ethics. Quezon City: C&E Publishing Inc.
Timbreza, F. (2007) Bioethics and Moral Decisions. Manila: C & E Publications
Rachels, James and Rachels, Stuart (2010). The Elements of Moral Philosophy 6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.

The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as Habit

Development of the Moral Character

“Watch your thoughts for they become words. Watch your words for they become actions. Watch your
actions for they become…habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your
character, for it becomes your destiny!” - Margaret Thatcher

Acts build character while character directs acts. Individual acts emanate from moral character while moral
character is formed by individual acts. There is then a circularity of relationship between individual acts and
moral character.

Character study: Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler

Stages of Moral Development

KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was a moral philosopher and student of child development. He was
director of Harvard's Center for Moral Education. His special area of interest is the moral development of
children - how they develop a sense of right, wrong, and justice.

 He was born into a wealthy family in New York in 1927.

 Kohlberg began studying psychology as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago. In one year,
he had earned his B.A. in psychology and continued his education as a graduate student at the
University of Chicago. In 1958, Kohlberg earned his Ph.D.
 He studied moral reasoning & development with much of his work based on that of Jean Piaget and
John Dewey. He had a brief teaching position at Yale University before moving onto Harvard in
1967.
 10

 Kohlberg believed...and was able to demonstrate through studies...that people progressed in their
moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that
there were six identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.
 He based his theory upon research and interviews with groups of young children. A series of moral
dilemmas were presented to these participants and they were also interviewed to determine the
reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario.

 One of the best known stories of Kohlberg’s (1958) concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.
A woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a
druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000.00, ten
times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he
knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told
the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But
the druggist said "no." The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the
drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? .... Why do you think so?

I. PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY
 age 4 - 10
 a person is motivated by obedience to authority
 commonly associated with young children
 involves little thought about morality
 moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking
their rules.

A. Stage 1 - Obedience & Punishment

 earliest stage of moral development
 common in young children
 children see rules as fixed and absolute\
 Obeying the rules is important to avoid punishment
 morality is motivated solely by punishment
 Example: “I will keep quiet so that teacher won’t get mad at me.”

B. Stage 2 - Individualism & Exchange

 children account individual points of view
 judge actions based on how they serve individual needs
 Reciprocity is possible but only if it serves one's own interests
 children recognize that there is not just one right view and that different individuals have
different viewpoints
 focuses on individualism and different perspectives
 the goal is to avoid punishment
 Example: “I will let you copy mine if you do my homework.”

II. CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

 age 10 - 13
 people focus on following social norms and customs
 begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models
 Reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.

C. Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships

 also known as "good boy-good girl" orientation
 focused on living up to social expectations and roles
 emphasis on conformity, being "nice,"
 11

 consider how choices influence relationships

 emphasizes the maintenance happy interpersonal relationships and pleasing others
 a need to avoid rejection, disaffection, or disapproval from others
 Example: “I will buy that dress so that my friends will like me.”

D. Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order

 consider society as a whole when making judgments
 focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty and
respecting authority
 please individuals to maintaining social order by following social norms, customs, and
laws
 becomes aware of the wider rules of society to avoid guilt
 a need to not be criticized by a true authority figure
 Example: “You should not cut the class because it’s against school rules.”

III.POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY
 adolescence – adulthood
 people look beyond convention to determine moral norms and appropriate social interactions
 judgment is based on self-chosen principles
 moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice

E. Stage 5 - Social Contract & Individual Rights

 begin to account the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people
 Laws are important but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
 becomes aware there are times when they will work against rules or the interest of
particular individuals
 emphasis on the social contract and the maintenance of individual rights
 Example: “It is her own decision, we should just respect that.”

F. Stage 6 - Universal Principles

 reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning
 follow these internalized principles of justice, even if its against the law
 moral judgment is motivated by one's own conscience
 People have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the
law.
 search for universal principles
 Stage 6 individuals are rare, often value their principles more than their own life, often
seen as incarnating the highest human potential. Thus they are often martyred by those of
lower stages shamed by seeing realized human potential compared with their own
partially realized levels of development. (Stoning the prophets, killing the messenger).
Examples: Mohandas Gandhi, Jesus of Nazareth, Gautamo Buddha, Martin Luther King,
Jr.
 Example: “If abortion became legal in our country, I will be one of the people who will
be against it because it’s against God’s Law.”

CONCLUSION:

 Every person’s moral reasoning develops through the same stages in the same order.
 People pass through the same stages at different rates.
 Development is gradual and continuous, rather than sudden and discrete.
 Once a stage is attained, a person continues to reason at that stage and rarely regress to a lower stage.
 12

 Intervention usually results in moving only to the nest higher stage of moral reasoning.

PROBLEMS WITH KOHLBERG’S THEORY:

 Does moral behavior actually match moral thoughts? People have pointed out that Kohlberg’s
scenario is hypothetical: the way people answer the question may not be how they would act in real
life.
 Are there distinct stages to moral development, or do different situations result in different types of
moral choices? Some adults may make a level three decision in one scenario, but fall back to a level
one decision in another.

B. The Act

Human Acts and Acts of Man

 Human Acts (actus humanus) refers any thought, word, deed, desire or omission - comes from a
person acting with full knowledge and the exercise of his/her freewill.

 Acts of Man (actus hominis) are performed without intervention of intellect and freewill -
indeliberate, involuntary, not free, not under one’s control, and beyond the mind and the will. It includes:
 Spontaneous biological and sensual processes
 All acts performed without the use of reason
 First reactions of anger and sympathy
 Forced acts (against one’s personal decision and will)

Reason and Impartiality

Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons. And it also requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interest.

The Necessity of Reason:

If we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason.
This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by
arguments.

Moral judgments are different from expressions of personal taste. If someone says, “I like coffee,”
she does not need to have a reason – she merely stating a fact about herself, and nothing more. There
is no such thing as “rationally defending’ one’s like and dislike of coffee. So long as she is
accurately reporting her taste, what she says must be true. On the other hand, if someone says
something is morally wrong, he does need reasons, and if his reasons are legitimate, then other
people must acknowledge their force. By the same logic, if he has no good reason for what he says,
he is simply making a noise, and we can ignore him.

The Requirement of Impartiality:

Impartiality is the idea that each individual’s interests are equally important; no one should get
special treatment. At the same time, impartiality requires that we not treat the members of particular
groups as inferior, and so practices such as sexism and racisms are condemned.
 13

The requirement of impartiality is closely connected with the point that moral judgments must be
backed by good reasons. Example:

A racist who thinks that white people deserve all the good jobs. He would like all the
doctors, lawyers, business executives, and so on, to be white.

Analysis: We can ask then if this thought is right. Is there something about white people that
makes them better fitted for the highest-paying and most prestigious positions? Are they
inherently brighter and more industrious? Do they care more about themselves and their
families? Are they capable of benefiting more from the availability of such positions? In
each case, the answer is no; and if there is no good reason for treating people differently, then
discrimination is unacceptably arbitrary.

The requirement of impartiality then is a rule against treating people arbitrarily. It forbids us from
treating one person worse than another when there is no good reason to do so.

Rachels, James and Rachels, Stuart (2010). The Elements of Moral Philosophy 6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.

C. Reason: Ethical Frameworks and Traditions

VIRTUE ETHICS – (Aristotle)

A. Introduction
 Virtue ethics began with the Greeks and especially with Aristotle in the fourth century BC.
Essentially, this theory focuses not upon consequences, feelings, or rules, so much as the
development within human beings of a moral or virtuous character by means of doing what a good or
“virtuous” person would do.

B. Development of the Good or Virtuous Human Being

 Aristotle describes his ethical system as being eminently common sense-based, for the most part,
founded as it is on the moral judgments of the ideal human being, who based upon reason, is
considered good and virtuous. He states that human begin with a capacity for goodness which has to
be developed by practice.

C. The Doctrine of the Mean

 According to Aristotle, virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices – either
excess or deficiency (or defect). Moral virtue, then, is defined by Aristotle as being “a disposition to
choose by a rule… which a practically wise man would determine’ to be the mean between two
extremes of excess or deficiency.
 And, according to Aristotle, practical wisdom is the ability to see what is the right thing to do in any
circumstance. Therefore, a person must determine what a “practically wise, virtuous man” would
choose in any circumstance calling for a moral choice, and then do the right thing.
 What is the mean between excess and deficiency, and how does one determine it? According to
Aristotle, the mean in ethics cannot be determined mathematically. Rather it is a mean “relative to
us” or to whoever is trying to determine the right thing to do. For example, if ten pounds of food are
to much (excess) and two are too little (deficiency or defect), then six pounds, which the mean
between two extremes, still may be too much for some and too little for others; therefore one must
choose the appropriate mean between two extremes relative to himself or herself.
 Some examples of means between two extremes, established by Aristotle and tabulated by Sir
William David Ross (he who established the ethical theory of prima facie duties), are as follows:
 14

FEELING OR ACTION EXCESS MEAN DEFECT

Confidence Rashness Courage Cowardice

Sensual Pleasure Profligacy (too sensible, Temperance (moderation, Insensibility (inappreciable,
overmindful) self-restraint) unmindful)
Shame Bashfulness (too shy, self- Modesty (humility, Shamelessness (without
conscious) simplicity, reserve) shame)
Giving amusement Bufoonery (silly, fool, Wittiness (clever, Boorishness (ill-mannered,
joking) intelligent) rude, rash)
Truth-telling about oneself Boastfulness (too proud Truthfulness (honest, true to Self-depreciation (belittling
about oneself) oneself) oneself)
Friendship Obsequiousness Friendliness Sulkiness (aloof, withdrawn)
(excessively eager to please
or to obey all instructions)

Natural Law (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Background:

This ethical doctrine assumes many names by virtue of its historical development. Some call it
Thomistic Ethics, after St. Thomas Aquinas gave the doctrine its most influential formulation and
articulation in the 13th Century. Others label it as Scholastic Ethics after the brilliant moral teachings of a
group of scholars known as Scholastics or Schoolmen, headed by St. Thomas himself, in the University of
Paris during the Middle Ages. Still others identify it as Christian Ethics and/or Roman Catholic Ethics
insofar as the Church’s contemporary versions of the theory are mostly elaboration and interpretations of St.
Thomas’ basic ethical precepts. Lastly, it is often known as Natural Law Ethics, precisely because it claims
that there exists a natural moral law which is manifested by the natural light of human reason, demanding
the preservation of the natural order and forbidding its violation.

Natural Law
o It is the code of moral conduct which reason indicates as conformable to human nature.

In St. Thomas’ view, the source of the moral law is reason itself. The latter directs us toward
the good as the goal of our action, and that good is discoverable within our nature. In its
operation, reason recognizes the basic principle “Do good, avoid evil”. He used the term
synderesis to describe this inherent capacity of every individual, lettered or unlettered, to
distinguish the good from the bad. This is the basis of St.Thomas’ argument that certain
moral principles are objective and can be found in the nature of things through reason and
reflection.

o Natural Law is already imbedded within our very nature. It is the voice of right reason… Other
Thomists view this as the voice of conscience which serves as a natural guide in making moral
decisions.

o Natural Law is not a written decree; it is written in the hearts of men. It is impressed in human
nature by the author of nature (God).

o Fundamental Moral Principle: “Do Good and Avoid Evil.” – the dictate of right reason

Human Good

o Human good is that which is suitable to or proper to human nature.

 15

o Thus, what is to human nature as such (as being endowed with reason and freewill) is good and must
be done… Whenever it is not proper to human nature, it must be avoided.
o Human good is built into human nature and it is that which we are directed by natural inclinations.
o Three Natural Inclinations:

1. SELF-PRESERVATION – The natural inclination that urges us to take care for our health, not to
kill ourselves or put ourselves in danger.
- Good: physical exercise, diet, walking, etc…
- Bad: Suicide, murder, smoking, habitual drinking

2. JUST DEALINGS WITH OTHERS – It is treating others with the same dignity and respect that we
accord ourselves. This is the basis of justice which arises out of human relations.
- Good: Justice, respect
- Bad: Indignities and any degradations, exploitation, oppression,
deception

3. PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES – We are naturally inclined to perpetuate the species. We are
obligated not to pervert or thwart this natural inclination.
- Good: Reproductive organs are naturally designed to reproduce and perpetuate the
human species.
- Bad: Interventions to this natural capacity, contraceptives

KANT’S ETHICS (Immanuel Kant)

Deontological (duty)
The good here is the one that you ought to do. You simply have to do good because it is good. It is
good because it is a moral duty for everyone to do the good. Kant’s ethics is an ethics that is primarily
based on good will. The good will is good if it does its duty out of pure reverence to the moral law.

The Two Imperatives

A. Hypothetical Imperative
An action is necessary to the attainment of something desired: “You must do such-and-such, if
you want a certain result.” This first imperative answers the question, “Does the proposed act
effectively bring about a desired end?”

B. Categorical Imperative
 A categorical imperative applies no matter what one desires. The moral necessity to act is
unconditional. “You ought to do such-and-such act; there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.”
 If the maxim passes this test, we may act on it; if it does not, we must reject it.
 Two formulations of the Categorical Imperative:

a. It can be Universalized
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
That is, made applicable to all persons.

b. Treat others as Ends not as Means

We must remember that man is an end in himself, not merely a means, because he has
dignity. We must always act as an end and never as a means only, because we must at all
times uphold our dignity. Consequently, we must always treat others as ends not as
 16

means. Therefore, the presence of others’ ends must limit our actions in pursuit of our
ends.

UTILITARIANISM
Found in the writings of two English philosophers, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873), this ethical doctrine states that the rightness and wrongness of actions is determined by
goodness and badness of their consequences.

A. Hedonist Morality
 As an ethical theory, Utilitarianism emphasizes on the pleasure or happiness a person can get
from doing an act or from a particular course of action.
 Hence for Utilitarianism, right and wrong, are dependent on the pleasure or pain that an act
will bring or result to. If an act produces pleasure, it is considered good; if it results to pain, it is
considered wrong or bad.

B. The Principle of Utility

 It claims that there is one and only one moral principle – that is, the principle of utility, formulated
by Mill: “Actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to produce
unhappiness” (Pahl: 20-21; Mill 1961).
 How are we to determine, it may be asked whether an action tends to promote happiness or tends to
promote pain? By means of its consequences or results rather than by means of some features of the
action itself. The utility or usefulness of an action is determined by the extent to which it promotes
happiness rather than its reverse… Consequences, effects, results and outcomes are most important.

C. The Greatest Happiness Principle

 Bentham and Mill, bent on getting rid of any strain of individualism and subjectivism, gave an
alternative formulation of the utilitarian utility principle, known as the principle of the greatest
happiness: An action is good (right) insofar as it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people; bad (wrong) insofar as it produces more harm than benefit for the greatest number
of individuals (Pahl 21-23; Albert and others 1984: 219-238).
 Everyone’s good or well-being must be considered, for each individual is to count just as much as
the next. Hence, the more people who profit from a particular moral decision, the better. This can
be carried out by remaining strictly impartial and as disinterested as possible. One must be
personally detached and disengaged. Mill describes this point as the attitude of a “benevolent
spectator” who kindly watched over the welfare or happiness of all concerned, without taking a self-
serving, active part in the process.

RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE (John Rawls)

It is the work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls, in which the author attempts to solve the
problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilizing a variant of
the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as "Justice as Fairness".

A. Theory of Justice

1. Every individual is inviolable: This inviolability, which is founded on justice, is so sacred that not
even the general welfare of society can override or supersede it. The greater good to be shared by all
members, for example, should not be used to justify the loss of freedom of others. In other words,
 17

one may not exploit or oppress one individual or a particular group of citizens in the name of
progress.

2. An erroneous theory is tolerable in the absence of a good one : As much as possible when given two
erroneous laws, one should choose the better and less erroneous one. An act of injustice, for
instance, can be tolerated if and only if it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Example: A
notorious amok should be physically incapacitated if that is the way to stop him from killing many
innocent people.

3. Individual liberties should be restricted in order to maintain equality of opportunity : Liberties of

equal citizenship are of paramount importance in a just society. Restrictions of individual liberties
serve as safeguards against abuses and misuses of one’s freedom against others. Without constraints,
some over-ambitious people may use their power, money, and influence against their fellowmen.

B. Principles of Justice

Two-fold principles of justice:

1. Equal access to the basic human rights and liberties

 This principle defines and secures equal liberties of citizenship. It guarantees a system of
equal rights and liberties for every citizen; it prohibits the bartering away of liberty for social
or monetary considerations.
 Our basic rights and liberties include: right to vote and to be eligible in public office, freedom
of speech and peaceful assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of thought, right ownership,
freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure…

2. Fair equality of opportunity and the equal distribution of socio-economic inequalities

 As much as availability of resources will allow, everyone should be given an opportunity for
self-development or to receive medical treatment.
 Socio-economic differences, in a just society, are tolerable only when they can be shown to
benefit everyone, including those who have the fewest advantage.
 This principle also applies to the distribution of income and wealth whenever it is feasible,
and to the scheme of institutions that direct the chains of command and responsibility
regarding, for example, the equal distribution of socio-economic benefits and discomfort.

C. Justice in Human Relations:

Aware of the need for principles that bind and guide individuals in making moral decisions, Rawls cites
four types of duties:

1. Fairness in our dealings with others

2. Fidelity
3. Respect for Persons
4. Beneficence

In addition, he also mentions what he calls natural duties:

1. The duty of justice

2. The duty of helping others in need or in jeopardy
 18

3. The duty not to harm or injure others

4. The duty to keep our promises

Babor, E. (2006) Ethics: The Philosophical Discipline of Action. Manila: Rex Printing Co.
Fernandez, A. (2006) Ethics for Today’s Inquiring Filipinos. Davao City: MS Lopez Printing and Publishing
Rachels, J. (2011) The Elements of Moral Philosophy 7th ed. Singapore: McGRaw-Hill Inc:
Rosenstand, N. (2012) The Moral of the Story 7th ed. NY: McGRaw-Hill Co.
Timbreza, F. (2007) Bioethics and Moral Decisions. Manila: C & E Publications
Villaba, M. (1985) Prelude to the Wisdom of the East. University of Santo Tomas
Vizconde, D. J. Cheating: A Kantian Evaluation. Lawig, an official publication of the Philosophy Division,
Ateneo de Davao University

III. Making Informed Decisions: Moral Deliberation and Judgment

A. Steps for Moral Deliberation

How should one act in a moral situation? Are there rules for acting in a particular way or manner? What
considerations should enter into one’s decision-making? Can’t someone else make the decision for me?

For Catholics, these questions are everyday occurrences. In a very instructive introduction to his book,
Moral Discernment, Richard M. Gula writes:

In the church, many have told me that they grew up in a very paternalistic ecclesial environment
where they were not encouraged to think for themselves. In fact, some didn’t even know that they
were supposed to think! As one person put it, “We were told just to pray, pay, and obey.” Bishops
and priests were expected to have all the answers, were sought for answers, and generally gave
answers to every practical moral question put to them. Now, people are trying to learn how to live in
the church after the Second Vatican Council, which encouraged them to take responsibility for both
discovering moral values and charting the direction of their lives.

Gula seems to be saying that today, more than ever, there is a need to do moral discernment. But what
this means exactly is difficult to pin down especially since we are now only beginning to realize that moral
decisions are not the exclusive domain of the church and its officials. Everyone who has a conscience has
the responsibility to make his or her own moral decisions.
A moral decision is required when one encounters a moral question: Should I cheat to pass a very
important exam? Should I promise to pay money I owe someone even if I know I wouldn’t be able to pay? I
need a job urgently. Is it all right to beef up my resumé to improve my chances of getting the job?
We usually begin to answer a moral question with an opinion or personal conviction about the right
thing to do. Then we reflect on the reason for our conviction and look for the principle upon which the
conviction is based. However, this principle is not usually etched in stone; a situation could arise where the
principle is called into question. For example, I know that I shouldn’t lie in order to get out of a sticky
situation that I find myself in. But my life depends on getting out of the situation! Here, the principle that I
have always held – “I should not lie” – is challenged by the situation, and so am thrown into confusion.
“Feeling the force of that confusion, and the pressure to sort it out, is the impulse to philosophy,” to moral
reflection.
 19

This new situation of confusion demands that we revise our initial judgment about the right thing to do.
It demands that we even rethink the principle that we initially held.

As we encounter new situations, we move back and forth between our judgments and our principles,
revising each in light of the other. This turning of mind, from the world of action to the realm of
reasons and back again, is what moral reflection consists in.

In the following, we will discuss a worksheet or framework for moral deliberation. The following
framework is not a rigid process that one simply follows without wrestling with the dilemma. In other
words, the steps demand a diligent and careful reading of the moral dilemma.

1. Identifying and setting up the Ethical Problem

What is the ethical problem? First, the ethical problem must be identified. It helps to be able to state or
define, succinctly, the ethical issue involved in the case and to make sure that this is not confused with other
elements of the problem. (Perhaps the ethical problem can be stated in one or two sentences – very much
like a thesis statement that defines the problem to be tackled.)
It is important to realize that every ethical problem has more than one component and that not every
component involves an ethical decision. For example, in a case involving a decision to bribe or not to bribe a
government employee to speed up the process of granting your application for a business license. This
employee is not asking for much; besides he is underpaid. We should separate the fact that the employee is
underpaid from the ethical problem of bribing. And the issue should be stated clearly. The question is not
whether the employee is underpaid and so there is injustice in that regard, but whether you should bribe him
to expedite things that is ethically problematic.

2. What are the relevant facts?

What immediate facts have the most bearing on the ethical decision that must be made in this case? Include
any potential economic, social, or political pressures.
We need to list only the facts that bear on the ethical decision. Sometimes, we arrive at wrong moral
decisions because we have not really taken the relevant facts into consideration, or we have taken more than
the necessary facts into consideration. For example, that there are more honest women than men em ployed
by the government has no bearing on the question of whether or not to bribe.

3. Who are the stakeholders?

It is important to identify the stakeholders who will be affected by the ethical decision to be made. It will
also help to identify the corresponding obligations that one has toward the various stakeholders. For
instance, one must consider the stakeholder who stands to lose more from the decision more seriously than
others.
At this stage too, it will also help to get to know the perspective of the stakeholders. One can do this by
stepping into the shoes of the various claimants and trying to determine, as honestly as one can, what they
would prefer you to do in this situation. This is one of the most difficult tasks in ethical decision-making.
The key here is to try your best to see the problem from their perspectives.

4. What are the available options?

It is important to list down at least three or even more available options. As Aristotle says, there are at least
two options readily available from the very beginning, and these two often represent the extremes. But
nothing is ever either black or white; sometimes one is forced to think in terms of a “middle ground,” even if
that, strictly speaking, does not exactly conform to your personal notion of what is the right thing to do. A
genuine “Golden Mean” is not simply a watered-down decision; in fact, it bears the marks of the internal
struggle that accompanies every bit of hard thinking. It is at this stage that reason struggles to transcend
what we feel.
 20

In considering and evaluating the options, it will help to be guided by ethical principles. This is the point
at which the various sources of Christian morality, ethical theories and principles could come into play.
These various considerations and approaches for moral decision-making may also be stated in the following
questions:
– What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative will lead to the
best overall consequence? (Utilitarianism)
– What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which option best respects those rights?
(Kant)
– Which course of action advances the common good?
– Which decision enables me to be and act in ways that develop my highest potential as a person?
(Virtue)
– Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to,
and does not show favoritism or discrimination? (Justice and Fairness)
One will discover here that there could be much conflict among these principles. There are no easy
solutions. While one person may use utilitarianism to support his decision, another may decide to cite Kant’s
universalizing principle against using any person as a means to an end. What is important here is to use only
those justifications that apply directly to one’s decision.

5. Determine the Most Appropriate Best Course of Action.

On the basis of the evaluation done on the various options, we must now determine the best course of action
– the moral thing to do. Ethicists claim that this is the most difficult part of the process of moral decision-
making. It requires courage – especially when reason suggests one way and what we feel another way.
Some people make their decisions even prior to the reasoning process. When this happens, it is possible
to end up with a decision that one can then rationalize but not really justify.

6. Double-Checking one’s decision.

It is important to take a second look at the decision to be made. The following are suggested ways of doing
precisely that:
First, we must see to it that our arguments and the position we take are consistent. Ethics is supposed to
provide us with a guide for moral living, and to do so, it must be rational – that is, free of contradictions.
Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. A valid argument is one whose
premises logically entail its conclusion. An invalid argument on the other hand is one whose premises do not
entail its conclusion. In an invalid argument, one can accept the premises as true and reject the conclusion
without any contradiction. A sound argument, on the other hand, has true premises and valid reasoning. An
unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or has at least one false premise.
Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions: What are the best and worse-case scenarios if I
choose this particular option? Can I honestly live with myself if I make this decision? Will I be able to
defend this decision to that claimant who has lost the most or been harmed the most?
Finally, our decision must be “enabling” rather than “dis-abling.” There are decisions that prevent us
from acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These decisions cannot be moral! After all, a moral decision
or action is one that liberates us – develops our potentialities as a person. A decision that “dis-ables” us pre-
vents our growth as persons.

Case for Analysis:

Before much was known about Tay-Sachs disease, Betty and Irv, a young Jewish couple, gave birth to a
son who had this disease. They were told by their doctor that the boy would become very sick and
slowly degenerate over a period of about a year, and then he would become blind and suffer convulsions.
They were also told that there is absolutely no cure for the disease and that their son was sure to die.
After watching the child for about six months Irv was not able to stand it any longer. He put a pillow
over his son’s face and suffocated him.
 21

Que, Nemesio S. S.J. Notes on Moral Deliberation. Introduction to Course Notes for PH104: Foundations of Moral Value. Ateneo
de Manila University.

B. Ethical Issues for Analysis

Analyze the given situation using the steps of moral deliberation

1. The Taking of Human Life

A 24-year-old man named Robert who has a wife and child is paralyzed from the neck down in a
motorcycle accident. He has always been very active and hates the idea of being paralyzed. He also
is in a great deal of pain, and he has asked his doctors and other members of his family to “put him
out of his misery.” After several days of such pleading, his brother comes into Robert’s hospital
ward and asks him if he is sure he still wants to be put out of his misery. Robert says yes and pleads
with his brother to kill him. The brother kisses and blesses Robert, then takes out a gun and shoots
him, killing him instantly. The brother later is tried for murder and acquitted by reason of temporary
insanity.

2. Marriage and Human Sexuality

Bianca is a pretty and attractive 19-year old college student who is now in her third year in an
exclusive sectarian school. She is intelligent as attested in her excellent academic performance. She
has not gotten a grade lower than 95 in any subject since first year. However, inspite of her
remarkable and admirable academic records, Bianca is currently living in (as a mistress) with a
married rich businessman who is sending her and her other siblings to school.

3. Ethical Issues in Medicine

Jose and Maria have been married for six years now. They have two children and opted not have
another one because of financial difficulties. With this, Maria takes birth control pills and is already
planning to undergo tubal ligation. Even though they are Catholics, they believe that it is still their
right as a couple to choose contraceptives as a mode of family planning. This is for the good of their
family. Besides, they perform their religious duties like going to church regularly, being married in
the Church and having their children baptized. Are they doing the right thing? Why or why not?

4. Ethical Issues in Business

Mike, who is very knowledgeable about stereo components, knows that there are two models made
by the Ozato Company: the OC4000, which sells for $2,000 and the OC5000, which sells for $3,000.
The difference between the two models is that the OC5000 has a larger, more powerful amplifier-
receiver and larger speakers. Because of this difference, Mike buys the more expensive model. A
few weeks later, a loose connection causes him to examine the left speaker, and when he takes it
apart, he discovers that whereas the right speaker is the one designated for OC5000, the left speaker
is the one designated for the OC4000. Several of his friends also have the more expensive model,
and when he examines those speakers, he finds the same situation. To save money, the company
evidently has put one more expensive and one less expensive speaker together in each of the
expensive model, figuring that the difference in sound may not be very noticeable.

5. Environmental Issues
 22

The Kamanga power station (also known as the Southern Mindanao power station or the SM200
project) is a 210-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station owned by Sarangani Energy Corp and
under construction on the coast of Sarangani province, Mindanao, the Philippines. The
proponent of the power station is Conal Holdings, a 40:60 joint venture between Electricity
Generating Public Company Limited of Thailand and the Alcantara Group. In October 2010,
Conal Holdings Vice President Joseph C. Nocos announced the company will start construction
of the $450-million Kamanga power station in the first quarter of 2011 to plug a "chronic power
supply deficit" expected to hit Mindanao by 2014, as well as address an expected rise in the
power of electricity due to the privatization of local hydropower plants. On November 21, 2010,
a 75-boat flotilla and a human banner formed by around 800 villagers from the town of Maasim
in Sarangani province in Mindanao spelled out the words "No To Coal" on the grounds of a
local elementary school. The activities were part of a campaign by Maasim People’s Coalition
on climate change (MP3C) and Greenpeace International. The flotilla was composed of
outrigger-boats of local fishers while the human banner that spelled out "NO TO COAL" was
composed of students, activists and residents. "Coal is the dirtiest source of energy. Coal plants
emit billions of tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year that accounts to
72% of CO2 emissions from power generation and 41% of total global emissions of CO2 from
fossil fuels. Coal burning also emits chemicals including Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) and other Particulate Matters (PM) that are hazardous to health" said Jean Marie
Ferraris of the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Centre (LRC-KsK/FoE Phils) based in
Davao said.

Thiroux, Jacques P. and Krasemann, Keith W., Ethics: Theory and Practice 11th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. (2012).
Fernandez, A. Ethics for Today’s Inquiring Filipinos. Davao City: MS Lopez Printing and Publishing. 2006.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kamanga_power_station
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9220