Final Module in Ethics

Module 2
FEELINGS, IMPARTIALITY, MORAL FRAMEWORKS IN DECISION MAKING
INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

By the students finished the learning experience, they should be able to:
1.) Assess reasonable and emotional responses to personal moral experiences

2.) Classify the role of mental moral frames in moral experience
3.) Check real-life cases against the 7-step model, a model that uses reason and
impartiality
4.) Connect moral behaviour in terms of planning and execution to moral experiences
Tell Me What You Already Know!

 Answer the following essay questions.
1.) In your own idea, what is feelings?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________
2.) How do feelings affect your moral decision making?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
3.) What is a moral courage and what is its role in actualizing your moral decision?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
4.) What are the steps in order to have an impartial decision making?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________
5.) What are the moral norms or frameworks in making moral decisions?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Module Introduction
SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY
Institute of Arts & Sciences
This module is designed for self-paced independent study. In this module, you
will learn and understand the nature of feelings and how feelings affect our day to day
activities and decisions including moral decisions. You will also learn the role of
emotions and how our primitive emotions be converted of becoming a purposeful and
useful one which is a moral courage. Upon realizing the need for reason and impartiality
to rule supreme over one's moral decision making, you will also learn the seven steps
processes for moral decision making. Following faithfully the steps will help you to be
factual and objective of the present issue or case and be more attentive to the
consequences of choosing a particular decision or action. Following the steps will also
help you tame and channel your emotions that, in return, will serve as fuel towards a
purposeful, fruitful, and meaningful actions which will yield positive results for social
resiliency and progress. You will also learn the different moral frameworks which will
serve as the scaffolds in moral decision making. At this point, it is really expected of you
to have deeper insight of what it means to a true moral agent, that is, a person who is a
true moral agent must be a rationally informed individual who makes rational decision
sensitive to the common good. Furthermore, and most importantly, you will be applying
all the concepts being taught through case analysis of any given moral case literature. As
you go along with your readings discussions, specific questions discussions are included
in order to foster better understanding and appreciation of the readings at hand as you
reflect on the contents of the readings based in your own context. You will also be
required to make a case presentation using power point presentation of your case
analysis you had conducted on the chosen moral case literature. The case presentation
will serve as your output in this module.
This module is divided into eight separate topics: The nature, and philosophical
insights on feelings, non-deliberate nature of feelings, and how emotions help in making
right decisions, Definition and nature of moral courage, moral imagination, and will:
Seven steps process for moral decision making: Virtue ethics; Natural law ethics:
Deontological ethics: Utilitarian ethics: Principles of justice- Justice as fairness.
Learning Plan: Feelings and Emotions: An Embodiment or Obstacle towards Right

Decision?
Try to imagine yourself that you are in this situation. You are walking one day near the
river and suddenly you hear frantic cries for help. Two men are struggling in the water
and clearly drowning. With dismay you see that one is your father, whom you love
dearly, and the other a famous scientist, whom the newspaper report is close to a cure
for cancer. Whom should you save? What is the reason? Obviously, most of us will say
that we will save our beloved father first and then the famous scientist will be next. The
immediate reason for this act or decision is that we value much our beloved father
which makes him the first priority. Such immediate action and the reason behind it are
carried out from and by our emotions or feelings. Emotions or feelings are embedded in
everyone's life. The moment we open our eyes as we wake up every morning, our
1
emotions or feelings are already present and activated in our very selves. Our emotions
or feelings directs or influences our day to day activities and decisions. Emotions, that is
to say our feelings and intuitions, play a major role in most of the ethical decisions
people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral
choices. But actually, experts certainly think that it is impossible to make any important
moral judgments without emotions.
Emotions, evoked by suffering such as and empathy, often lead people to act ethically
toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly
motivates prosocial activity such as altruism cooperation, and generosity. While we may
believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our philosophy or socio-
religious values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our ethical decision-
making. But what is emotions? By definition, emotion is a complex psychological
state that involves three distinct components: a subjective experience, a
physiological response, and a behavioral or expressive response. According to the
Cannon-Bard theory of emotion, emotions result when the thalamus sends a
message to the brain in response to a stimulus, resulting in a physiological
reaction. We react to a stimulus and experience the associated emotion at the same
time. According to this theory, we react to a stimulus and experience the associated
emotion at the same time. The physical reactions are not dependent upon the emotional
reaction, or vice versa. For example: I see a snake, I feel afraid and I begin to tremble. As
the event occurs, the thalamus transmit signal to the amygdala and to the
autonomic nervous system. The amygdala is a small, oval-shaped structure in the
brain that plays an important role in emotional processing, including emotions
such as fear and anger. The autonomic nervous system, is in-charge of involuntary
responses that result in physical reactions such as muscle tension, shaking, and
sweating. Our emotions lead us to feel a certain way when something good or bad
happens to us or around us. This may make our hearts race and blood boil, our faces
color, have us on the verge of tears, create "butterflies in our stomach," make us want to
hide from others or utter an "eww." From these feelings and emotions, we evaluate
the situation at hand, and pass moral judgement on either ourselves, the
individual's involved or the situation in general.
David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the eighteenth century, placed himself in

opposition to most moral philosophers in the ancient and modern time. He refuted the
famous idea that reason has dominion over feelings or emotions. In his book, "Theory of
the Mind", he asserted that (1) reason alone cannot be a motive to the will but
rather it is a "slave of the passions" (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from
reason. (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments. The
feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) are felt by the
spectators who contemplate a character trait or action. (4) Some virtues and vices
are natural but others, including justice, are artificial. Though reason is needed to
2
discover facts of any concrete situation but it insufficient to yield a judgment that
something is virtuous or vicious. A person gains awareness of moral good and evil by
experiencing the pleasure of uneasiness of disapproval. David Hume describes
emotions or feeling as passions. Passion has two classifications namely direct and
indirect. Direct passions are caused from direct sensation of pain or pleasure. The
notion of good and evil arise immediately from the experience of pleasure and pain.
Desire, aversion, hope, fear, grief, and joy are examples of direct passions. Indirect
passions are caused by the sensation of pain or pleasure derived from other idea
or impression. For example, you win in the contest, "Battle of the Brains, the passion
that emanates from the pleasure you get for possessing something admirable is an
indirect passion. So, pride for instance,is an indirect passion that emanates from the
pleasure you get in winning the contest. The direct passion in getting that pleasure is
definitely joy. Humility, ambition, vanity, love, hatred, envy, pity, malice, and generosity
are examples of indirect passions. David Hume, however, admitted that there are
instances that passions can be unreasonable. For Hume, this could happen when we
make mistakes in judgment or our opinions are wrong. As a point of defense to his
assertion, it is not actually passion who is unreasonable in the first place but rather the
mistake of judgment or opinion which is prior to that passion. Once our judgment or
opinion is corrected, passion yields to reason without any opposition.
On the other hand, James Rachels, an American philosopher in the twentieth century,
asserted that feelings cannot be trusted pertaining to moral decision making.
Feelings can be irrational and merely a product of prejudice, selfishness, or
cultural conditioning. Thus, feelings alone cannot supported be relied and it must
be obstacle in by rational mal arguments. Furthermore, feelings can be an making
the right decisions. The three reasons are as follows: (1) Feelings is non-deliberate in
nature; (2) Feelings has this "partial nature"; (3) Feelings is capricious in nature.
It is definitely obvious that some actions out from feelings or emotions are non-
deliberate in nature. It simply means that some actions out from feelings are carried in a
spontaneous manner with the absence of intellectual deliberation and full
understanding of the act. Aaron Been Zeev's assertion on the non-deliberate nature of
feelings are summarized as follows: (1) Responsibility entails free choice and if we
are not free to behave in a certain manner, then we are not responsible for this
behavior. (2) Free choice entails an intellectual deliberation in which alternatives
are considered and the best one is chosen. Without such consideration, we clearly
cannot understand the possible alternatives and are not responsible for preferring one
of them. (3) Since intellectual deliberation is absent from emotions or feelings, we
cannot be responsible for our emotions. The partial nature of emotions or feelings
is explained two aspect. First, decisions based on feelings are focused only on
narrow area. For example, you are overwhelmed with sadness and despair after you
broke up your girlfriend or boyfriend. You are in a narrowly focused state wherein you
have an extremely hard time taking other aspects that lie outside the center of attention
3
into consideration. You are dreaded and your activities are all about her or him so that
you can get back yourself together and think straight again. Second, emotions or
feelings drow its perspective from personal interest. This means that our emotions
or feelings address our subjective concerns and takes actions primarily to satisfy such
concerns. An example for this is when you decide to stop schooling in order not to see
your girlfriend or boyfriend again. The capricious nature of our emotions or feelings
simply means that they are arbitrary. For example, there are times that you feel
giving alms to the street children and sometimes not. As to sum up, there are aspects or
situations that have nothing to do in moral situations that could rile up your emotion,
and this emotion will certainly influence your subsequent moral judgment.
One of the central brain systems associated with emotion, emotional memory and
decision-making processes is the amygdala. The information perceived from the
environment is processed in this area and consequently, an action is taken. The
amygdala plays a role in how you feel, such as when you decided not give any comments
or suggestions because of what you brain perceives as possible threats, like making a
mistake, being laughed at, in the environment. Aside from the subjective and
physiological response we experience, we move to the behavioral or expressive
response experience wherein we pass moral judgments. Moral judgment stems from a
complicated interaction of cognitive and emotional mechanisms. In the study of moral
judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain, it was found that the patients with
bilateral ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damage experienced decreased
emphatic concerns and guilt when given a moral decision-making task (Moll & de
Oliveira-Souza, 2007). More specifically, it was found that patients with VMPFC
damage made more utilitarian decisions, "less "emotional", in "high conflict" personal
moral dilemmas compared to controls. For example, when asked if they would kill a
stranger to save the lives of five other people, it was easier for them to agree "yes" than
the control group. Thus, suggesting that the VMPFC, is important for the experience
of prosocial moral emotions when it came to personal moral and "more emotional"
decisions. Furthermore, while the VMPFC has also being identified as having an
important role in moral judgment and moral emotions, it is still unclear the specific
neural mechanisms that occur. Still though, it is suggested by the study that the complex
feelings that emerge, especially regarding these moral dilemmas, are not in conflict but
rather arise from an integration between the moral emotions and cognitive mechanisms
by this part of the brain. So then, the next question to ask is: what are these moral
emotions? It can be hard to define exactly what moral emotions are. This is because
emotions in general are evoked in response to external circumstances. So, technically,
any emotion could be a moral emotion depending on the subjective experience, the
physiological response and the behavioral and expressive response to the giving
moment. Haidt classified moral emotions into two prototypes: disinterested
elicitors and prosocial action tendencies (Haidt, 2003). He explored the emotional
families including other condemning emotions: contempt, anger and disgust; the self-
4
conscious emotions: shame, embarrassment, and I guilt; the other-suffering: empathy

and the other-praising; awe and elevation. In general, he defines moral emotions as
"those emotions that are linked to the interests or welfare either of society as a
whole or at least of persons other than the Judge or agent" (Haidt, elevation.
2003). On the other hand, Tagney et al seem to classify these emotions into negative
and positive "self-conscious" emotions (Tagney et al, 2007). They state that these self-
conscious moral emotions provide immediate punishment or reinforcement of
behavior and feedback on our social and moral acceptability (Tagney et al, 2007).
Emotion is never truly divorced from decision making, even when it is channeled aside
by an effort of the will. It is not possible to see the world with complete objectivity as
our observations affect what we perceive. But on the other hand, Mary Midgley, a
moral philosopher, says that sensitivity requires rationality to complete it and
vice versa, We rely on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias,
or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument, and also to refine
and explain a felt conviction that passes the test of critical reflection and
discussion. We rely on feelings to move us to act morally and to ensure that our
reasoning is not only logical but also humane. This is now the true worth of our
emotions. Our emotions or feelings makes morality possible. As children, we
manifest empathy before developing our rational abilities. Empathy involves feeling to
what other person experiences. We experience another human being directly as a
person. It enables us to identify with others and may generate a perception of the other
who deserves concern and respect. Our conscience, as describe best, reflects our
integration of our moral sentiments and principles. We should however test our
conscience by explaining the reasons for our moral presumptions and we should listen
carefully to what other people may have.
Psychologists have long acknowledged that emotion or feeling serves as a red flag.
It signals that something is happening and that it needs attention. In many
instances, we feel that something is wrong when we make incorrect judgment.
Such red flag signal notifies us to adjust or make corrections of our judgment and
behavior. The surge of negative emotions also triggers counterfactual thinking.
Counterfactual thinking is a psychological concept about the human tendency to create
possible alternative scenarios other than what had actually happened. This means that
we repeatedly replay the situation and think about what went wrong and what would
be the best thing to do. Such analysis provides us an opportunity to reflect and prepare
oneself in making a different and better choice in the future. Other studies suggested
that negative feelings make a perfect occasion to develop emotional responses and align
it with moral attitudes and goals. (Glovich and Medvec, 1995) Both our feelings and
reason reflect our participation in the moral community. As children, our moral
community is our family which eventually broaden that includes our friends and
classmates. As adults, our moral community extends from our family, friends, and
5
classmates to our city, country, and the whole world in which our moral and legal rights
and duties are defined by international law and state law.
Learning Plan: Moral Courage and Moral Imagination
Moral courage is the courage to put your moral principles into action even though
you may be in doubt, or afraid, or face adverse consequences. Moral courage
involves careful deliberation and mastery of the self. Moral courage is essential
not for only a virtuous life, but also a happy one because integrity is essential to
self-esteem. But how can one practice moral courage? This is where "will” comes into
play. Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind- a mental capacity to act decisively
on one's desire. Will does not refer to any particular desires but rather it is a
mental capacity that selects, at the moment of judgment, the strongest desire
among the various desires present. As we become conscious of ourselves, we realize
that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting, and desiring.
These are characteristics that of which we call our urging, craving, striving, wanting,
and desiring. These are characteristics that of which we call our "will”. Arthur
Schopenhauer, a German philosopher in the eighteenth century, says that the "will" is
the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It
appears in every deliberate conduct of man. Contrary to his predecessors and
contemporaries that the "will" is dependent upon knowledge, for him the "will" is
primary and it uses knowledge in order to find an object that will satisfy its
cravings. Aristotle, on the other hand, expressed that the "will" is the product of
intellect and sensation and that the “will” gave the person the capacity for "exciting
movement in space". For him, the "soul" of man is distinguished by two functions,
these are the judging capacity which is the intellect and sensation which is the senses.
These two faculties, intellect and senses, are combinedly used by man in day to day
decision making. Aristotle discussed the difference between what people decide to do
and what they actually do. The role of the intellect is to decide the matter on what is just
and what is the best thing to do. The role of the will, an “informed emotion" in Hume's
perspective, is to put the decision into action. However, we cannot deny that in many
instances man refused to act on what he thinks is right. This is what we call "akrasia".
Akrasia is the lack or absence of moral courage. The opposite of moral courage is
moral weakness. Moral weakness does not mean of the absence of the knowledge of
good. A morally weak person does the opposite side in spite of the knowledge of the
good. This is due to the overpowering of reason by man’s raw desires who lacks practice
of virtues. It is therefore necessary to have a habitual practice of our virtues and have
mastery and control over our desires. A virtuous person, who constantly practice his or
her virtues and has mastery over his or her desires, always contemplate on what is
really a good action or good decision on a particular moral situation. Such constant
contemplation and discernment of our actions and decisions is crucial in order to elicit a
"discerned and informed” decision or action.
Acting morally often requires more than just strength of character. In order to act
6
morally in any complicated moral issues and circumstances, it is important to note that
the moral agent or person must have the ability to imaginatively discern various
possibilities within a given moral situation In order to envision the potential help
and harm that are likely to result from a given action. This is what we call "moral
imagination". Moral imagination is the ability to discover and evaluate
possibilities within a particular set of circumstances by questioning and
expanding one's operative mental framework. In managerial moral decision making,
moral imagination entails perceiving the norms, social roles, and relationships entwined
in any situation. Moral Imagination differs from other forms of free reflection because it
is grounded in practice and distinguished by the following three characteristics: (1)
Beginning not with the general but with a particular situation; (2) Entailing the
ability to disengage from one's primary framework or to extend or adapt that
framework in a meaningful way; (3) Dealing not merely with fantasies with
possibilities or ideals that are viable and actualizable. Such possibilities have a
normative or prescriptive character; they are concerned with what one ought to do.
Learning Plan: Reason and Impartiality and the Seven Steps Model in Moral
Decision Making
As discussed in the previous discussion, moral imagination is our creative ability to
imagine various possibilities for acting or doing. This is a necessary component and an
initial step towards a fruitful and discerned decision and action. However, this is not
sufficient alone and a sound moral reasoning is still needed. So, what is moral
reasoning? What is reason? What is impartiality? These two words, "reason and
impartiality" are the essential components of a good decision or action. A good decision
or action must be reasonable and it must also Impartial. Reason is the power of the
mind to think, understand, and form judgments by the process of logic. In relation
to ethics and morality. reason is the basis for morality. According to Immanuel Kant,
acting morally is acting rationally. In acting morally or in making decisions, one must
able to reflect on different actions to make and then choose what best or rightful action
to make. In reflecting or discerning the different actions to make, one must be able to
know and understand the nature, the grounding or supporting principle, the
consequences, and the affected individuals of every possible different actions to make.
Impartiality, on the other hand, is commonly understood as the principle of
justice. In simple terms it means of “not being biased". It is based on objective
criteria rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring to benefit one
person over another for improper reasons. In short, impartiality stresses that
everyone should be given equal importance and consideration and not favor one class
or one person in subjective manner. In ethics, reason and impartiality are basically
intertwine concepts. A reasonable act is an impartial act. An impartial act is, at the very
least, a reasonable act. How is it to be reasonable and impartial? According to Dr.
James Rachels, in order for our decisions and actions to be reasonable and
impartial, we need to think on how our decisions and actions affect the situation
7
and the people around without favor to any party. For example, when you saw your
classmate stealing money and your classmate denied it during the investigation of your
teacher. Your teacher asks you if you saw the incidence and if you can tell names. What
will you do? Will you tell the truth to your teacher? An impartial choice involves basing
your decision on how all the persons in the situation will be affected and not just at the
advantage of one person. Reason and impartiality are the minimum conception of
morality, Rachels says that “morality is at the very least an effort to guide one's
action based on the most logical choice while giving equal importance to the
interests of each person affected by one's decision." A key distinguishing feature of a
moral dilemma is that it typically arises when individuals or groups might be harmed,
disrespected, or unfairly disadvantaged. Most ethical decisions lie in gray area. Often
times you are faced with a situation where there are no clear cut or obvious choices and
the situation cannot be determined by simple quantitative analysis of data. Ethical
decision making requires Interpretation of the situation, application of your values, and
estimating the consequences of your actions. In real life, our situations do not only
involve between right and wrong or good and bad. Oftentimes it is about choosing
between good and better or bad and worst.
Knowing at hand, based on our own experiences, that there are no obvious choices in
some situations, so how do we make ethical decisions? Genuine ethical decision
making is a systematic process of evaluating and choosing among alternatives in a
manner that consistent with moral principles. Scott Rae, a theologian and professor
of Christian ethics at Biola University Talbot School of Theology, adapted the seven
steps model in ethical decision making. The seven steps are as follows: (1) Gather
facts; (2) Identify stakeholders; (3) Articulate dilemma; (4) List the alternatives;
(5) Compare the alternatives with the principles; (6) Weight the consequences;
and (7) Make a decision.
Gather Facts:
The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. We
need to ask if we have all the facts that are necessary in order to make decisions. We
need to assess on what we know and what do we still need to know as we gather many
facts as we can. We need to take note that some facts may eventually turn out to be
misleading, or not true at all. So, our vigilance and meticulousness in establishing the
facts will always be tested in any given ethical situation Good and sound decisions are
always based on clear, concrete and factual data or information.
Identify Stakeholders:
Good and sound decisions are also prosocial in nature. This means that moral decisions
and actions should always give equal importance to the interests of each person
affected. So, aside from getting the facts clear, there is a need to identify all the persons
involved and will be affected in an ethical situation. There is a need to identify the
8
primary and secondary stakeholders affected. We need to look into the situation
through the eyes of the people affected.
Articulate Dilemma:
As discussed in the previous learning plan, dilemma is a moral situation in which a
difficult choice is to be made between two or more conflicting alternatives. In this
process, we need to articulate the conflicting alternatives-the ethical principles and
values of the moral situation in order to get a clear-cut picture of it. Confusion arises
which will definitely obstruct the evaluating process if we cannot clearly see the conflict
at hand. Ethical interests are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods.
The competing interests are what create the dilemma. Moral principles, values, and
virtues must support the competing interests. In the absence of these supports to the
conflicting interests, then most likely there is no ethical dilemma existing. More often,
people held these positions, "ethical interests", strongly and with passion because of the
ethical principles and values beneath them
List Alternatives:
As we already establish the conflicting ethical interests, it is natural that we will have
the feeling of confusion. In chess parlance, we may say "stalemate"! We cannot easily
choose a particular choice since all the choices have important values for consideration.
It is now high time to think and consider other alternatives that might serve as bridge of
reconciliation between these conflicting interests. Using our moral imaginative capacity,
we need to think and imagine of other alternatives aside from the conflicting interests at
hand. This is important to note since oftentimes people fail to see better alternatives
better solutions which are actually present.
Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

After thinking imaginatively and listing all the possible alternatives, we need to check
these possible alternatives if indeed they reconcile the conflicting ethical interests, We
need to check and see if these alternatives are better alternatives compare to the
identified conflicting alternatives. If such alternatives fail to embrace the conflicting
ethical principles and values and in no way better alternatives compare to the
conflicting alternatives at hand, then such alternatives may not be considered as moral
choices
Weight Consequences:
As we already think and compare other alternatives with the conflicting principles at
hand if these alternatives will fully reconcile and eliminate the conflict, we also need to
evaluate and consider the consequences of these alternatives specially to the people
affected. Definitely, any alternatives who fully reconcile or eliminate the conflicting
interests and principles will greatly yield positive consequences. But we still need to
identify these consequences in order to have informed moral choices. However, there
9
are ethical situations or issues which we cannot think of any other possible alternatives
that will reconcile or eliminate the conflict. This is where this process is highly
significant which will require full attention and articulation. If the conflicting interests
and principles will not yield a dear decision, then we need to consider the consequences
of these conflicting alternatives. We need to work out the positive and negative
consequences of each by identifying and weighting these consequences in terms of their
reasonable moral worth. Maybe, some might have greater weight than others.
Make a Decision:
As we have undergone the tedious process of gathering data, articulating the conflicting
interest with their moral principles and values, and weighting the consequences of each
of the conflicting interests, so we definitely need to decide on the matter. Moral
deliberation cannot go forever as the moral issue or situation must be urgently decided.
Otherwise, failure to decide promptly may paralyze the expected outcome. There is no
easy and painless decision to a moral dilemma. But we must avoid "analysis paralysis"
or the state of over-analyzing a situation in order to responded appropriately.
Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Virtue Ethics

In the previous learning plan, we have already discussed the Scott Rae seven steps
model in moral decision making. In the case of ethical dilemmas, we need to articulate
the conflicting interest with their principles and values beneath them. So, in order to
articulate fully the dilemma in applying the model in our decision, we need to know and
understand further the moral principles and norms. In ethics, a principle or theory is a
structured set of statements used to explain a set of facts or concepts. So, a moral
principle or theory, then, explains why a certain action is ought to act certain way. A
moral principle or theory, then, becomes a standard or ‘norm" in tor wrong and
why we which it serves as basis and guide in determining whether the action or
decision is good or bad. Now, since any moral situations and issues comes in different
forms, levels, and complexity, a "systems thinking” approach is used in order for the
principles or theories to work. This means that the systems thinker starts to wonder on
the real-world phenomenon and looks into the parts as dynamics aspects of the whole.
It is the interrelationships of the elements of the whole that interests the systems
thinker. System thinkers and organizational leaders use mental frames to simplify
the world they are observing and to make the decision-making processes more
efficient. Mental frames are selective, reductive excessively narrow parts as
arrow way by which a question or information used to take a decision is
expressed, presented, worded, formulated, categorized, and pictured. Mental
frames are principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little
tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters. They are
important in decision making not only by simplifying the chaotic situation that
the person faces, but also by defining the problem itself. Now, in the next paragraph
and learning plan, we are going to discuss explicitly but briefly the moral principles and
10
norms as they will serve as our mental frameworks in articulating and analyzing the
conflicting interests of the moral situation or issue.
Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as
a matter of developing the virtuous character of the person. The primary focus of
virtue ethics is the heart of the moral agent or the person making the decision
rather than the reasoning to a right action. It focuses on the formation of one's
character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts. Aristotle, the
forerunner of virtue ethics, begins his discussion by showing that every person's act is
directed towards a particular purpose or aim which in Greek term is called
"telos". According to him, there is always a purpose why a person does something and
such action manifest a "good" for what the person aspires. There is a hierarchy of
"telos", in as much that a person is aware which he or she intends that most of his or
her actions are not but such can be utilized purpose can only to achieve a particular
pourpose that such purpose can be utilized for higher and highest goal or activity. So,
what purpose is the highest purpose? What is the ultimate good? Aristotle gives two
criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man. The first criterion is
"final". This means that the purpose- the good in be final. In other words, as a final end,
it cannot anymore be utilized for the sake of arriving at a much and higher end. The
second criterion is "self-sufficient". This means that satisfaction in life is a arrived
once the highest good- purpose is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired
since the achieved goal and purpose is considered as the best possible good in life. A
similar example for this would be the NBA basketball tournament. All the teams must
strive to win every game they play in order to advance themselves to the playoffs,
quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals. Winning the finals- the championship games is the
final good. It means that it is the final end since it cannot anymore be utilized for higher
end. It is also self-sufficient in which the highest praise and satisfaction are already
attained. Such highest praise and satisfaction are the ultimate goal of the tournament.
Other goals such as striving to reach the playoffs, quarter-finals, and semi-finals are
what we calls subordinate goals. They are not the dominant or ultimate goal which is
the highest goal but they are necessary goals to be achieve in order to arrive at the
highest goal. So back to the necessary Boy question again. What is the highest good- the
highest goal for Aristotle? Generally, Aristotle says that wealth, power, and pleasure
as the final end of the human being fits to the first criterion since not “happiness”
per se. They are not chosen for themselves but they only serve as means to
achieve "happiness". Thus, they are not "self-sufficient" in nature. Again, these
ends are ultimately for the sake of the final end which is "happiness". Therefore,
Aristotle point this direction that happiness is the final end of a human being.
Happiness, therefore, is the self-sufficient final end of man. Happiness, as the final
end, is the ultimate purpose why every man's actions are always directed to a
11
certain end. In Greek term, this is what we call "eudaimonia". It means of “a life
well-lived" or it also means or it also means of "human flourishing". This is really
what every human being wants to achieve. Every person must strive to do good in as
much that they also strive to be virtuous in order to achieve "eudaimonia". But before
elaborating on what it means to live in eudaimonia, we need to know first on how do we
achieve eudaimonia. As to simplify the question, how do we reach or arrive at the
highest good? Aristotle proceeds his discussion by the question, person must investigate
or reflect first on how he or she functions which enables him or her to achieve the
ultimate good. The activity of reason is what differentiates man from the living
species. If man only eat and drink in order to survive, grow, and develop, then there is
no difference between him or her to the rest of the plants. If man only sense or feel the
things around him or her and respond appetitively, then there is no difference between
him or her to the rest of the animals. Function of man, therefore, is the activity of
reason, Human actions are always in accordance to reason. So, any person for that
matter utilizes his or her reason in every action he or she makes in order to
qualify “a truly human act". But Aristotle says that one cannot perform his or her
function if he or she cannot perform it well. In other words, a person must
perform well as he utilizes his or her reason. Man should seek for the best
possible actions in order for him or her to function well. Thus, the highest
purpose of a human person is all about to function according to reason and to
perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is what
Aristotle call "virtue". In Greek term it is called "arete". But what does it mean to be
excellent? What exactly makes man being excellent? Excellence is the activity of the soul
and therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of the human soul which
must be directed by his or her rational activity in an excellent way. The human soul is
divided into two parts: the irrational elements and the rational elements. The
irrational elements are the vegetative and appetitive or sentient aspect. The
vegetative aspect functions by giving nutrition and physical activity for the
growth of the person. The sentient or appetitive aspect are the desiring faculty of
man. The desiring faculty is brought forth by the sensing activity of man in which
he or she desires on what he or she sense from the reality, The desiring aspect is
an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to
go along with reason. For example, a married man is sexually attracted to his neighbor
who is also married. Due to his attraction, he eventually courted his neighbor and they
have an extra-marital relationship. Such action is brought forth from his appetitive
activity which he has a sexual attraction. Such appetitive impulse refuses to go along
with the right reason which strongly forbids him through his conscience to engage in
extra marital affairs. Now, these irrational elements are not the realm where
"virtue or excellence" is exercise since it cannot be dictated by reason. Now, the
rational aspect is definitely the realm where virtue or excellence is exercised. It is
in this aspect where a person can attain “excellence or virtue”. The attainment of
virtue is simply by rationally examining one's daily actions in life. In rationally
12
examining one's action, person may be able to know the "knowledge of the good".
As the person knows the "knowledge of the good", he actually performs correctly
and excellently, thus, he is acting as a virtuous person. Aristotle offers no specifics
on what it means to be virtuous. Having a virtue simply means the right thing, at the
right time, in a right way, in the right amount, towards the right people. In other words,
a virtuous person knows how to handle himself or herself. He or she knows what to do
all the time. He or she knows how to get along with others. He or she has good
judgments in which he or she can read a room and knows exactly what's right and
when. Naturally, these noble characters or descriptions of a virtuous person are
products from constant learning and habitual practice. In other words, virtue is a
skill, a way of living, something that can only really be learned through
experience. Now, knowing the right thing to do is not easy specially when one is
confronted with conflicting complicated choices. One needs to develop this
knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in daily life. In attaining a
practical reason, a person may initially commit mistakes, but through these mistakes,
that person may be able to sustain practical wisdom in order to boost one's ability to
determine a morally right choice or action. In other words, a person is able to grow
maturely in his or her capacity in knowing what is good or not and what is the right
thing to do. Going back to the rational aspect, Aristotle carefully makes a sharp
distinction between knowing the good and acting on what is good. Knowing the
good does not necessarily make a person morally virtuous. As to understand this
aspect, Aristotle clarifies that the rational faculty of a person is further divided into
two parts which are the "moral" aspect and "intellectual" aspect. Excellence is
exercise both through these two aspects. One can attain intellectual virtue through
teaching and learning experiences. Intellectual virtue or excellence is classified
further as "philosophic excellence or wisdom" and "practical excellence or
wisdom". Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge about the
fundamental principles and truth that governs the universe. Practical wisdom, on
the other hand, is excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying the
particular task. Again, both of these can be attained through teaching and learning. In
the case of philosophic wisdom, one can attain this excellence through formal and
informal education and practice. Examples of philosophic wisdom or excellence are
those practicing experts, scientists, and professionals from various fields of study.
Practical wisdom, on the other hand, can also be attained through teaching and learning
experiences. As discussed earlier, the ability to know exactly about the right conduct in
carrying a particular task is develop through learning from one's experiences and as
well from teaching. A person may easily commit mistakes, but at the end, that person
will soon realize and will grow morally mature. A person will also learn from other
persons which Aristotle call as "exemplars". According to Aristotle, it is a built-in
nature of a human being that every man is able to recognize these "exemplars”, people
who already attained practical wisdom. From them, a person will attain practical
wisdom through their teachings and through learning from their deeds. Again,
13
intellectual virtue does necessarily make a person morally virtuous. Knowing the right
moral conduct of a given particular moral situation does not necessarily mean doing it.
A person needs to develop and attain 'moral virtue or excellence". Moral virtue or
excellence is a trait, character, disposition of the person to act correctly or
appropriately on a particular moral task or situation. As discussed earlier, a
morally virtuous person knows how to handle himself or herself. He or she knows
what to do all the time. He or she knows how to get along with others. He or she
has good judgments in which he or she can read a room and knows exactly what's
right and when. These noble characters of a morally virtuous person are products
or result from habitual practice and learning. Therefore, intellectual virtue or
excellence complements moral virtue or excellence. In other words, as the person
strives for moral excellence, he or she should also need guidance from his or her own
practical wisdom and also from the guidance of his or her exemplars Thus, both
intellectual and moral virtues are developed in time in order to attain a “virtuous
character". A virtuous person, upon discerning about the good or virtuous act,
should always target the mean, the middle, the intermediate, or in Greek terms,
the "mesotes". This means that a morally virtuous person is primarily concern
with achieving an appropriate action in a manner that is not excessive nor
deficient. See the illustration below:
Excess Virtue Deficiency

Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness
Prodigality Liberality Meanness
Boastfulness Truthfulness Mock modesty
Flattery Friendliness Churlishness
Ostentation Magnificence Unworldliness
In the illustration above, courage is the midpoint between two extremes. It is the
midpoint between recklessness and cowardice. The virtue of courage is manifested in
different situations. For example, a person happens to witness a thief who is carrying
with a deadly weapon suddenly snatches the bag of the lady along the corner of the
street. How is the virtue of courage manifested? Considering that the person is not a
combatant and the thief is a notorious guy who carries a deadly weapon, so what shall
that person do? That person must assess first the situation and then make an
appropriate decision and action which shows his or her virtue of courage. Probably, it
would be an excess if the person will decide to run after the thief and engage in fighting.
It would also be deficient when that person will just pass away ignoring the incidence
and ignoring the woman who was shocked intense fear. Now, Aristotle's discussion
ultimately leads to defining what exactly moral virtue is all about. Moral virtue is "a
state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean, that is, the mean
relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle
by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it". Moral virtue is firstly,
14
the condition arrived at by a person who has the character identified out of his or her
habitual exercise of particular actions. One's character is seen as a growth in terms of
the continuous preference for the good. Secondly, the action done, that normally
manifests feelings and passions, is chosen because it is in the middle. Thirdly, practical
wisdom is the rational faculty that serves as guide for proper identification of the
middle or mean. A virtuous person learns from his or her experiences, thus,
develops his or her capacity to know the proper way of carrying out his or her
feelings, passions, and actions. Practical wisdom aids in making a virtuous person
develop this habit of doing the good. Habits are not just simply borne out
repetitive and non-thought-of activities. These are products of the constant
application of reason in the person's actions. As discussed earlier, though Aristotle
makes a clear distinction, but he attempts to establish union between the person's
moral action and knowledge that enables him or her to achieve proper functioning as a
person- as a moral agent. But why do we need to do good? What is the bottom line of
doing good? Happiness is the final end on why man needs to function virtuously or
excellently. As discussed earlier, this is called ”eudalmonia" in Greek term. It
means of “a life well-lived" or it also means of "human flourishing". A life of
eudaimonia is a life of striving. It is a life of pushing one's self to the limits and
finding success. It is a life which will be full of happiness that comes from
achieving something really difficult rather than just handed over to the person. A
person who choose to live or attain in this kind of life has this disposition in mind
that he or she is never done improving. That person is constantly setting news
goals for improvement and working on it to develop new muscles. It also means
that he or she will also face disappointments, sorrows, and failures. A life of
eudaimonia is not literally a life full of cupcakes and rainbows but rather sweet
pleasure of going into the bed after the end of a very exhausting day. It is a sweet
pleasure of knowing that the person accomplished a lot and pushes himself or
herself to be the best person he or she can be. This is the morality of Aristotle. It is
being the best person he or she could be. The person will hone his or her
strengths while also working hard on his or her weaknesses. For Aristotle, a
person who lives like this, is the person who can do good things. That's it!
Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Natural Law Ethics
In October 2016, Pantaleon Alvarez, who is the speaker of the house at that time, was
intending a bill which would amend the Family Code of the Philippines. His bill, when it
becomes a law, will recognize same sex union in a sense that it allows and recognizes
the same rights being enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. But it pushes a lot of
reactions and criticisms. His fellow legislators had already expressed to the media of
their refusal to support such initiatives. People will say that it is funny to see two men
kissing. Some will say that it is awkward to imagine two men sexually mating. Others
will say that it is "irregular". But the bottom of this issue is that it is "unnatural". What is
15
unnatural is unacceptable. Only that is natural is acceptable. So, what is "natural" then?
The idea of 'natural" becomes the center of debate. It becomes confusing as the debate
and discussions went further into the realm where it becomes subjective. Undeniably,
the concept of "natural" or shall we say the natural law theory is the mental framework
of this issue. There have been various thinkers in history that could present their own
ideas of what natural law theory is all about. But in this discussion, we will focus on
Saint Thomas Aquinas on his idea about the “natural law theory". Saint Thomas Aquinas
was a very influential thinker during the middle ages. His works and his dedication to
the Catholic Church inspires his fellow thinkers at that time. His thoughts and ideas
which were written and preserved in his books are still relevant and significant until
today. As to begin with the discussions, Saint Thomas Aquinas “natural law theory” is
part of the discussion of his whole moral theory. Furthermore, his whole moral theory is
part of his great grandeur vision of the Christian faith. The Summa Theologiae", which is
the magnum opus voluminous works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, is categorized into three
parts. The first part of his works talks or speaks about God and His nature. The
second part talks or speaks about man and the dynamics of human life. Third part
talks or speaks about Jesus Christ as the fundamental end of man in returning
back to God. Let me express first that the idea of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in Summa
Theologiae, speaks of the Christian faith that everything is created by God. We are
created by God. We arecreated by God in order to ultimately return back to Him.
Saint Thomas Aquinas is quite knowledgeable of Plato's idea of the "good" that it is the
source of everything. In the Neoplatonist perspective such as of Plotinus, the idea of the
"good", which is the source of everything becomes identified with the "nous" which is
the “one and the beautiful”. The "nous" which is "the one and the beautiful”, is the
ultimate reality. In other words, the “nous" is the uncreated perfect reality which is
beauty in itself. It is the foundation and reason of everything existing as it gives rise to
the multiplicity of everything. Everything comes from the "nous" as everything
emanates from the "nous". Emanation is not creation. Emanation from the Latin word
"emanare” which means "to flow from" or "to pour forth". This means that all things
are derived from the first reality which is perfect by steps of degradation to lesser
degrees of the first reality. At every step of degradation, the emanating beings becomes
less pure, less perfect, and less divine. The "nous" is the perfect reality in which the
metaphysical realities such as the heaven, angels, and saints emanates from the "nous".
The physical realities which is the entire cosmos emanates from the metaphysical
realities. This is the reason why the physical realities are less perfect, less pure, and less
beings compare to the metaphysical one. Now, Saint Thomas Aquinas does not agree
with the idea of emanation as he was influence much of Aristotle's idea of "causes”. But
le of the "nous" which is the source of everything in which everything will also go back
to the “nous” in return has a great impact on Aquinas thoughts and gives contribution
to his moral theory. For Aquinas, God had created all things. As borrowed from the ideas
of Aristotle, God is the uncreated perfect reality which causes everything. God is the first
cause and the ultimate cause of everything. Now, let us have a clear understanding first
16
that creation is not emanation. In emanation, everything will just flow naturally from
the source. The source itself does not create and the lesser realities come from the
source itself. But in creation, the creator definitely creates in order for a thing to exist.
The creator is the “efficient” cause who designs and makes the thing to exist. In other
words, the intrinsic and extrinsic nature of a thing or creature is part of the design and
intentionality of the creator. Now, for Saint Thomas Aquinas, God is the ultimate creator
of all things that exist. God, as the ultimate creator, has a grand plan and grand design to
all His creation. All the creatures and things, either spiritual or corporeal and or living
or non-living, that exist that are created, have these fixed essences in their nature.
Essences are what determine their nature. A mango tree is different from a Jackfruit
tree because of its nature inscribe in each of their essences. It is also true with the lion
and tiger in the case of animals and also with President Rodrigo Duterte and President
Barack Obama in the case of humans. All things that exist have their own "essences"
which define or give meaning to their own nature. The nature which is affixed in their
essences is definitely the ground or basis of assessment on how created being functions
excellently. Thus, the criterion of what makes a created good-labeled to be good is
definitely based on the functionality inscribe in nature- in essences. For example, a good
knife is labeled as good because it cuts. It is definitely sharp. Thus, it functions well
based on its functionality. Again, God creates and all His creation have these fixed
essences designed by Him. God has a care for all His creation. He creates things in all
things in a way that they can survive, nurture, and realize themselves based on their
functionality inscribe in the nature. God also creates with intentionality that all His
creation will simply go back to Him. It is in this juncture that the Neo- Platonist idea was
injected or has influence to Aquinas thoughts. All of God's creation definitely comes
from Him and well surely come back to Him as they were designed to be back to Him.
Now,
this aspect of "returning back to Him" is what Aquinas call as "participation". In other
words, all created beings participate in God's design and creation that everything will
simply "return back to Him". Corporeal non-living realities and as well of the plants and
animals participates in the process through their functionality or essences. In other
words, they will be utilized but cared by men in order for men to survive, nurture, and
realize themselves as men. On the part of man, since man has this innate gift of
rationality, therefore it is only man who can participate freely to God's plan. Thus, the
Eternal Law of God which is His grand plan may have a glimpse of revelation through
human understanding with the aid of reason. God's eternal law which is His eternal plan
cannot be grasp by man. It is only the natural law in nature or the law of His corporeal
creation that the human reason will able to grasp. All the natural forces and natural
behaviors observe by men are parts and parcel of the natural law. All the physical
principles and laws of nature derived from science are parts and parcel of the natural
law. The moral laws man in which man is able to grasp is also part of the natural law.
But before elaborating more on moral natural law, let me proceed first to God's grand
plan which is His Eternal Law. So, man is able to have a glimpse of understanding about
17
the Eternal Law upon his or her knowledge of the natural law. Thus, it is through the
knowledge of the natural law that human beings were able to understand God's plan
towards His creation through reflections and contemplations of God's purpose to man.
But the full details of God's plan is nevertheless, unknown to man. Now, the civil law,
which is the law of man and a well the ecclesiastical law, which is the law of the Church
is definitely within the context of natural law derived by man with the aid of reason.
Such civil law and ecclesiastical law must be a reflection of God's eternal plan which is
His Eternal Law. Now, how does man derive the moral natural law? Aquinas started his
discussion on the aspect of natural inclination of man and as well of the animal which
man himself was able to recognize and discern upon. The next paragraph will discuss in
brief the nature and starting point of natural law.
The word “natural law” refers to the moral insights which people are capable of
knowing through the aid of reason which is independent of the verbal revelation
of God. The natural moral law is the law of human conduct which arises from
human nature as ordered to its ultimate end and which is recognized by the
natural light of reason independent of positive Christian revelation.
The Natural Law has three essential characteristics (1) Universality; (2) Unity and
Invariability, 3) Immutability. Natural law is universal as its primary principles are
self-evident for all individuals with fully developed reason. It is also one and the same
for all as it means that all people possess equal rights and equal moral dignity as
persons. It is also immutable or not changeable as there can never be change in
whatever is fundamentally good or evil.
God, who is the creator of humans, has built the laws within their beings into them. The
laws are to be found in the heart of every human persons through the light of reason
which shows the individual the difference between good and evil. Every human being is
born with the natural inclination to do good and to avoid evil and with a capacity to
distinguish between right and wrong. The inclination towards good and the capacity to
know the good should necessarily be developed and reinforced in accordance to one's
talents and potentialities. There is a need to enlighten the intellect and to cultivate and
motivate the will in order to aim always for the highest good which is God.
In this juncture, let me demonstrate on how human beings able to derived something
out from man's natural inclination to do good and his capacity to know the good. As
human beings live with the rest of God's creation, humans do not only interact with the
creatures. Humans see and understand that there is something in one's nature that
shares in the nature of other beings. A cat and a dog cower and then run when they
feel threatened. Similarly, humans have the natural inclination to preserve one's life. It
is for this reason that the “law to preserve human life" is a natural law.
Furthermore, man see and understand that they have something in common with the
other animals and that is the desire that the other animals will have a sexual intercourse
with their heterosexual partners and the care of one's offspring. Therefore, it is a
18
natural law that sex is for procreation and not for lust. It is a natural law that sex
is for the heterosexual partners for the purpose of family building- procreation.
Lastly, it is a natural law that cohabitation is only for the heterosexual partners
together with their generated offspring. The third inclination of humans are their
inclination to do good according to the nature of their reason. Reason not the only
third Inclination that humans have. Reason is definitely the defining part of
human nature. Human are enjoined to make full use of their reason and
determine when the performance of their natural inclination is appropriate.
Natural Law Derived The Natural Inclinations Natural Law Derived

(Prohibition) Which are Basic Goods (Injunction)
Do not kill Life Promote life & health
Do not prevent Reproduction Procreate
reproduction
Do not harm & neglect Educate One's Offspring Care & educate one's
one's offspring
offspring
Seek God
Live in Society
Avoid Offense
Shun Ignorance
As shown in the illustration above, "Life is the first natural inclination. "Reproduction"
and "Educate one's offspring” is the second inclination. Natural laws were derived from
these natural inclinations of man which are also shared by animals. The rest of the
natural inclinations which are the basic goods are the third inclination which are only
for humans. Using your own reason, what do think are the natural laws which will be
derived from these inclinations?
Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Deontological Ethics
The word "deontology” comes from the Greek word "deon” which means "being
necessary”. Deontology simply refers to the study of duty and obligation. In other
words, deontological ethics, as a moral theory, is a non-consequentialist approach
wherein it evaluates the intrinsic nature of an act based on duty and also with the
validity of the motive of an act. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who is the
proponent of this theory, begins his discussion about reason and the autonomy of the
rational will. Kant believe that reason is autonomous. For him, reason is “the be all
and end all" of everything. He maintained that all truths and all knowledge are
derive from human reason. Therefore, all laws and all moral principles are also
derived from human reason. According to Kant, reason commands and we must
obey it without questioning. So, for Kant, morality is a “priori". It means that
morality is not based and not derived from experience but from pure reason. The moral
19
code or maxim is universal since it is derived from reason. Thus, the moral maxims
apply to everybody. The moral maxims are also absolute, complete, and fixed. The moral
maxims are also immutable as it is fixed. So, as to get the glimpse of the discussion, the
moral codes or maxims derived from one's reason are universal, absolute, and
immutable which make them duty-bound that necessarily demand action. This is
what Kant calls as "Categorical Imperative". It means that all universal maxims
derived from reason are precisely must to do maxims. But how do we derive the
duty-bound universal moral maxims or codes from our reason? Kant offer two
formulas for his "Categorical Imperative". The first formulation is the
“Universalizability Principle". It says that "act only in accordance to a maxim by
which you can at the same time will that is shall become a universal law". Any
codes or maxims can only be considered “universal moral maxims" once it has
been deliberated thoroughly by reason as universal one. For example, when you see
a little two-year-old boy who is walking down the street, what will you do? Your mind
will tell you to get that boy out from the street and return him back to his house. Now,
for that action to become a universal maxim, you need to assess and deliberate the
situation if indeed such action is universalizable. Universalizable simply means of any
actions in mind which is evaluated as "right-to-do" action in all cases of the same nature
and circumstances. Since the act of getting the little boy out from the street is the "right-
to-do" action in all cases for that matter, then the act itself is a universal maxim. Thus,
that act is now an obligatory act which demands action regardless of your feelings or
mood for that matter. The second formulation is the "Humanity Principle". It says
that "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the
same time as an end". Honestly, this is the part of Kant's idea which I like most. We
should never treat our fellow human beings only as a mere means to our ends but
rather as means and ends to himself or herself. We are living in a community or society
in which we relate and interact with each other. Definitely, we need each other's help in
order to attain our targets and missions and as well in order to survive. In short, we are
inter-dependent to each other. Such inter-dependency makes us "means" to some
other's end. Yet, this is just okay if we are also the ends as well. For example, the owner
of the prestigious hospital needs a group of medical practitioners and experts to work in
his hospital. These practitioners working in his hospital are not just “means” to his ends
but they are the “means and ends” in themselves. The opportunity to work in the
prestigious hospital which offers lucrative benefits and opportunities for these
professionals to practice and enhance their skills is an end for themselves.
Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Utilitarian Ethics
The word utilitarian is derived from the Latin word "utilis" which means
usefulness. Utilitarian ethics is a consequentialist theory which measures the
morality of an action based on the consequences and not on the motive or
20
intention of the moral agent. This is simply a critique to deontological ethics which
only looks into the intrinsic nature and intention of the action. For the utilitarian
thinkers, it is greatly important to consider the outcomes of the action and mere
intentions are irrelevant. The first who proposed the idea of utilitarianism was David
Hume, a philosopher during the modern period. But the ones who have made the idea
more depth and more profound were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Jeremy
Bentham is considered the father of utilitarianism. His idea or version of
utilitarianism is summarized into three points. First, the basis of measure for the
morality of an action is the consequences it produced. If it produced pleasure, then
it is good. If not, then it is bad, The consequences are the sole basis of morality.
Jeremy Bentham rejects the importance of motive because it is only known to the
person who has it. It would be difficult to praise or blame a person's action if motive
alone will determine the act as good bad. Motives are also personal. Thus, it is difficult
or impossible to know this motive with a high degree of certainly. Second, the amount
of pleasure produced is what matters. Jeremy Bentham emphasizes that a good act is
not just any act that will produce pleasure. We need to look into the amount of pleasure
produced when we do that act. For instance, there are three options you can choose in a
particular situation. The first option produces relatively low pleasure. The second one
produces relatively high pleasure. The third one produces very high pleasure. For
Bentham, doing the third option is the right act. In other words, doing the first and
second options are not the right act. So, how do we measure and determine the right
act? Bentham offers the method of computing pleasure which he calls "felicific
calculus". The morality of an action is determined by the amount of pleasure it
produces minus the amount of pain it also produces. If the amount of pleasure is
greater than the amount of pain, the action is said to be good. But if the amount of
pain is greater than the amount of pleasure, then action is said to be bad. We need
to remember that choosing the right means to choose the option who produces the
greater or greatest amount of pleasure among the choices. Bentham elaborated further
that in determining the amount of pleasure or pain being produced, we need to
look into the following: (1) intensity of the pleasure or pain produced: (2)
duration of pleasure or pain; (3) frequency of occurrence of pleasure or pain: (4)
time of occurrence in which pleasure or pain will be realized soon. Third, the
number of people being affected should also be considered in determining the
amount of pleasure being produced. Now, this is the final position of Bentham in
determining if the action is good or bad. The good action is an action that
produces the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people. John
Stuart Mill idea of utilitarianism is somehow similar in certain points Jeremy Bentham
though there is a major difference of their perspectives. Similar to Bentham, Mill
believes that human beings pursue happiness naturally but will avoid pain or suffering
for that matter. Since man naturally seeks happiness, then what constitutes good act is
happiness. Now, this is the point where Mill used the word "happiness" instead of the
word “pleasure” by Bentham. For Mill, happiness is not merely of one person but of the
21
greater number of people. The nature of happiness for Mill is not the same that of
Bentham where the concept of pleasure is quantitative nature. The amount of pleasure
produced is determine by the criteria discussed earlier. However, "happiness", for Mill,
is qualitative in nature. According to Mill, the idea of pleasure has two forms and these
are the physical and the mental. Physical pleasure is a sensual pleasure such as sexual
intercourse, eating, drinking, and among others. The mental pleasure refers to the
Intellectual, spiritual, and moral pleasures. The physical pleasure is animalistic or
beastly pleasure. Mental pleasure is the superior pleasure in which it gives man a
dignity when being pursued. Therefore, Mill refers his idea of happiness to these mental
pleasures. Happiness pursues mental pleasures. Thus, happiness for Mill is qualitive in
nature in a sense that it is not physical which can bound for quantification.
Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Justice as Fairness Ethics
John Rawls is one of the most important political philosophers during the twentieth
century. He is the proponent of the "Justice as Fairness theory". In his work "A
Theory of Justice" John Rawls proposes "justice as fairness" as an ethical framework.
Actually, there are a lot of theories concerning justice. For instance, Bentham and Mill
proposes the "principle of utility" as the main idea of justice. Plato, Nozick and the rest
of the ethical philosophers also offer varied ideas concerning about justice, Now, the
"justice as fairness" framework focuses on how much justice should be
distributed that would yield fairness for those who have more and those who
have less in life. John Rawls based his theory on the hypothetical ground of the "social
contract theory” of Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, men live in the chaotic "state
of nature” before there was ever a state being created or established. Men soon
realized that it is not healthy and safe to live in the “state of nature”. Thus, they decided
to gather together surrendering their absolute rights in order to agree among
themselves in establishing a state. Now, John Rawls inserted his ideas into this juncture
that when these men decided to gather together among themselves to form a state,
these men are in the “veil of ignorance". This is the “Original Position" of John Rawls.
This means that under the "veil of ignorance", these men had forgotten
temporarily their personal and social disposition as individual. This further mean
that when these men gather together, what they have in mind is only for the best
interest of each members and not for their own personal Interest. Rawls further
asserted that in this juncture, these men would choose the alternative that
supports or favors to the most disadvantage. That is why these men were under
the “veil of ignorance” in order for them to set aside their own personal interests
and only promoting on what is best for each individual especially the
disadvantageous one who are participating the agreement in establishing a state.
Now, Rawls asserted that in the "Original Position”, two principles were derived in
the process. The first principle states that "each person is to have an equal right to
the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with similar
22
scheme of liberties of others. This is basically the principle of equality wherein all
members of the society should have equal rights and liberties. These equal rights
and liberties refer to the political condition of every citizens. Examples of this
principle are the "right to vote", "right to have due process of law”, and the “right to
have equal protection of the law". Regardless of one's socio- economic disposition, each
citizen is entitled to enjoy the basic rights and liberties provided by law, The second
principle states that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and attached to
positions and offices open to all". The second principle is the principle of
difference. This means that socio economic inequalities in a society must be
arrange that favors the disadvantage in order to have an equal play in the
economic field. Now, following the line of reasoning proposed by Rawls, the concern
of an ethical society and of the individual person should be towards the care and
support of its most disadvantage citizens, as they are the ones who are least able
to defend and speak for themselves. This is also a duty-oriented position which it
establishes the duty of moral equality. Such moral equality cannot be bargained
away regardless of social interest or the welfare of the society as a whole.
Learning Plan: Application of the Seven Steps Model and the Moral Frameworks
This case literature in ethics has been adapted from Scott Rae's original. This is all about
medical ethics. The place where this situational case had happened is here in the
Philippines wherein the concern personalities in the story are immigrants from India.
There is a sixty-seven-year-old Indian woman who was diagnosed with cancer which is
usually treated by chemotherapy. In the hospital the patient was recognized as a fully
competent individual who can make her own decision. She knows that something is
wrong with her and appears fearful and anxious about what getting well might involve
She lives with her son and his wife. The family appears to be happy. Her son has taken
the responsibility for her as her husband had already died long ago. The son translates
for her almost all information needing translating. The son does not want her to know
anything more than the bare minimum about the treatment as he fears she will give up
on life and resign herself to dying. The son was strongly motivated by cultural and
values. The patient does not know her full diagnosis and full effects of chemotherapy.
She knows she is sick and the treatment will make her feel sick to her stomach and as
well as losing her hair, If you were the doctor, what will you do? Will you follow the
family's wishes? Or will you decide to let the patient know about her diagnosis even if it
increases her fear and alienates you from them?
Gather Facts:
We need to go back over to the information given and then write down the facts.
 There is a sixty-seven-years-old Indian woman was diagnosed with cancer which

is usually treated by chemotherapy.
23
 In the hospital, the patient was recognized as a fully competent individual who
can make her own decision.
 She knows that something is wrong with her and appears fearful and anxious
about what getting well might involve.
 She lives with her son and his wife.
 The family appears to be happy.
 Her son has taken the responsibility for her and her husband had already died
long ago.
 The son translates for her with almost all information needing translating.
 The son does not want her to know anything more than the bare minimum about
the treatment as he fears she will give up on life and resign herself to dying.
 The son was strongly motivated by cultural and family values.
 The patient does not know her full diagnosis and full effects of chemotherapy.
 She knows she is sick and the treatment will make her feel sick to her stomach
and as well as losing her hair.
Identity Stakeholders:
 Sixty-year-old Indian woman

 Her son
 Her son’s wife
Articulate Dilemma:
Follow the family’s VERSUS Tell the patient about her

wishes diagnosis and condition
Deontological Principle Deontological Principle
The dilemma dies on the two conflicting options illustrated above. The first option
which is to follow the family’s wishes is in conflict with the second option which is to
tell the patient about her condition. If the doctor will choose the first option, then he or
she will patient’s right to give informed consent specially that chemotherapy is a very
invasive treatment. The doctor also fails to deliver his or her obligation to act in the
patient’s best interest. Lastly, the doctor also ignores the law regarding informed
consent must be applied, thus he or she will violate the law if he or she will choose the
first option. On the other hand, if the doctor choose the second, the he or she ignores the
family wishes which has strong impact to them. Choosing the second option is also a
form of disrespect towards family’s culture and values. As a result, the doctor alienates
himself or herself from the family members. So, in this case, there would be no easy
option since there are arising conflicts which are worthy of considerations. The ethical
principle which has bearing on his case is the deontological principle, it says that
universal maxims or codes must always be followed regardless of one’s feelings without
24
exceptions. In the first option, maxim of recognizing and respect cultural values,
tradition, and norms is definitely a universalizable maxim. Thus, it is a duly or obligation
for everyone to recognize and respect one’s cultural values, traditions and norms. On
the second option, the right of a person to have an informed consent, the obligation of
the medical team to act in the patient’s interest, and as well the law regarding the
informed consent must be applied, all these are universalizable maxims and rights
which are ought to be followed without any questions. Now, we can see and understand
in this discussion that there are indeed conflicting universal maxims which must be
resolved in order to elicit a valid moral decision.
List Alternatives
 Attempt to convince the family of the seriousness of the treatment and why she
needs to know
 Call an ethics committee conference to discuss the case and try to convince the
family to tell her
 Ask the patient directly if she wants to know the details of all that is happening
MAXIMS MAXIMS
 Respect for one’s cultural  Patient’s right to have
values, traditions, and informed consent
ALTERNATIVES norms  Doctor’s obligation to act
in the patient’s best
interest
 Law requiring the
application of an
informed consent
Attempt to convince the Uncertain Uncertain

family of the seriousness of Most likely the attempt will Most likely the attempt will
the treatment and why she be a failure be a failure
needs to know
Call an ethics committee Uncertain Uncertain
conference to discuss the Most likely the attempt will Most likely the attempt will
case and try to convince the be a failure be a failure
family to tell her
Ask the patient directly if Disrespect if the mother will Realized and respected in
she wants to know the agree and ask for the details either cases
details of all that is of her condition The right to know and not to
happening Realized if the mother will know are either respected
opt not to know
25
MORAL CHOICES POSITIVECONSEQUENCES NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

Follow the family’s wishes  Family is happy  Patient continues to be
 Cultural values, traditions, and fearful and anxious about
norms are respected the treatment
 Patient may discover soon
and trust is compromised
Tell the patient about her  Patient might be happy  Family feels alienated
diagnosis and condition  Cultural values have been
violated
 Family may take the
patient to another hospital
 Patient may give up
Ask the patient directly if  Patient will speak for herself  Family is unhappy and
she wants to know the and make decision cultural values are
details of all that is  Both law and culture are disrespected if the mother
happening satisfied if the mother will chooses to know
choose her son to decide for
that matter
 Patent will be relieved in a
sense that her rights are
respected
Make a Decision:
What do you think? We have had to think through our ideas of respect for family and
culture. But how far should we go in respecting this cultural approach? Is the patient’s
best interest compromised? Is her dignity as an individual respected? Scott Rae suggest,
“Here it seems the alternative that involves asking the patient if she wants to know the
details of her situation satisfies most of the virtues and values at stake and produces the
best, balance of consequences too.”
Performance Tasks
As you have read the text discussions (starting from feelings an demotions up to
the application of the seven steps model and ethical frameworks), tell me what you
think about this matter.
1. In your own understanding, what is emotion?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
2. Give some instances in your own experiences that your emotions reign supreme in
your decision.
26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. In what way our emotion is of great help for morality to be possible?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
4. Explain what is moral courage and moral emotion.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
5. Explain what is virtue ethics.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
6. Explain what is natural law ethics.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
7. Explain what is deontological ethics
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
8. Explain what is justice as fairness ethics.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
9. Explain briefly the seven steps model decision making.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
27
Summary
 Emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three distinct components: a

subjective experience, a physiological response, and a behavioral or expressive
response.
 According to the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion, emotions result when the thalamus
sends a message to the brain in response to a stimulus, resulting in a physiological
reaction.
 Our emotions lead us to feel a certain way when something good or bad happens to us
or around us.
 From these feelings and emotions, we evaluate the situation at hand, and pass moral
judgement on either ourselves, the individual's involved or the situation in general.
 David Hume, in his moral theory, asserted that (1) reason alone cannot be a motive to
the will but rather it is a "slave of the passions". (2) Moral distinctions are not derived
from reason. (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments. The feelings
of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) are felt by the spectators who
contemplate a character trait or action. (4) Some virtues and vices are natural but
others, including justice, are artificial.
 David Hume describes emotions or feeling as passions. Passion has two classifications
namely direct and indirect. Direct passions are caused from direct sensation of pain or
pleasure
 Indirect passions are caused by the sensation of pain or pleasure derived from other
idea or impression.
 According to James Rachels, feelings cannot be trusted pertaining to moral decision
making. Feelings can be irrational and merely a product of prejudice, selfishness, or
cultural conditioning. Thus, feelings alone cannot be relied and it must be supported by
rational arguments
 Feelings can be an obstacle in making the right decisions. The three reasons are as
follows: (1) Feelings is non-deliberate in nature; (2) Feelings has this "partial nature":
(3) Feelings is capricious in nature.
 One of the central brain systems associated with emotion, emotional memory and
decision making processes is the amygdala.
 The amygdala plays a role in how you feel, such as when you decided not give any
comments or suggestions because of what your brain perceives as possible threats, like
making a mistake, being laughed at, in the environment.
 Moral judgment stems from a complicated interaction of cognitive and emotional
mechanisms. In the study of moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain, it was
found that the patients with bilateral ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) damage
experienced decreased emphatic concerns and guilt when given a moral decision-
making task (Moll & de Oliveira-Souza, 2007).
28
 VMPFC is important for the experience of prosocial moral emotions when it came to
personal moral and "more emotional" decisions. Furthermore, VMPFC has also been
identified as having an important role in moral judgment and moral emotions.
 Moral emotions are those emotions that are linked to the interests or welfare either of
society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent.
 Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it and vice versa. We rely on our reason to
guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire
simply to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt conviction that passes
the test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to move us to act
morally and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane. This is
now the true worth of our emotions. Our emotions or feelings makes morality possible.
 Psychologist have long acknowledged that emotion or feeling serves as a red flag. It
signals that something is happening and that it needs attention. In many instances, we
feel that something is wrong when we make incorrect judgment. Such red flag signal
notifies us to adjust or make corrections of our judgment and behavior.
 Moral courage is the courage to put your moral principles into action even though you
may be in doubt, or afraid, or face adverse consequences. Moral courage involves
careful deliberation and mastery of the self. Moral courage is essential not for only a
virtuous life, but also a happy one because integrity is essential to self-esteem.
 Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind- a mental capacity to act decisively on one's
desire. Will does not refer to any particular desires but rather it is a mental capacity
that selects, at the moment of judgment, the strongest desire among the various desires
present.
 Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher in the eighteenth century, says that the
"will" is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole.
It appears in every deliberate conduct of man.
 For Arthur Schopenhauer, the "will" is primary and it uses knowledge in order to find an
object that will satisfy its cravings.
 Aristotle, on the other hand, expressed that the "will" is the product of intellect and
sensation and that the "will" gave the person the capacity for "exciting movement in
space".
 The role of the will, an "informed emotion" in Hume's perspective, is to put the decision
into action.
 Akrasia is the lack or absence of moral courage.
 Akrasia is due to the overpowering of reason by man's raw desires who lacks habitual
practice of virtues. It is therefore necessary to have a habitual practice of our virtues
and have mastery and control over our desires.
 Moral imagination is the ability to discover and evaluate possibilities within a particular
set of circumstances by questioning and expanding one's operative mental framework.
 Reason and impartiality are the essential components of a good decision or action.
 Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by the
process of logic.
29
 Reason is the basis for morality. According to Immanuel Kant, acting morally is acting
rationally.
 In acting morally or in making decisions, one must able to reflect on different actions to
make and then choose what best or rightful action to make.
 Impartiality, on the other hand, is commonly understood as the principle of justice.
 It is based on objective criteria rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring
to benefit one person over another for improper reasons.
 According to Dr. James Rachels, in order for our decisions and actions to be reasonable
and impartial, we need to think on how our decisions and actions affect the situation
and the people around without favor to any party.
 Reason and impartiality are the minimum conception of morality. Rachels says that
"morality is at the very least an effort to guide one's action based on the most logical
choice while giving equal importance to the interests of each person affected by one's
decision."
 Genuine ethical decision making is a systematic process of evaluating and choosing
among alternatives in a manner that is consistent with moral principles.
 Scott Rae, a theologian and professor of Christian ethics at Biola University Talbot
School of Theology, adapted the seven steps model in ethical decision making. The
seven steps are as follows: (1) Gather facts; (2) Identify stakeholders, (3) Articulate
dilemma: (4) List the alternatives; (5) Compare the alternatives with the
principles; (6) Weight the consequences; and (7) Make a decision.
 Virtue ethics the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a
matter of developing the virtuous character of the person. The primary focus of virtue
ethics is the heart of the moral agent or the person making the decision rather than the
reasoning to a right action. It focuses on the formation of one's character brought about
by determining and doing virtuous acts.
 Every person's act is directed towards a particular purpose or aim which in Greek term
is called “telos”.
 Aristotle says that wealth, power, and pleasure as the final end of a human being fits to
the first criterion since it is clear that having such conditions will serve as means to
achieve "happiness". But they are not "happiness" per se. They are not chosen for
themselves but they only serve as means to achieve "happiness". Thus, they are not
"self-sufficient" in nature.
 Therefore, Aristotle point this direction that happiness is the final end of a human being.
Happiness, therefore, is the self-sufficient final end of man. Happiness, as the final end,
is the ultimate purpose why every man's actions are always directed to a certain end.
In Greek term, this is what we call "eudaimonia". It means of "a life well-lived" or it also
means of "human flourishing". This is really what every human being wants to achieve.
 The activity of reason is what differentiates man from the living species.
 The function of man, therefore, is the activity of reason. Human actions are always in
accordance to reason. So, any person for that matter utilizes his or her reason in every
action he or she makes in order to qualify a “truly human act”.
30
 Man should seek for the best possible actions in order for him or her to function well.
Thus, the highest purpose of a human person is all about to function according to
reason and to perform an activity well or excellently.
 Virtue or excellence is exercised in the realm of the rational aspect of the soul. It is in
this aspect where a person can attain "excellence or virtue". The attainment of virtue is
simply by rationally examining one's daily actions in life. In rationally examining one's
action, a person may be able to know the "knowledge of the good". As the person
knows the "knowledge of the good", he actually performs correctly and excellently,
thus, he is acting as a virtuous person.
 The noble characters or descriptions of a virtuous person are products from constant
learning and habitual practice. In other words, virtue is a skill, a way of living,
something that can only really be learned through experience.
 Moral virtue or excellence is a trait, character, disposition of the person to act correctly
or appropriately on a particular moral task or situation.
 A morally virtuous person knows how to handle himself or herself. He or she knows
what to do all the time. He or she knows how to get along with others. He or she has
good judgments in which he or she can read a room and knows exactly what's right and
when. These noble characters of a morally virtuous person are products or result from
habitual practice and learning. Therefore, intellectual virtue or excellence
complements moral virtue or excellence.
 Moral virtue is “a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean, that is, the
mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle
by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it".
 A virtuous person learns from his or her experiences, thus, develops his or her capacity
to know the proper way of carrying out his or her feelings, passions, and actions.
Practical wisdom aids in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good.
Habits are not just simply borne out repetitive and non-thought-of activities. These are
products of the constant application of reason in the person's actions.
 Happiness is the final end on why man needs to function virtuously or excellently. As
discussed earlier, this is called "eudaimonia" in Greek term. It means of "a life well-
lived" or it also means of "human flourishing".
 It is a life which will be full of happiness that comes from achieving something really
difficult rather than just handed over to the person. A person who choose to live or
attain in this kind of life has this disposition in mind that he or she is never done
improving. That person is constantly setting news goals for improvement and working
on it to develop new muscles.
 Natural law refers to the moral insights which people are capable of knowing through
the aid of reason which is independent of the verbal revelation of God.
 The natural moral law is the law of human conduct which arises from human nature as
ordered to its ultimate end and which is recognized by the natural light of reason
independent of positive Christian revelation.
31
 The Natural Law has three essential characteristics: (1) Universality; (2) Unity and
Invariability: (3) Immutability
 God, who is the creator of humans, has built the laws within their beings into them. The
laws. are to be found in the heart of every human persons through the light of reason
which shows the individual the difference between good and evil.
 Every human being is born with the natural inclination to do good and to avoid evil and
with a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. The inclination towards good
and the capacity to know the good should necessarily be developed and reinforced in
accordance to one's talents and potentialities.
 There is a need to enlighten the intellect and to cultivate and motivate the will in order
to aim always for the highest good which is God.
 Deontological ethics, as a moral theory, is a non-consequentialist approach wherein it
evaluates the intrinsic nature of an act based on duty and also with the validity of the
motive of an act.
 Kant believe that reason is autonomous. For him, reason is "the be all and end all” of
everything. He maintained that all truths and all knowledge are derive from human
reason. Therefore, all laws and all moral principles are also derived from human
reason. According to Kant, reason commands and we must obey it without questioning.
 Moral codes or maxims derived from one's reason are universal, absolute, and
immutable which make them duty-bound that necessarily demand action. This is what
Kant calls as "Categorical Imperative". It means that all universal maxims derived from
reason are precisely must to do maxims.
 Kant offer two formulas for his "Categorical Imperative”. The first formulation is the
"Universalizability Principle". It says that "act only in accordance to a maxim by which
you can at the same time will that is shall become a universal law". Any codes or
maxims can only be considered "universal moral maxims" once it has been deliberated
thoroughly by reason as universal one.
 The second formulation is the "Humanity Principle". It says that "act in such a way that
you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end".
 Utilitarian ethics is a consequentialist theory which measures the morality of an action
based on the consequences and not on the motive or intention of the moral agent.
 For the utilitarian thinkers, it is greatly important to consider the outcomes of the action
and mere intentions are irrelevant.
 Jeremy Bentham is considered the father of utilitarianism. His idea or version of
utilitarianism is summarized into three points. First, the basis of measure for the
morality of an action is the consequences it produced. Second, the amount of pleasure
produced is what really matters. Third, the number of people being affected should
also be considered in determining the amount of pleasure being produced.
 In Felicific Calculus, the morality of an action is determined by the amount of pleasure it
produces minus the amount of pain it also produces. If the amount of pleasure is
32
greater than the amount of pain, the action is said to be good. But if the amount of pain
is greater than the amount of pleasure, then action is said to be bad.
 Bentham elaborated further that in determining the amount of pleasure or pain being
produced, we need to look into the following: (1) intensity of the pleasure or pain
produced; (2) duration of pleasure or pain; (3) frequency of occurrence of pleasure or
pain; (4) time of occurrence in which pleasure or pain will be realized soon.
 The final position of Bentham in determining if the action is good or bad is based on
this: "Good action is an action that produces the greatest amount of pleasure to the
greatest number of people"
 The mental pleasure refers to the intellectual, spiritual, and moral pleasures. The
physical pleasure is animalistic or beastly pleasure. Mental pleasure is the superior
pleasure in which it gives man a dignity when being pursued.
 Mill refers his idea of happiness to these mental pleasures. Happiness pursues mental
pleasures. Thus, happiness for Mill is qualitive in nature in a sense that it is not can
bound for quantification.
 Justice as fairness framework focuses on how much justice should be distributed that
would yield fairness for those who have more and those who have less in life.
 John Rawls based his theory on the hypothetical ground of the "social contract theory".
 In the "Original Position", two moral principles were derived in the process. The first
principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme
of equal basic liberties compatible with similar scheme of liberties of others. This is
basically the principle of equality wherein all members of the society should have equal
rights and liberties. These equal rights and liberties refer to the political condition of
every citizens.
 The second principle states that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so
that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and attached to
positions and offices s open to all". The second principle is the principle of difference.
This means that socio-economic inequalities in a society must be arrange that favors
the disadvantage in order to have an equal play in the economic field.
 The concern of an ethical society and of the individual person should be towards the
care and support of its most disadvantage citizens, as they are the ones who are least
able to defend and speak for themselves.
 This is also a duty-oriented position which it establishes the duty of moral equality.
Such moral equality cannot be bargained away regardless of social interest or the
welfare of the society as a whole.
Assessment which is align to the Intended Learning Outcomes

As you have read the all text discussions above, tell me what you think about this
matter.
1.) Explain on how our emotions are of great help for morality to be possible.
33
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
2.) Explain moral courage as fuel morality.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
3.) Explain ethics as a moral norm.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
4.) Explain natural law ethics as a moral norm.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
5.) Explain deontological law ethics as a moral norm.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
6.) Explain utilitarian ethics as a moral norm.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
7.) Explain “justice as fairness” as a moral norm.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
8.) Analyze the given moral issue. Use the seven steps model of moral decision making
with the applicable moral principles and make a decision.
The given case is (St. Scholastic vs Leus). Cheryll was hired by St. Scholastica’s College
Westgrove (SSCW), a Catholic educational institution. She was a non-teaching personnel.
She was engaged in pre-marital sexual relations in which she got pregnant out of wedlock.
She got married to the father of her child. But sadly, she was dismissed by SSCW, in that
order.
34
Circumstances of her case:
 Cheryll and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock.

 When SSCW learned of the petitioner’s pregnancy, Sr. Edna advised her to file a
resignation letter effectively. In response, the petitioner informed Sr. Quiambao
that she would not resign from her employment just because she got pregnant
without the benefit of marriage.
 Sr. Edna dismissed Edna and maintained that pre-marital sexual relations, even if
between two consenting adults without legal impediment to marry, is considered a
disgraceful and immoral conduct or a serious misconduct, which are grounds for
the termination of employment.
Apply the Seven Steps Model of Moral Decision / Judgment:
Gather facts:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
Identify Stakeholders:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Articulate Dilemma:
____________________________ __________________________
VERSUS
__________________________ ________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
List the Alternatives:
 ________________________________________________________________________
 ________________________________________________________________________
35
 ________________________________________________________________________
Alternatives Principle A Principle B

___________________ _____________________
___________________ _____________________
Moral Choices Positive Consequences Negative Consequences
Make a Decision: (What can you say about the decision of the school? Is the school had acted
on sound decision?)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Output of Module 2: This is aligned to the Intended Learning Outcomes
You are required to make a power point presentation of your moral case analysis. Search
any moral case literature in different ethics books or in the internet. Try to analyse the case
using the seven steps model of moral decision making including with the principles applied.
Your ppt presentation should be submitted together with the output of this module.
36
References:
Anderson, A. K. (2007). Feeling emotional: the amygdala links emotional perception and
experience. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2(2), 71-72
Bulaong, Oscar Jr., & 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.
Cohen, Stephen. (2004). The Nature of Moral Reasoning: The Framework and Activities of
Ethical Deliberation, Argument, and Decision-Making. Australia: Oxford University Press
Curzer, Howard I (1999), Ethical Theory and Moral Problems. Canada: Wadsworth
Publishing Company
Donaldson, Thomas (1986). Issues in Moral Philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Gallinero, Winston B., & Morte, Arnel A., & Salado, Fritzie B., & Fernandez, Guiraldo Jr.,
Villaroya, Al Franjon M., & Enaya, Beljun P., & Fernandez, Errol C., & Balotol, Ruben Jr
(2018). Ethics. Malabon City Mutya Publishing House Inc
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R.J Davidson, K.R. Scherer, & H.H. Goldsmith (Eds.).
Hockenbury, D. H., & Hockenbury, S. E (2010). Discovering Psychology. New York, NY: Worth
Publishers.
Leañ o, Roman Jr., & Gubia-on, Arthur B. (2018) Ethics for College Students. Manila:
Mindshapers Co. Inc
Moga, Michael D. (2010). Towards Authentic Morality. Mandaluyong City, Philippines

National Book Store.
Moll, J., & de Oliveira-Souza, R. (2007). Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian
brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(8), 319-321.
Peschke, Karl H. (2007). Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II. Manila,
Philippines: Logos Publication Inc.
Roa, Floriano C. (2011). Business Ethics and Social Responsibility. Second Edition. Quezon
City, Philippines: Rex Bookstore Inc.
Salibay, Esteban Ir. (2013). Christian Morality in Contemporary Society: A Worktext and
Textbook for College Students. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E Publishing Inc.
Tangney, J., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behaviour. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 345-72
37
VISION

A high quality corporate University of Science,
Technology and Innovation.
MISSION
SLSU will develop Science, Technology and Innovation
leaders and professionals; produce high-impact technologies from
Research and Innovations; contribute to sustainable development through
responsive community engagement programs; generate revenues to be
self-sufficient and financially viable.
QUALITY POLICY
We, at Southern Leyte State University, commit enthusiastically to
satisfy our stakeholders’ needs and expectations by adhering to good
governance, relevance, and innovations of our instructions, research and
development, extension and other support services and to continually
improve the effectiveness of our Quality Management System in
compliance to ethical standards and applicable statutory, regulatory,
industry and stakeholders’ requirements. The management commits to
establish, maintain and monitor our quality management system and ensure
that adequate resources are available.
Compiled by:
Institute of Arts and Sciences

Main Campus, Sogod, Southern Leyte

38

Final Module in Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Module in Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 2

FEELINGS, IMPARTIALITY, MORAL FRAMEWORKS IN DECISION MAKING

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

1.) Assess reasonable and emotional responses to personal moral experiences

Tell Me What You Already Know!

1.) In your own idea, what is feelings?

2.) How do feelings affect your moral decision making?

Learning Plan: Feelings and Emotions: An Embodiment or Obstacle towards Right

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the eighteenth century, placed himself in

conscious emotions: shame, embarrassment, and I guilt; the other-suffering: empathy

Learning Plan: Moral Courage and Moral Imagination

Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Virtue Ethics

Excess Virtue Deficiency

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Natural Law Ethics

Natural Law Derived The Natural Inclinations Natural Law Derived

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Deontological Ethics

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Utilitarian Ethics

Learning Plan: Moral Norm/Principle: Justice as Fairness Ethics

 There is a sixty-seven-years-old Indian woman was diagnosed with cancer which

 Sixty-year-old Indian woman

Follow the family’s VERSUS Tell the patient about her

Deontological Principle Deontological Principle

Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

Attempt to convince the Uncertain Uncertain

MORAL CHOICES POSITIVECONSEQUENCES NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

1. In your own understanding, what is emotion?

3. In what way our emotion is of great help for morality to be possible?

4. Explain what is moral courage and moral emotion.

5. Explain what is virtue ethics.

6. Explain what is natural law ethics.

7. Explain what is deontological ethics

8. Explain what is justice as fairness ethics.

9. Explain briefly the seven steps model decision making.

 Emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three distinct components: a

Assessment which is align to the Intended Learning Outcomes

2.) Explain moral courage as fuel morality.

3.) Explain ethics as a moral norm.

4.) Explain natural law ethics as a moral norm.

5.) Explain deontological law ethics as a moral norm.

6.) Explain utilitarian ethics as a moral norm.

7.) Explain “justice as fairness” as a moral norm.

Circumstances of her case:

 Cheryll and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock.

Apply the Seven Steps Model of Moral Decision / Judgment:

List the Alternatives:

Compare Alternatives with the Principles:

Alternatives Principle A Principle B

Moral Choices Positive Consequences Negative Consequences

Output of Module 2: This is aligned to the Intended Learning Outcomes

Donaldson, Thomas (1986). Issues in Moral Philosophy. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Moga, Michael D. (2010). Towards Authentic Morality. Mandaluyong City, Philippines

Institute of Arts and Sciences

Main Campus, Sogod, Southern Leyte

You might also like