LEA T.

REMOROZA
EDD 606 – SOCIAL AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY
TOPIC 4

THE ETHICAL CONCEPTS AND PROBLEMS IN FILIPINO VALUES CONTEXT

The traditional family today averages five children, while the ideal
family size for parents can be seen as three to four (urban) and four to five
(rural). Population estimates suggest a reduction of the number of children
to one. Given the economic difficulties of raising children, their conception is
welcomed; they are regarded as "Gifts from God" sent out to help their
parents achieve a better life through filial love; participation in income-
generating events, "insurance" for parents in old age, and sources of
strengthening family bonds. The size of the family is more children than can
be explained by the need to end population growth, given the family
planning programs and educational campaigns being implemented around
the world.
Born with the idea of filial piety, children grow up knowing that their
parents should receive excellent treatment as they get older. In Philippine
culture filial piety is an essential term. It is understood as necessary to
preserve the family's collective face and to avoid experiencing hiya. Many
Filipinos assume that each member of the family has many duties and
obligations that they have to satisfy. It is necessary to follow one's duties
and responsibilities in order to honor others correctly, and to maintain unity
between family members. "Walang-wala" ("Nothing is left") is a Philippine
virtue ethic which is a relationship-oriented virtue ethic.
This Filipino virtue ethic is based on two fundamental principles in
Philippine culture. The first is loob, which can easily be misunderstood
when literally translated as 'inside' into English but is better translated as
'relational will,' and the second is kapwa, which is literally translated as
'other person,' but is better understood as 'together with the individual.
These serve as foundations for a special set of virtues (kagandahang-loób,
utang-na-loób, pakikiramdam, hiya, lakas-ng-loób / bahala na) which are
not individualistic virtues in the same way as most of the Western tradition's
cardinal virtues (i.e. prudence, righteousness, temperance and fortitude) but
are all aimed at maintaining and improving human relations.
TOPIC 5

MORAL ISSUES AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

A moral question can be understood as a dilemma to be resolved by

considering not only the technical workers but also the moral principles.
Moral issue is a working description of a matter of moral concern as any
issue that has the potential to benefit or hurt somebody, including you.
By the "social problem" we will understand the problem of reducing
human misery by changing social institutions, simply and very broadly. It is
a problem that evades sharper definition, ever reshaping itself; for misery is
linked to desire, and desire is personal and in perpetual flux: each one of us
sees the problem unstable in terms of his own changing aspirations. It is a
cultural aspect that people are involved in and want to change. Public
questions could be factual or subjective. A social problem emerges because
of differences of views of individuals based on what is considered right.
Social problem generally does not apply to a disease that needs to be
addressed, but it can be a subject that needs to be discussed. Social
problems may vary in different people , cultures, countries, and the world.
A social issue, on the other hand, is a question that affects a large
number of people. What people are interested in and want to change it is an
part of the society. Public questions may be factual or subjective. A social
issue arises because of disparities in opinions between individuals based on
what is considered right. Social issue usually does not lead to a illness to be
tackled, but it may be a subject to be debated. Social problems can vary in
different individuals, cultures, nations, and the world. A social problem is
something that is affecting a certain group of people, something real. Social
problems aren't generated by a single person; they 're the result of several
happenings beyond an individual's control.
TOPIC 6
JUSTIFICATIONS OF PUNISHMENT

In terms of justifying punishment philosophers are not of the same

view. Punishment can be justified purely by its consequences according to
the utilitarian moral thinkers.
Both utilitarians and deontologists believe that punishment is
justifiable, but punishment can only be justified on the basis of its effects,
according to utilitarian moral thinkers, while deontologists claim that
punishment is justified on solely retributive grounds.
Where the relation is the product of different definitions of the word
argument. Justification in its conventional context can hardly be
differentiated from evaluation. To justify an act in that context is to suggest
that it is either right or good. This varies from common usage and maintains
that there is no justifiable act or behavior. Punishment is an act of justice
and as such it is ridiculous to call for justification for it. It believes that
justifying is giving justification, so it's just a argument or assertion that we
can make for a cause. Pain infliction is an act behind which the agent may
have a intent, but no justification. It is thus not punishment, but rather
punishment claims that we justify.
Punishment in general may of course be justified on utilitarian
grounds (in the conventional sense of the term). Since penalty justification is
in general needless. This is the reason for specific pain (or punishment)
infliction that can be asked of. As a individual, justifiably asking for
justification of a particular rule. Punishment is justified because, contrary to
it, it is desirable that society should be able to display indignity towards the
criminal, even though one feels that the punishment cancels the offence and
though he has the right to be punished as a human being himself. This can
also be seen as unethical to prosecute a person who is not responsible for
his or her acts, such as a mentally ill adult.
TOPIC 7
ABORTION

It seems clear enough to say that all human beings, whatever their
race , gender, religion or age, have the right to life. Therefore, because the
fetuses we are dealing with don't belong to another race at all, they are
obviously human. Thus, the syllogism that gives rise to the assumption that
the fetuses have the right to life seems true.
Whether abortion is morally permissible is a question of whether that
fetus has a right to life.
The argument that fetuses either have or lack the right to life must be base
don a general criterion for having or not having the right to life. Opponents 
of abortion, on the one hand , look around for the widest possible plausible 
criterion, so that the fetuses fall under it. 
Abortion deliberately kills innocent people is wrong and a fetus is an
innocent human being so abortion is the deliberate killing of a fetus,
abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, so abortion is
wrong. Nonetheless, abortion is wrong unless it represents a mother's right
which is as morally as the right to life of the child. Hence, abortion is wrong
unless it serves some greater mother's right than the right to govern her own
body, the only such right is the mother's right to live, so abortion is wrong
unless it is to save the mother's life.
On one hand, those who call themselves 'pro-life' say abortion is
always wrong deliberately induced (though it might be the right thing to do
on very rare occasions). In the one hand, they call themselves 'pro-choice' or
'abortion rights advocates' and they find planned abortion to be appropriate
under certain circumstances. Therefore, people feel especially strongly about
abortion because there's no way to get any feedback from the fetus, the
possible 'victim'- about the problem and because the fetus can be easily
depicted as a totally innocent and defenseless being.