ETHICS

Mayra Christina M. Ambrocio, DEM

Leonida C. Bueno, Ed.D
Arthur P. Limongco
Manuel R. Hidalgo
Emelyn U. Napiza
Arnold R. Alcaraz
 Table of Contents
Module 9: Justice and Fairness 184
Introduction
Learning Outcomes
Lesson 1. The Nature of the Theory 187
Lesson 2 . Different Kinds of Justice 189

Module 10 : Ethics and Religion

Introduction
Learning Outcomes
Lesson 1. The Role of Ethics and Religion 203
Lesson 2. The Relationship between Ethics and Religion 205

185
 MODULE 9
Justice and Fairness

Introduction

In most countries, debates about justice and fairness have a long history. No
concept has been more consistently connected to ethics and morality in other culture
than the concept of justice. Every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of
the fundamental center of morality, from Plato's Republic to the late Harvard
philosopher John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. On this module we can further understand
what the true meaning and value of justice and fairness is. The principles and kinds of
justices will also be discussed on this module; it could serve as our guide on dealing
with other people.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, students should be able to:

1. Exhibit justice and fairness towards other people in balancing situations

2. Create justifiable decisions in each situation and scenarios
3. Perform equal judgment
4. Distinguish equality on given situations
5. Exhibit social finesse in decision making with regards to equality
6. Show proper judgment
7. Differentiate justice and fairness

186
Lesson 1. The Nature of the Theory (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer, 2014)

Giving each person what he or she needs, or, in more common words, giving
each person their due, is what justice entails. Justice and fairness are two words that are
sometimes used interchangeably nowadays. However, there are many different
interpretations of those words. Fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to
decide without regard to one's feelings or interests; fairness has often been used to
refer to the ability to make decisions that are not overly universal but concrete and
unique to a particular situation.

When people disagree on what should be offered, or when decisions must be

taken on how rewards and responsibilities should be distributed within a community
of people, problems of justice and fairness eventually arise. Most ethicists today believe
that if it were not for the conflicts of interest that arise when goods and services are
scarce and people disagree on who should get what, there would be no point in arguing
about justice or fairness. We need principles of justice that we will all embrace as
objective and equitable criteria for deciding what people deserve when such disputes
occur in our society.

However, saying that justice is doing what each person deserves does not get us
very far. What criteria do we use to decide what people are entitled to? What standards
and values can we use to decide who is responsible for what?

Principles of Justice

The most basic principle of justice is that "equals should be treated equally
and unequal should be treated unequally," which has been universally accepted since
Aristotle first described it more than two thousand years ago. In its contemporary form,
this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same,
unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved."
18
7
For example, if Jack and

18
8
Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work
they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is
paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an
injustice, a form of discrimination because race and sex are not relevant to normal
work situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for
treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives
his own children more attention and then he gives the children of others; we think it is fair
when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater
tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does
not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done
wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing
wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater
contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria
need, desert, contribution, and effort, we acknowledge as justifying differential
treatment, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are certain criteria that we agree are insufficient
justifications for treating individuals differently. In the world of work, for example, we
generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment based on age, sex,
race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended
sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail
for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million-dollar
contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other
contractors, we say that it is unfair. We also believe it is not fair when a person is
punished for something over which he or she had no control or is not compensated
for a harm he or she suffered.
Lesson 2. Different Kinds of Justice Theory

There are different kinds of justice. The degree to which society's institutions
ensure that rewards and responsibilities are distributed among society's members in a fair
and just manner is referred to as distributive justice. Where a society's institutions
allocate benefits or obligations in an inequitable manner, there is a strong case to be
made that such institutions should be modified. For example, the American institution of
slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case
of treating people differently based on race. For example, the American institution of
slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring
case of treating people differently based on race (Velasquez et al., 2014).

A second important kind of justice is retributive or corrective justice. The

degree to which sentences are fair and just is referred to as retributive justice. In general,
sentences are considered only if they consider relevant factors such as the severity of
the crime and the criminal's motive while disregarding irrelevant criteria such as race.
For example, cutting off a person's hand for stealing a dime or enforcing the death
penalty on a person who hurt another party by mistake and without fault would be
barbaric. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much
more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder
blacks. These studies suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the
United States. Now in here in our country where most say that rich persons even, they
committed crime receives special treatment in jail or in terms of justice rather than those
poor people who committed crimes or even just suspected or just been accused
(Velasquez et al., 2014).

The third important kind of justice is compensatory justice. Compensatory

justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by
those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on
a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that is at stake in debates over damage to
workers' health in coal
mines. Some argue that mine owners should compensate the workers whose health has

been ruined. Others argue that workers voluntarily took on this risk when they chose

employment in the mines (Velasquez et al., 2014).

The concepts of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity are the pillars
of justice. The unity of a society, or any community for that matter, depends on the
degree to which its members believe they are being treated fairly, as ethicist John
Rawls has pointed out. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed
out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in
virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are
treated unequally based on characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their
fundamental human dignity is violated (Velasquez et al., 2014).

Like the idea of justice simpliciter, with which it is often used interchangeably, the
idea of distributive justice has been taken to refer to different things: theorists of
justice have adopted different views, mostly without any explicit acknowledgement or

defense of them, about what characterizes and delimits the demands of justice as

opposed to other moral

demands (for example, the demands of legitimacy, community, efficiency, or stability, to
mention a few central ones). They have also adopted different views of what
characterizes distributive justice as opposed to other types of justice (Velasquez et al.,
2014).

Some, for example, have assumed or claimed that justice, as opposed to

humanitarian concerns or charity, concerns our perfect duties, that is, duties owed to
specific individuals that leave no room for discretion on the part of duty-holders in
deciding how to discharge them (Buchanan, 1987). Some have held that justice
regards the negative duties we have to not harm others, as opposed to any duties to
assist or aid others (Campbell, 1974). Alternatively, or additionally, some have assumed
that what characterizes duties of justice is that they are enforceable, that is, they are
duties which a legitimate authority may use coercion to ensure are fulfilled (Nozick,

1974). As far as distributive justice is concerned, some have assumed that what
distinguishes it from other types of justice is that it is justice in the distribution of
material or economic advantages only, or that it only concerns the allocation, as opposed
to
the production, of given goods; others have instead equated the idea of distributive
justice with that of social justice, and used it to refer to all the principles regulating
the balancing of individuals’ claims to all of the possible benefits of social
cooperation (Rawls, 1999) . These different usages of the ideas of justice and of
distributive justice reflect different views of what characterizes these social values and
distinguishes them from other moral demands, and in what follows I identify some key
dimensions along which such views vary (Bedau, 1978).

In identifying the different views theorists adopt of what characterizes distributive

justice, it is helpful to note that there are four main and inter-related dimensions along
which they tend to vary, which concern, respectively,

• the preconditions;

• the subject;

• the object; and

• the normative significance of distributive justice

The preconditions of distributive justice are the conditions that must obtain for
considerations of distributive justice to be pertinent at all. Under these conditions, there is
both an identity and a conflict of interests among individuals that make the quest for
principles

needed to resolve conflicting claims equitably both necessary and possible. A different
view holds that considerations of distributive justice are only pertinent where there
are shared institutions through which we exercise coercion over each other, or which
speak in our name (Nagel, 2005), as only these practices trigger a demand for
justification which can only be met by making those practices just. We could furthermore
believe that, within the context of shared institutions, only disadvantage that is
intentionally and avoidably caused by those institutions, rather than the result of natural
causes, is unjust (Nagel 1997).

Discussions of distributive justice also conceive of what characterizes it differently

in line with what they take the primary subject of distributive justice to be (Bedau,
1978): is it individuals’ acts that are primarily just and unjust, all social practices, or
only certain institutions?
 Thirdly, different theorists of justice take different views of the object of distributive
justice. On a doubly narrow interpretation of the object of distributive justice, to
focus on distributive justice is to focus on the justice of the mechanisms and

procedures that only allocate a given amount of goods, and only a subclass of

distributable goods, namely, distributable economic goods like income and wealth. A
wider interpretation of the idea of distributive justice adopts a more generous view of
the goods whose distribution raises concerns of justice, and/or considers productive
mechanisms, as well as allocative ones, as subject to the demands of justice.

Finally, and crucially, theorists of distributive justice conceive of it differently

depending on what view, sometimes explicitly but mostly implicitly, they take of the
normative significance of distributive justice claims. On most views, distributive justice
considerations offer us very weighty reasons for action. Even more strongly, injustice is on
most views a decisive reason for altering arrangements: as Rawls famously stated, ‘laws
and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished
if they are unjust’ (Rawls, 1971).

As far as the pattern of distributive justice is concerned, some theorists favor

redistributive policies with a view to mitigating or eliminating the gap between the better
off and the less well off (whom we might call distributive egalitarians, or egalitarians

simpliciter, while others hold that these must only ensure that the badly off have
enough, or have their basic needs met, and yet others that improvements in the
situation of the worse off are given priority. Yet other theorists view redistributive policies
as required by justice insofar as they help ensure that people are as well or as badly off
as they deserve to be, while some reject
any redistributive policies as unjust because the only rights people have been rights to
use, control, and exchange at full tax immunities justly acquired private property rights
(these are right libertarian views).
 Assessment Task 9-1

True or False

Instruction: Write true if the statement is correct and write False if the statement
is not correct.

1. Distributive justice is when rewards and responsibilities are distributed among

society’s members in a fair and just manner.

2. According to Aristotle the way in which the major social institution

distributes fundamental rights and duties.

3. According to Plato, injustice is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of
all.
4. According to Campbell, inequalities in society in the assignment of rules
and positions, can be allowed as long as it does not harm the least
advantaged.
5. According to Nagel, human dignity is invisible because it is essentially at the
very core of our humanity.

6. Individual should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are
relevant to the situation.

7. Retributive justice is the degree to which sentences are fair and just.

8. John Rawls pointed out that the unity of a community depends the
degree to which its members believe they are being treated fairly.

9. Rawls stated that issues and institution in matter efficient and well-arranged
must be reformed or abolished.

10. Justice is an expression of our shared acceptance of each other’s fundamental

integrity.

11. We must treat each other as equals if we are to live together in an

interdependent culture.
12. A Theory of Justice is a book of John Rawls.
13. Social Justice and Social Institution was written by H. Bedau.

14. According to Nagel distributive justice are only pertinent where there are
shared institutions.

15. According to Aristotle most basic principle of justice is that equals should
be treated equally and unequal should be treated unequally

16. According to Immanuel Kant human beings should have the same dignity and
be treated equally.

17. God’s justice means that we value the lives of others just we value our
lives.
18. God gave us intellect to be able to come up with good judgements and
responsible decisions.

19. Mill understood rights are valid claim on society and are justified by utility.

20. Part of the fundamental center of morality is called justice.

21. The ability to make decisions that are not overly universal but concrete
and unique to a particular situation is fairness.

22. Nowadays justice and fairness are sometimes used interchangeably.

23. The principle of justice was universally accepted more than 2,000 years.

24. The ability to decide without regard to one’s interest is fairness.

25. Men and women are created equal in the eyes of God.

26. According to Vasquez justice denies that the loss of freedom of some is
made right by a greater well shared others.

27. Andre said that justice does not allow that the sacrifice imposed on a four
are overweighed by the larger sum of advantage enjoyed by many.

28. Shanks argued that there is a conflict of interests since persons are not
indifferent.

29. Meyer said that the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers suffers
from misjudging individual preferences.

30. God gave men the moral insight of fairness and respect others.
 Assessment Task
Matching Type

Instruction: Match the statement under letter A to letter B. Write only the letter of the
correct

answer.

B
A

1. Harvard philosopher among society’s A. Corrective justice

members in a fair and just manner B. Compensatory justice
2. Fundamental center of morality
C. Compensation
3. Ability to decide without regard to
one’s D. Fundamental human dignity

feeling E. Unity of a society

4. Described the most basic principle F. John Rawls
of justice G. Justice
5. Rewards and responsibilities H. Fairness
are distributed I. Aristotle
6. The degree to which sentences are
J. Distributive justice
fair and just
7. People are fairly compensated for
their injuries
8. Proportional to the loss inflicted on
a person
9. Violated whenever individuals are
treated unequally
10.Depends on the degree that
members treated fairly

195
 Assessment Task 9.3

III – Multiple Choice

Instruction: Select the correct answer below each statement. Write only the letter of the
correct answer.

1. Justice obtain for considerations of distributive justice to be pertinent at all.

a. Precondition
b. Post condition
c. Condition
d. After condition
e. Second condition
2. According to him considerations of distributive justice are only pertinent where
there are shared institutions.
a. Aristotle
b. Nagel
c. Rawls
d. Bedau
e. Campbell
3. Integral component of ethics and should be prioritized in our moral lives.
a. Fairness
b. Moral
c. Justice
d. Ethics
e. Virtue
4. An expression of our shared acceptance of each other’s fundamental integrity.
a. Fairness
b. Moral
c. Virtue

19
6
 d. Justice
e. Ethics
5. Not only factor to consider when making ethical choices.
a. Ethics
b. Virtue
c. Moral
d. Justice
e. Fairness
6. Overridden on occasion in favor of other moral statements.
a. Justice values
b. Justice
c. Values
d. Virtue
e. Moral
7. Wrote The Republic.
a. Aristotle
b. Plato
c. Rawls
d. Campbell
e. Nagel
8. The author of A Theory of Justice.
a. Aristotle
b. Plato
c. Rawls
d. Campbell
e. Nagel
9. Said that equals should be treated equally and unequal should be treated
unequally.
a. Nagel
b. Rawls
c. Campbell
d. Aristotle
 e. Plato

10.The concepts of social stability, interdependence and equal dignity.

a. Justice
b. Pillar of moral
c. Pillar of virtue
d. Ethics
e. Pillar of justice

Summary

Justice is an integral component of ethics and should be prioritized in our moral

lives. We must question if our decisions treat all people fairly before evaluating some
moral decision. If not, we must consider whether the disparity in care is justified: are the
parameters we are using appropriate for the situation? However, when making ethical
choices, fairness is not the only factor to consider. Justice values which need to be
overridden on occasion in favor of other moral statements, such as freedom or the
protection of society. Nonetheless, justice is an expression of our shared acceptance of
each other's fundamental integrity, as well as an understanding that we must treat
each other as equals if we are to live together in an interdependent culture.
 References

Academia.edu (2020) the Influence of Culture in Moral Development. Retrieved 25

October 2020, from https://www.academia.edu/11007189/The_Influence_of_Culture_

in_Moral _Development

Baring, J. (2020). The Influence of Culture in Moral Development.

Bautista, Gerry (2013) Strengths and Weaknesses of the Filipino Character. Retrieved 25

October 2020, from http://evotistavenue.weebly.com/asean-youthorg/strengths-and-

weaknesses-of-the-filipino-character

Bedau, H. (1978). ‘Social Justice and Social Institutions’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, III:

15975.

Buchanan, A. (1987). ‘Justice and Charity’. Ethics 97(3): 558–75.

Campbell, T. D. (1974). ‘Humanity before Justice’. British Journal of Political Science 4:

1–16.

Church, Timothy and. Katigbak Marcia, (2002) Studying Personality Traits Across

Cultures:Philippine Examples Washington State University, Washington State

University,

Hays, J. (2015). Filipino Character And Personality: Hiya, Amor Propio, Emotions And

TheInfluences Of Catholicism, Asia And Spain Retrieved 25 October 2020,

from http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Philippines/sub5_6c/entry-
3867.html

Introduction to Culture - Lecture - It's All About Culture. (2020). Retrieved 25 October

2020, from https://itsallaboutculture.com/introduction-to-culture-lecture/

Philosophy,
Khan Academy (2020) Cultural relativism: definition & examples Retrieved 25 October

2020, from https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/society-and-

culture/culture/a/cultural-relativism-article

Lumen Learning (2020) Cultural Relativism. Retrieved 25 October 2020, from

https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Cultural_Anthropology

Velasquez, M., Andre,C., Shanks, T & Meyer,m. (2014 August 1). Justice and Fairness,
retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-
and-fairness/

Merriam-Webster (2020) Definition of CULTURE. Retrieved 25 October 2020, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2020). Retrieved 25 October

2020, from https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Rawls, J. (1999 [1971]). A Theory of Justice, revised edn. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress. Reyes, Jeremiah (2015). Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino

Virtue Ethics.

Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09552367.

2015.1043173

Santos, R.M. (2020) Man As a Productive Being. Retrieved 25 October 2020,

from https://www.academia.edu/11896771/Man_A

Schulman, M. (2002) How we become moral. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),

Handbook of Positive Psychology: 499-512. Oxford: University Press,

Taylor, E. (2007) Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology, (Manila: Rex

Bookstore, Inc.,
 MODULE 10
Ethics and Religion

Introduction
First, it is necessary to determine the generic character of the two classes of
phenomena that is Ethics (Morality) and Religion. Without offering an exact definition of
religion upon which it would perhaps be difficult for all to agree, it may be confidently
asserted that religion involves belief in a higher power or powers, in a super- human
being or beings, and some form of cult, or worship. Morality, on the other hand, has to do
with man in personal and social relations. Religion with its belief in the transcendent, views
the individual in his relations to an infinite power completely manifested in the cosmic
order. Ethics (Morality), with no such transcendent reference, views him in relation to his
fellows.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, students should be able to:

1. Differentiate ethics and religion;
2. Explain the role of ethics in religion;
3. Analyze the relationship between ethics and religion;
4. Apply the golden rule.

201
Lesson 1. The Role of Ethics and Religion (Santos, 2020)

A longstanding debate has been whether ethics plays a role in religion. Most
religions have an ethical component. Ethics, which is a major branch of philosophy,
encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common
conception of analyzing right and wrong. Ethics deals with ideas such as Right, Good and
Duty and these concepts were discussed in ancient Greece by Plato and Aristotle in the
3rd & 4th Century BCE.

A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is
simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional
moral codes. The ancient Greeks called it eudaimonia or happiness. The ancient Greeks
believed happiness was brought about by living one’s life in accordance with virtue – positive
traits of character. Virtue in the highest sense, in an adult who has been brought up well, will
not just involve good personal
habits such as courage and temperance, but also friendship and justice and intellectual
virtue. The essence of virtue is in the wholeness of the person brought about by integrity.

The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a basic
requirement of ethics. We ought to be virtuous and do our duty, he said. Kant believed
virtue should be rewarded by happiness, and it would be intolerable if it were not so. Since
virtue often does go unrewarded in the present life, Kant argued that the soul must be
immortal. Virtue must receive its due recompense in a future life, and there must be a
God guaranteeing that it is so rewarded. The existence of God and the immortality of
the soul were what Kant called the postulates of practical reason - the assumptions without
which, so he claimed, ethics and a moral life would not be possible.

Revealed religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do

prescribe some clear and unambiguous rules to follow. If their scriptures were authored or
dictated by God, then the commands in them are God's own commands. They cannot be
changed if human circumstances change or ethical ideas progress.

If religion has a role in moral decision-making, then what should be that role? All over
the world, for many individuals, their religion is a centrally defining characteristic of who they
are, such that they would be nearly incapable of making ethical decisions independently of

20
2
their religious beliefs.

20
3
 Further, some of our most basic moral sentiments are directly connected to
religious ideology. For example, most people agree that things like murder and adultery are
always wrong, regardless of circumstances. Most major world religions echo these
sentiments, and it can be argued that the ancient codes of conduct these traditions embody
are the original source of our social intuitions. At a minimum, we do seem to regard
religion as a good source of basic moral guidance, making it unwise to argue that there
ought to be no connection between religion and ethics.
Lesson 2. The Relationship between Ethics and Religion (Santos, 2020)

Is there a relationship between Religion and Ethics? To answer this question, we

must first understand what both ethics and morality are. As ethics is defined as the
philosophical study of morality, those who study religion get their moral precepts from what
they believe God says should be done. This perspective is not at all unexpected,
because all religions apply a perspective of morality. Morality is defined as beliefs
concerning right and wrong, good, and bad- beliefs that can include judgements, values,
rules, principles, and theories. Morals are what help us guide our actions, define our values,
and give us reason for being the person that we are. These religious codes of conduct,
such as the Ten Commandments, are generally very broad statements, elucidating only
general principles that may be inconvenient to apply to each specific case. Some religious
moral codes may also contradict one another.

These contradictions compel religious believers to decipher religious directives or to

draw out the implications of views- this is otherwise known as doing ethics. When
conflicts such as moral contradictions and inconsistencies arise, conversations including
ethics and moral reasoning is the only way to solve these inconsistencies. Those who are
genuine devotees of a certain religion may question if their religion’s moral instructions
make sense according to one another. In these distinct cases, intelligent resolution of the
claims can only be sorted out by putting in place an unbiased standard that can classify the
competing viewpoints. This is where ethics comes in as the neutrality in the form of critical
thinking, proficient arguments, and careful analysis.

Ethics until recently has been seen as a brainchild of religion and thus an essential
part of religion from which it is inseparable. This assumption has even led some scholars
to hold that there can be no ethics without religion since ethics is intrinsically a part of
religion. It is therefore assumed that a religious person is essentially an ethical person
and that an ethical life may not be possible without religion. If this assumption is upheld, it
will mean that with the multiplicity of major religious denominations the world will be a better
place. Whether this is so is an issue that elicits fierce divergent views among scholars and
people of various orientations. This works critically examines the relationship between
religion and ethics to determine whether the above claims and expectations are justified.
Employing the philosophical tools of critical analysis, exposition and evaluation of facts
experientially acquired as well as information from the works of
researchers on the issues of religion and ethics, the work examines whether there is a
definitional relationship or connection between religion and ethics and whether they are
related through their concerns, preoccupations, or constituent elements. This connection
was not seen. The work further examined the opinions of scholars about their
relationship as well as what the consequences will be if ethics depends on religion. In trying
to find out the root of the assumption the work critically examined the contentious issue of
the impact of the multiplicity of religious denominations on socio-ethical behavior. In
conclusion the work decried the lack of synergy between ethics and religion, holding that
though there may be no definitional connection between them, and their concerns,
preoccupations and constituent elements may differ, ethics and religion are complimentary
in forging a better society. If they synergize their efforts the world will be a better place.

The Golden Rule

The link between religion and ethics is best illustrated by the Golden Rule. Virtually all
the world’s great religions contain in their religious texts some version of the Golden Rule:
“Do unto others as you would wish them do unto you”. In other words, we should treat
others the way we would want to be treated. This is the basic ethic that guides all
religions. If we do so, happiness will ensue.
The role of philosophers is to accurately try to define and promote ethical concepts
based upon logic and reason. A religious person on the other hand, follows his or her
code of conduct because he believes that it is proper behavior and reaction to the
varying challenges and circumstances which arise during life.
 Assessment Task 10-1

I – True or False
Instruction: Write true if the statement is correct and write False if the statement is incorrect.

1. Ethics and religion are the two classes of phenomena that necessary to determine
the generic character.
2. The relationship between religion and fairness is about the relationship between
ethics and reason.
3. Religion is based in the insights of the researchers.
4. The insights are collected in texts and presented as virtues.
5. Religion and ethics are best illustrated by the rule of conduct.
6. Morality has to do with the personal and social relations of man.
7. Most religions have an ethical component.
8. Ethics is the major branch of philosophy that encompasses right conduct and good life.
9. Life that is simply satisfying is more important than traditional moral codes.
10.Virtue in the highest sense will not just involve good personal habits but also
friendship and justice and intellectual virtue.
11.The essence of virtue is in the wholeness of the person brought about by integrity.
12.The influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant defended the idea of God as a
basic requirement of ethics.
13.Kant said that we ought to be virtuous and do our duty.
14.Kant believed that virtue should be rewarded by happiness.
15.Virtue must receive its due compensation in a future life and there must be a
God guaranteeing that it is so rewarded.
16.Kant called the existence of God and the immortality of the soul as postulates
of practical reason.
17.Revealed religious prescribe clear and unambiguous rules to follow.
18.Scriptures as authored by God cannot be changed if human circumstances change
or ethical ideas of progress.
19.For many their religion is a centrally defining characteristic of who they are.
20.Ethics is defined as the philosophical study of morality and they believed God
says should be done.
21.Conversations, ethics and moral reasoning solve the inconsistencies.
22.Ethics and religion are complimentary in forging a better society.
23.Golden Rule is the best illustrated link between religion and ethics.
24.Golden Rule is the world’s great religious contain in their religious texts.
25.Logic and reason are the basis of philosophers to accurately try to define and
promote ethical concepts.
26.Anything that is not rationally verifiable cannot be considered success.
27.Principles are upheld for their value in promoting independent groups.
28.Principles are upheld to people who are capable of making decisions for others.
29.Ethical principles need their authority to religious dogma.
30.Religious person follows his code of conduct for it is a proper behavior and reaction
to the varying challenges and circumstances when arise during the curse of
life.
Assessment Task 10-
2

Matching Type
Instruction: Match statements under letter A to letter B.

A
B
1. Eudaimonia
a. Ethical principle
2. Religious codes of conduct
b. Not rationally verifiable
3. Seen as a brainchild of religion
c. Morality
4. Treat others the way you want to
d. Aristotle
be treated
e. Immanuel Kant
5. Reveals insights about life and
f. Happiness
its true meaning
g. Ten Commandments
6. Need not derive their authority
h. Ethics
from religious doctrine
i. Golden Rule
7. Cannot be considered justifiable
j. Religion
8. Personal and social relations of
man
9. Discussed the concepts of ethics
in the 3rd and 4th century BCE
10.Defended the idea of God as a
basic requirement of ethics
 Assessment Task 10.3

Multiple Choice

Instruction: Choose the correct answer under each statement. Write only the letter of the correct
answer.

1. Has a role in moral decision-making.

a. Virtue
b. Ethics
c. Moral
d. Happiness
e. Religion

2. Said the virtue should be rewarded by happiness.

a. Plato
b. Aquinas
c. Socrates
d. Kant
e. Aristotle

3. Brought about by living one’s life in accordance with virtue.

a. Ethics
b. Morality
c. Happiness
d. Religion
e. Integrity

20
9
4. Brought the essence of virtue in the wholeness of a person.
a. Happiness
b. Integrity
c. Ethics
d. Morality
e. Religion

5. Argued that the soul must be immortal.

a. Kant
b. Aristotle
c. Plato
d. Socrates
e. Aquinas

6. The central aspect of ethics.

a. Good life
b. Good trait
c. Good character
d. Good future
e. Good moral

7. Good source of basic moral guidance.

a. Ethics
b. Religion
c. Ethical principle
d. Virtue
e. Moral
8. Belief that should be included concerning right and wrong, good and bad.
a. Morality
b. Integrity
c. Judgement
d. Ethical
e. Virtue

9. Help us guide our action, define our values and give us a reason for being a
person that we are.
a. Religion
b. Moral
c. Happiness
d. Love
e. Courage

10.Defined as the philosophical study of morality.

a. Ethics
b. Religion
c. Integrity
d. Unity
e. Happiness
 Summary

The relationship between religion and ethics is about the relationship between
revelation and reason. Religion is based in some measure on the idea that God (or some
deity) reveals insights about life and its true meaning. These insights are collected in texts
(the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and presented as “revelation.” Ethics, from a strictly
humanistic perspective, is based on the tenets of reason: Anything that is not rationally
verifiable cannot be considered justifiable. From this perspective, ethical principles need
not derive their authority from religious doctrine. Instead, these principles are upheld for
their value in promoting independent and responsible individuals—people who can make
decisions that maximize their own well-being while respecting the well-being of others.
 References

Academia.edu (2020) the Influence of Culture in Moral Development. Retrieved 25

October 2020, from https://www.academia.edu/11007189/The_Influence_of_Culture_

in_Moral _Development

Baring, J. (2020). The Influence of Culture in Moral Development.

Bautista, Gerry (2013) Strengths and Weaknesses of the Filipino Character. Retrieved 25

October 2020, from http://evotistavenue.weebly.com/asean-youthorg/strengths-and-

weaknesses-of-the-filipino-character

Bedau, H. (1978). ‘Social Justice and Social Institutions’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, III:

15975.

Buchanan, A. (1987). ‘Justice and Charity’. Ethics 97(3): 558–75.

Campbell, T. D. (1974). ‘Humanity before Justice’. British Journal of Political Science 4:

1–16.

Church, Timothy and. Katigbak Marcia, (2002) Studying Personality Traits Across

Cultures:Philippine Examples Washington State University, Washington State

University,

Hays, J. (2015). Filipino Character And Personality: Hiya, Amor Propio, Emotions And

TheInfluences Of Catholicism, Asia And Spain Retrieved 25 October 2020,

from http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Philippines/sub5_6c/entry-
3867.html

Introduction to Culture - Lecture - It's All About Culture. (2020). Retrieved 25 October

2020, from https://itsallaboutculture.com/introduction-to-culture-lecture/

Philosophy,
Khan Academy (2020) Cultural relativism: definition & examples Retrieved 25 October

2020, from https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/society-and-

culture/culture/a/cultural-relativism-article

Lumen Learning (2020) Cultural Relativism. Retrieved 25 October 2020, from

https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Cultural_Anthropology

Velasquez, M., Andre,C., Shanks, T & Meyer,m. (2014 August 1). Justice and Fairness,
retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-
fairness/

Merriam-Webster (2020) Definition of CULTURE. Retrieved 25 October 2020, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2020). Retrieved 25 October

2020, from https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Rawls, J. (1999 [1971]). A Theory of Justice, revised edn. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress. Reyes, Jeremiah (2015). Loób and Kapwa: An Introduction to a Filipino

Virtue Ethics.

Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09552367. 2015.1043173

Santos, R.M. (2020) Man As a Productive Being. Retrieved 25 October 2020, from

https://www.academia.edu/11896771/Man_A

Schulman, M. (2002) How we become moral. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),

Handbook of Positive Psychology: 499-512. Oxford: University Press,

Taylor, E. (2007) Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology, (Manila: Rex

Bookstore, Inc.,