Eth Reviewer Finals

ETHICS
RYAN BALBUENA KATIGBAK

Question no. 1
1. What is the etymological origin of the word “PHILOSOPHY”

What is Philosophy?
▪ It came from two GREEK words, “PHILEIN”/“PHILO” which means
“love” and “SOPHIA” which means “wisdom.”
▪ Etymologically, it means “love of wisdom
Question no. 2
2. Why is philosophy considered as SCIENTIA SCIENTIARUM?

What is Philosophy?
▪ Philosophy is the highest form of human
knowledge.
▪ It is considered as the scientia scientiarum (the
science of all sciences). It is the compendium of
all learnings.
▪ It asks the simple question like: “Where did the

world come from?”
▪ It also ask the most exhilarating questions like:
“What is the beginning of the beginning of the
world.”
What is Philosophy?
▪ Philosophy is a search for meaning.
▪ It is a good tool in understanding the human person.
▪ It is also the means towards the attainment of happiness.

What is Philosophy?
▪ Are all philosophers pilosopo?
▪ When a pilosopo does philosophy in order to
ridicule, what he does is a negative philosophy.
But when a pilosopo reasons out in order to
obtain wisdom, that is a positive philosophy.
What is Philosophy?
▪ According to Socrates: “My wisdom consists in
accepting that I knew nothing.”
What is Philosophy?
▪ According to Socrates: “What makes the human
person unknowledgeable is the fact that he
know nothing and yet he did not know that he
knew nothing.”
▪ A sophist claims that he knows everything and
yet ending up with knowing nothing. A
philosopher claims that he does not know
anything and yet, ending up with knowing
everything.
What is Philosophy?
▪ Philosophy offers the students a chance to
explore the fundamental questions about
human existence.
▪ It can help us clarify our thoughts.

What is Philosophy?
▪ It digs into the root causes of the people’s
problems and discovers new solutions and
remedies to human ills.
▪ It gives us a clear understanding of the

human person and the reason for his
existence.
The Historical Background of
Philosophy
Question no. 3
3. When did philosophy begin?

How did Philosophy come about?
▪ Philosophy began when the human person became aware of the
things around them.
▪ Their curiosity led them to ask the questions: “Where did everything
come from?” and “What is the urstoff (the first principle) of
everything?”
What is Philosophy?
Question no. 4
4. Why is it said that Philosophy began in the SEAPORT TOWN of

MILETUS?
▪ Why seaport town of Miletus?
- during the early times, people were living not in the mountain
ranges or in plains, they were living in the shorelines for the reason that
their primary source of income was by trading their agricultural products
to other merchants. In this manner, it is right to say that philosophy
began in the seaport because how can it start in the mountain ranges or
in plains if they no one lives there and people were residing in the shores.
▪ According to the history of Philosophy, the RICH MILESIANS and
IONIANS were considered to be the first philosophers.
▪ Why MILESIANS and IONIANS?
- Milesians were the residents of seaport town of Miletus. Then
if philosophy started in their place, it is just right to say that the first
philsophers were from that place – Milesians.
- The Ionians were the residents of Ionia and they were the
trading partners of Milesians, If so, then along with the Milesians, they
were also considered at first philosophers.
Question no. 5
5. Since Philosophy started in the Seaport of Miletus, why is it t

hen specified that only the RICH Milesians and Ionians first enga
ged in Philosophy?
▪ Why RICH?
- since philosophy is about asking questions and finding
answers to them, only the RICH MILESIANS and IONIANS have the luxury
of time to engage in such endeavor. It does not mean that the poor does
not want to engage in philosophy, but they would rather work than ask
questions about everything for if they would not work, they would die
unlike the Rich that even they spend a day, a month, a year in engaging in
philophy they can still survive because they have the resources.
The Beginning of Philosophy
Thales of Miletus (624-546 BCE)
▪ On the question what was the origin of

everything, his answer was that human
beings developed from the meeting of
sperm and egg. Hence, the beginning of
the human person is in liquid content.
Everything must have come from water.
▪ Because he was the one who started the
ball rolling, he was considered as the
Father of Philosophy.
Anaximander of Miletus (c. 550 BCE)
▪ The origin of things must be an apeiron or
boundless/infinite.
Anaximenes (585-528 BCE)
▪ He asked: “if everything comes from apeiron,
how did we know it?”
▪ Every water form will end up as AIR.
▪ Hence, everything comes from air.
Parmenides of Elea (c. 520 BCE)
▪ His philosophy focused on the PROBLEM OF
THE ONE & THE MANY, i.e., on the problem
of change.
▪ He claimed, “There is no change. Change is
only an illusion. We are just being deceived
by our senses.
Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 540-c. 480
BCE)
▪ His philosophy focused on the PROBLEM OF
THE ONE & THE MANY, i.e., on the problem
of change.
▪ Unlike Parmenides, he believes that all things
are in the state of flux (Everything is
changing.)
▪ He claimed that what makes things change is
FIRE. Then FIRE is the URSTOFF.
Empedocles of Sicily (c. 495-430 BCE)
▪ He said that water, air, fire, and earth are
the origin of everything.
▪ He tried to put an end to the discussion as
regards where did everything come from by
simply acknowledging the idea of everyone.
Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570-496 BCE)
▪ According to him, everything can be
numbered. Hence, the first principle of
everything must be numbers.
▪ He was the one who coined the term
philosophy.
Leucippus (490-430 BCE) and
Democritus of Abdera (c.570-496
BCE)
▪ Everything that exists is made up of
ATOMS. Hence, the first principle of
everything must be atoms.
▪ According to Democritus, “If God exists,
then, He, too, must be made up of
atoms.”
The Historical Development of Philosophy
There are FOUR PERIODS OF PHILOSOPHY:
a. ANCIENT PERIOD
b. MEDIEVAL PERIOD
c. MODERN PERIOD
d. CONTEMPORARY PERIOD
▪ Each period has a particular subject of study. It means, philosophers in

different periods had different interests. They studied different
subjects/topics.
a. ANCIENT PERIOD
▪ During this period, the prevailing question in philosophy was: “Where
did everything come from?”
▪ Because ancient philosophers focused on the origin of the cosmos,
ancient philosophy is, thereby, considered to be COSMOCENTRIC.
b. MEDIEVAL PERIOD
▪ Medieval philosophers held that the beginning of the universe must be
coming from an Infinite Being which they called qeoV (theos) or God.
▪ The question, therefore, that became prevalent was: “Does this God really
exist?” or, better yet, “Is there really a God?”
▪ For this reason, medieval philosophy is considered to be THEOCENTRIC.
Question no. 6
6. What particular event in history led to the downfall of religion ?

b. MODERN PERIOD
▪ Modern philosophers believed that God truly exists. But He is existing
only in the mind.
▪ The question, therefore, that became prevalent was: “How do we kno
w that what is in our mind is real?” They, therefore, asked: “Is knowle
dge possible?” And “Is man really capable of acquiring knowledge?”
▪ For this reason, modern philosophy is considered to be IDEOCENTRIC.
b. CONTEMPORARY PERIOD
▪ Because of the rising political repression, contemporary philosophers
focused their attention on the dignity of the human person.
▪ Hence, the question that became prevalent was: “Is there a human
dignity?”
▪ For this reason, contemporary philosophy is considered to be
ANTHROPOCENTRIC or HOMOCENTRIC.
The Problem of Philosophy
▪ The rise of modern science brought the human
person to set aside reasoning. Philosophy
became a disinteresting subject.
▪ People believed that philosophy does not have

a proper object. It appears to be not anymore
focusing on the true and real problems of life.
▪ People would find it easier to resort to faith
rather than on reason because faith does not
require explanations. On the question about
the existence of God, people would rather
resort to theology than to philosophy.
▪ Contemporary philosophy has become
inaccessible to the modern-day students.
Because of its highfalutin terms, people find it
impractical to talk about philosophy.
The Necessity of the Study of Philosophy
Man has been haunted by questions which
philosophy alone can answer:
What is the meaning of life?
Why is there death?
If the Creator is good, why is there evil in this
world?
Is there really a human freedom?
Is there really a God?
Is there life after this life?
The Necessity of the Study of Philosophy
▪ Philosophy is the only means that is capable of providing a common
ground between believers and non-believers.
▪ Philosophical training provides the students to help to think, read, and

write; and possibly speak more critically, carefully, and logically.
▪ If we will be able to apply our knowledge in looking at things, we will be

able to obtain a meaningful living.
Question no. 7
7. Why do you think God does not need/to engage in Philosophy?

Definition of Philosophy
▪ Philosophy is defined as “a human, and consequently, a social activity
which consists in man a perennial and a disinterested search for the
intelligible structure of the totality of being.”
▪ Philosophy is first and foremost a human activity. It is only for the human
person.
- Plants and animals do not engage in philosophy primarily because
they do not have the gift of reason which gives them the capacity to think.
- God does not also engage in Philosophy not because He does not
have reason but rather because, he does not need to ask question and try to
know everything everything because HE KNOWS EVERYTHING.
▪ Philosophy is a social activity. Because man is a social being,
philosophy became a social activity.
▪ Philosophy is a perennial search. It is a never-ending search for truth.
For as long as there is man on earth, there will always be philosophy.
▪ Philosophy is a disinterested search because people believed that it

does not provide practical solutions to problems.
▪ Philosophy is a search for the intelligible structure. It is using reason in
order to acquire truth.
▪ Philosophy deals with the totality of being. It deals with the whole of
creation. It also deals with anything and everything that is under and
beyond the sun.
The Branches of Philosophy
How is Philosophy connected with Ethics?
Philosophy can be divided into three major divisions:
1. Philosophy of Thought
2. Philosophy of Reality
3. Philosophy of Morality
PHILOSOPHY OF THOUGHT
1. Epistemology (study of knowledge)
2. Logic (the science and art of distinguishing correct from the incorrect
reasoning).
PHILOSOPHY OF REALITY
1. Metaphysics (the study of the origin of things).
2. Theodicy (the philosophical study of God).
3. Cosmology (the philosophical study of the universe / environment).
4. Philosophy of Psychology (the philosophical study of man as

composed of body and soul).
5. Social Philosophy (the philosophical study of the society.)
6. Political Philosophy (philosophical study of the state and the social

organization).
PHILOSOPHY OF MORALITY
1. Ethics (the study of right living)
2. Aesthetics (the study of the meaning of beauty).
3. Philosophy of Person (the study about the dignity of man, truth,

freedom, justice, love, death, and his relationship with other human
beings and with God).
ANG ETHICS AY SANGAY NG PILOSOPIYA.
the end
ETHICS
The Concept of Good Life
▪ Philosophy is difficult only to those who do not
aspire for knowledge.
▪ Most people considered philosophy to be more

focused on the speculative rather than on the
practical. Because of this, people would not want
anymore to philosophize due to its impracticability.
▪ The misunderstanding of philosophy can be
attributed to teachers who are pounding on their
pride as intellectual people instead of making the
students understand what philosophy really is.
▪ Because philosophy is considered speculative, it has lost its
groundedness on the life of the modern people due to the question
of necessity.
▪ Technological advancement has led people to seek for tangible as

they consider the intangible as senseless and impractical. What is
concrete is proper and what is abstract is oftentimes neglected
because of its lack of groundedness in life.
▪ People are always searching for a good life.
▪ Good life became a problem when man started

thinking. Since the early people were living in
harmony, issues about truth, goodness, and
beauty were never a problem.
▪ For the eastern people, questions on goodness and beauty were
never a problem. Eastern people were not aiming for the
attainment of material and intellectual greatness. They were just
aiming for the perfection of the self.
▪ In the east, metaphysical and epistemological truths were not much
of their concern because knowledge on such things could only make
their existence more difficult.
▪ In the west, people were living in a diaspora. They did not only
barter material goods. They were also bartering ideas or intellectual
goods. Since they were coming from different regions and from
different beliefs, people were able to realize that their ideas of the
beautiful was not anymore to be considered beautiful when
compared with others.
▪ People began to philosophize and think of the reason why there
were lives are beautiful than that of others.
▪ Material evolution led the people to discriminate others and look
down on people whose lives were not as good as theirs. In this case,
we may say that when man becomes civilized, the more he actually
becomes uncivilized.
The Implication of Civilization
▪ Civilization has made man think in a spatio-
temporal dimension. Human beings will always
look for the cause and effect in all their actions.
▪ Hence, goodness and beauty are always

connected with their daily activities.
▪ Goodness becomes causal and material.

▪ When a human person became aware of
himself, different philosophers came out, each
having a different view as regards what and
who is a human person.
▪ Man is an animal and yet not an animal.

▪ Man is the only creature who is capable of
asking about the meaning of his life.
Man as a Person of Goodness and Truth
▪ John Locke considered the human person as a
“thinking and intelligent being that has reason and
reflection and can consider itself as itself.
▪ Every man will always search for the good.

▪ Immanuel Kant considered the human person as
an autonomous self-regulating will who is capable
of making moral decisions by and for himself.
▪ Viktor Frankl held that a human being is able to
live and even to die for the sake of his ideals and
values.
▪ Man is a being who is always in search for

meaning.
▪ Erich Fromm believed that conscience enables the
person to know what ought to be done in order to
become his own self.
▪ Conscience became the reason why the human

person is aware of the goals of life, as well as the
norms for the attainment of such goals.
▪ St. Thomas Aquinas believed that what constitutes
the human person as a moral subject is his
conscience. The human person discovers the
moral law because of his conscience.
▪ Man’s conscience is also responsible for making
the human person aware of the welfare and dignity
of the other persons.
▪ Before civilization, man’s concept of goodness was
related so much to the norm of morality. When
man began to taste a more pleasurable life brought
about by technological advancements, man’s
concept of goodness becomes related to physical
pleasure.
▪ With the human person’s inclination to pleasure, he began looking at
things as moral if it provides pleasure for the human person and if it
prevents him from suffering pain.
TODAY
FORMULA:
PLEASUREABLE = GOOD (masarap/madali = maganda/mabuti/tama)
PAINFUL = BAD (masakit/mahirap = masama/hindi maganda/hindi mabuti)
Kailangan tandaan:
▪ Plato considered Ethics as the Supreme Philosophy, the science par
excellence. Because Ethics deals with the attainment of man’s highest
good—happiness, ethics is the only discipline that deals with the
attainment of the ultimate goal of a human person.
▪ Confucius, Plato, and Aristotle held that philosophers must be the rulers
of all people.
▪ In the Republic, Plato held that a society must be ruled by the
philosopher-king.
▪
Definition of Ethics
▪ Ethics – “ethos” – customs, usage, or character.
- customs, habits, character, or attitude of a
community or a group, which pertains to the group’s
standards or norms.
▪ It is a set of rule of human behavior, which has been

influenced by the standards set by the society or by
himself in relation to his society
▪ Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the attempt to achieve a systematic
understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us—in
Socrates’s words, of “how we ought to live,” and why. (
▪ Knowing the “how we ought to live” could have been easier if we have a
simple, uncontroversial definition of what morality is. But this is
impossible.
▪ Ethics is a practical and normative science, based on reason, which
studies human acts, and provides norms for their goodness and badness
(cf. Buenaflor 2018, 7ff).
2 Kinds of Action
▪ Actus Humanus vs. Actus Hominis
▪ The ideal vision of man provides for him a sense of value. A value is
what individual deems to be useful, desirable, or significant. It sets in
man an idea of good that is inclined towards that which is objectively the
fulfillment of the being of man.
▪ A good action is that which imposes moral obligation or duty.

▪ Man is an imago Dei (an image of God). Hence, he
is by nature good. It is the nature of the human
person to incline himself towards the good.
▪ Man will find meaning in life if he will be doing

good deeds.
▪ Because man has been endowed with reason, which is sometimes
inclined towards his passion, there is always the possibility that he
may choose to turn away from goodness.
▪ Man’s inclination towards earthly goods will oftentimes lead him to

envy and despair. Hence, he needs to study ethics to be guided so
that he may be able to fully understand what real happiness is.
▪ Through ethics, man will be able to understand that the goal of
human being is not merely the acquisition of material goods.
▪ His real fulfillment is in the development of moral quality, which
places man above brute creations.
▪ Ethics provides the person with an idea of what right living is.
▪ Ethics is the very investigation of the meaning of life.

▪ Education can serve as the means in order to teach the young people
about what the good really is. Hence, education should not focus
only on teaching technological innovations and advancements.
the end
ETHICS
Ethics in General
▪ Ethics can be divided into two main divisions: (1)
General Ethics: and (2) Applied or Non-normative
Ethics.
▪ General Ethics refers to all the diverse ethical
formulations of general and universal concepts
and principles which serves as the foundation of
morality. It is referred to as the Normative Ethics.
Ethics in General
▪ Ethics can be divided into two main divisions: (1)
General Ethics: and (2) Applied Ethics.
▪ Applied or Non-normative Ethics deals with a
factual investigation of the social patterns of a
society as compared to that of the other society.
This refers to the cultural practices, which a
particular society will accept as ethical.
Ethics in General
▪ Applied or Non-normative Ethics
Ethics in General
▪ Applied ethics focuses on particular situations in life where the principles
of general ethics can be applied. It does not only apply the general moral
concepts and principles but also specifies the particular situations in life
which they considered as valid and legitimate; hence it is also known as
Special Ethics.
▪ Applied ethics is further subdivided into professional ethics, legal ethics,

and bioethics.
Ethics in General
▪ Applied ethics is further subdivided into professional ethics, legal ethics,
and bioethics.
Ethics in General
Standards of Morality: Moral Vs. Non-Moral
Immanuel Kant held that there are three moral bases that will help one
uphold an ethical principle.
1. Human Freedom
2. Immortality of the soul
3. Existence of God
Ethics in General
Ethics in General
Ethics in General
Ethics and Other Sciences
▪ Ethics vs. Logic
▪ Ethics vs. Psychology
▪ Ethics vs. Sociology
▪ Ethics vs. Economics
▪ Ethics vs. Education
▪ Ethics vs. Law
▪ Ethics vs. Aesthetics
▪ Ethics vs. Politics
▪ Ethics vs. Religion
▪ Ethics vs. Logic
▪ Ethics vs. Psychology

▪ Ethics vs. Sociology
▪ Ethics vs. Economics

▪ Ethics vs. Education
▪ Ethics vs. Law

▪ Ethics vs. Aesthetics –
▪ Ethics vs. Politics –

▪ Ethics vs. Religion –
the end
ETHICS
RYAN B A L B UENA K AT I G BAK
U N I VERS I T Y O F B ATA NG AS
PART 1: The Foundations of Morality
The Moral Agent
▪ An action can be considered moral or immoral depending on the decision of the
person acting on it.
▪ There are cases when a particular situation will produce two results: one good and one
evil. But not to do any action on the said situation will also produce an evil effect. This
situation is what is called a dilemma.
The Moral Agent
▪ Dilemma comes from the Greek words diV, which means twice, and lemma, which
means assumptions or premise.
▪ From the ethical point of view, dilemmas are experienced where an agent is confused
about what right decision to make because there are several competing values that
are seemingly equally important and urgent.
▪
The Moral Agent
▪ A person will be considered full of wisdom if he knows how to apply his knowledge on
a situation where there is a DILEMMA. A man of wisdom is the one who knows when
to make moral decisions and when to act on a situation.
▪ What moral standard will be followed?

The Moral Agent
For some:
▪ What is beneficial to more people is morally good and that what will cause greater
pain to more people is morally evil.
The Moral Agent
However,
▪ An action is considered to be morally acceptable not because it is accepted by the
majority but on the goodness that such action would entail to the other.
The Moral Agent
▪ As the rule of majority does not apply to moral standards. Moral standards, therefore,
be preferred to other values.
▪ A human person must be able to discern right from wrong and be held accountable for
his own actions.
The Moral Agent
▪ Accountability will still depend on the moral formation and the cultural beliefs and
practices that a person has. (Morality is biased to one’s cultural and moral behavior).
Cultural and moral behavior will affect one’s decision as regards the practicality and
morality of the act.
The Moral Agent
The Case of Baby Theresa (Rachels & Rachels, 2003):
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public
as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby
Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic
disorders. Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to
as “babies without brains,” and this gives roughly the right
picture, but it is not quite accurate. Important parts of the
brain—the cerebrum and cerebellum—are missing, as is
the top of the skull. There is, however, a brain stem, and so
autonomic functions such as breathing and heart-beat are
possible.
The Moral Agent
In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are

detected during pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually
aborted. Of those not aborted, half are stillborn. About
350 are born alive each year, and they usually die within
days.
The Moral Agent
Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her

parents made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby
would die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s
parents volunteered her organs for transplant. They thought
her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go to other
children who could benefit from them. Her physicians
agreed. Thousands of infants need transplants each year, and
there are never enough organs available.
The Moral Agent
But the organs were not taken, because Florida law forbids
the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the time
Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late for the
other children—her organs had deteriorated too much to be
harvested and transplanted.
The Moral Agent
Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should

she have been killed so that her organs could have been
used to save other children? A number of professional
“ethicists”—people employed by universities, hospitals,
and law schools, who get paid to think about such
things—were asked by the press to comment.
Surprisingly, few of them agreed with the parents and
physicians. Instead, they appealed to time-honoured
philosophical principles to oppose taking the organs.
The Moral Agent
The Moral Agent
“It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other

people’s ends,” said one such expert. Another explained: “It’s
unethical to kill person A to save person B.” And a third
added: “What the parents are really asking for is, Kill this
dying baby so that its organs may be used for someone else.
Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.”
The Moral Agent
The Moral Agent
Is it horrendous? Opinions were divided. These ethicists

thought so, while the parents and doctors did not.
What reasons or arguments can be given for each side.
What can be said to justify the parents’ request or to justify
thinking the request was wrong?
The Moral Agent
▪ Christian moralists are also divided as regards their opinion.
For one, God’s commandments should be taken as the basis
in making moral decisions. The end does not justify the
means.
▪ However, others would say that it would be uncharitable to

allow the baby to life in such a pitiable state.
▪ A moral agent should, therefore, have a good standard in

The Moral Agent
▪ A moral agent should, therefore, have a good standard in
morality so as to make a sound moral decision.
▪ As to the soundness of a moral decision, one’s view would

depend on his culture and his own moral behavior.
Cultural and Moral Behavior
Culture contributes to the moral upbringing of a person.
Influences:
❖ Family
❖Community also work place
❖Religion
❖School
❖Pop culture (social media, movies, fads)
Do norms and values of a particular community where a person is a member of make a
person morally upright?
▪ Filipinos will definitely have a different moral perspective and it is thereby difficult to
come up with a Filipino morality.
▪ Sources of values and moral are varied.

▪ What is the ground of morality?
▪ Is there a possibility to have a universal moral principle which will

bind all people in all places and at all times?
Cultural Relativism
▪ Should culture be the ultimate determinant of values?
▪ Cultural Relativism started from the Greek philosopher
Protagoras of Abdera (490-420 BCE).
▪ “There are no universal or absolute moral principle.
Standards of right or wrong are always relative to a particular
culture or society.”
▪ Ethical systems and cultural beliefs vary from one culture to
another.
▪
Cultural Relativism
▪ All ethical systems are equal in validity and of relevance.
▪ Moral standards are product of society. Laws and moral rules are
based upon convention.
▪ As knowledge is relative to each person, moral judgments are

also relative. One’s concept of good may be different from
other’s concept of goodness.
Cultural Relativism
▪ No one can say that these laws by which we can judge are true
and the others are wrong. (Moral relativism).
▪
▪
Cultural Relativism
▪ In the interest of a peaceful and orderly society, people
should respect and uphold the customs, laws, and moral
rules, which their tradition has carefully nurtured.
▪ The different sets of moral principles are of equal worth

and nobody can claim that their moral beliefs and
culture is better than that of the others.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativists have the following claims:
1. Different societies have different moral codes;
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right

within that society;
3. There is no objective standards that can be used to

judge one society’s code as better than another’s.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativists have the following claims:
4. The moral code of our own society has no special
status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should

always be tolerant of them.
Ethical Relativism
▪ Because of plurality of social groups, with differing
norms, moral relativist argue that there exist no
universal or absolute criteria by which they can be
criticized.
Cultural Relativism
▪ Criticisms
▪ This ethical school of thought seems to contradict the
common beliefs and some traditional practices of the
people in several ways.
(Since there is no absolute truth and that truth is relative
to the system of belief of every culture, then, ethical
relativism should not insist that their theory should be
accepted by everyone.)
▪Ethical relativism is open to serious doubt and does not
seem to be correct in all cases.
End
ETHICS
The Foundations of Morality
The Filipino Morality
Ethnocentrism
▪ It is the view that one particular ethnic group is somehow superior to all others. It is
the view that a particular ethnic group’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior
to all others.
▪Man-centered.
Theocentrism
▪ It is the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others.
Its followers believe that God’s law is the absolute standard by which we are to judge
everyone else’s system of beliefs and values.
▪ God-centred.
(Both theocentrism and ethnocentrism upheld the idea that there is an absolute
value system. In this regard, both of them contradict cultural relativism because
the latter denies universal moral standard.)
▪ Both theocentrism and ethnocentrism upheld the idea that there is an absolute value
system. In this regard, both of them contradict cultural relativism because the latter
denies universal moral standard.
▪ Filipinos believe that their culture is the best culture because it is centered on God
and it upholds the dignity of the nation.
▪ Edsa Revolution (February 25, 1986).

A MORAL RECOVERY PROGRAM
▪ The events at EDSA not only ousted a dictator but
also demonstrated to the world and to ourselves,
our great strengths as a people.
▪ Today, we realize that most of our problems as a
nation still remain.
▪ Ousting a dictator is an easy part. The difficult part
is the task of building a nation.
▪ Self-interests and disregarding of common good
are becoming too ordinary.
▪
▪ We are confronted with the lack of discipline and
rigor, our colonial mentality, and our emphasis on
porma.
▪ Despite our display of people’s power, we are now
passive once more, expecting our leaders to take
all responsibility for solving our many problems.
▪ Filipinos are already having a difficulty identifying
the demarcation line between the “what is” and
“what ought to be.”
▪ We are confronted with the lack of discipline and rigor, our colonial mentality, and our
emphasis on porma.
▪ Despite our display of people’s power, we are now passive once more, expecting our
leaders to take all responsibility for solving our many problems.
▪ Filipinos are already having a difficulty identifying the demarcation line between
the “what is” and “what ought to be.”
▪ Filipinos are already having a difficulty identifying the demarcation line between the
“what is” and “what ought to be.”
▪ The problem in the Filipino morality is the consideration of the actual and the prevailing
norms of right and wrong among Filipinos.
▪ There’s a conflict between what they say as Christian and what they do as Filipinos.
▪ Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses and developing our strengths and
this starts with analysis, understanding, and appreciation of these strengths and
weaknesses. The first step to change is understanding ourselves.
▪ “What role have I played or am I playing in order to help
rebuild my nation?”
▪ Everyone must take action and do their part in order to

make everything possible.
THE PHILIPPINES: A NATION OF MISGUIDED MORALS
▪ According to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for
the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
▪ Many Filipinos don’t only condition themselves to NOT act against

evil but to also NOT care about it when it is staring at them in the
face.
▪ How can a once proud and honourable people, once lauded as

one of the most progressive nations of Southeast Asia become
the laughingstock that it is today?
▪ How can a once proud and honourable people, once lauded as one
of the most progressive nations of Southeast Asia become the
laughingstock that it is today?
▪ First Question: What is evil to begin with? How do you define evil? What, for you, is
bad and what is good?
▪ For religious people, being good is about following the standards put forth by God, Allah,
Brahma or any other deity.
▪ For Abrahamanics, there are the 10 commandments.
▪ For the atheists, there is the idea of Humanism.
▪ Philippines is home to both religious people, non-religious people and everyone else in
between. However, do a lot of them know the difference between good and evil and
are they willing to take a stand in such matters?
▪ The answer is NO in most cases! Why? Because the media has essentially corrupted the
idea of what is good and what is evil.
▪ A lot of Filipinos do not like having their fun ruined. Policeman, even the good ones,
who are just trying to maintain law and order in their respective communities, are being
used in order to scare children.
▪ For many Filipinos: Discipline = strict rules = evil.

▪ What matters to most Filipinos is not what you are doing but how they figure in what
you are doing. Are you stealing funds from the community? I won’t say anything unless
you steal from me. Are you sharing with me the funds you have stolen? Even
better!
▪ This is not the only thing that is wrong with the morals of the Filipino people. The other
is how they misinterpret the idea of “good.”
▪ Everyone admires the poor but hardworking type of person. Unfortunately,
through the use of media, many of our less-informed countrymen are duped
into thinking that the poor are always good.
▪ The media seems to openly demonize the rich and the intellectuals and depict anyone
criticizing the poor and their activities as “evil” even if what many poor people in real
life are doing (e.g., drinking, gambling or committing incest) can be considered “evil” in
and of themselves.
▪ Second Question: What do we do now?” (Ang sunod na tanong pagkatapos malaman kung
ano ang mabuto at masama, ay ano ang atin ngayong gagawin? Gagawin ba natin ang mabuti o
gagawin natin pa din ang masama?)
▪ Taking action is important if we want to put a decisive end to evilness and

corruption.
▪ Consider how our brand of democracy works: instead of choosing a leader who will
guide us to progress and prosperity, we only choose people who will shoulder the
burden of leadership alone.
▪ We have countless irresponsible people who would blame government for all their
troubles.
STRENGTHS OF FILIPINO CHARACTER
▪ Pakikipagkapwa-tao (regard for others). This is manifested in a
basic sense of justice and fairness, and in concern for others.
This is demonstrated in pakikiramay and in the practice of
bayanihan (mutual assistance) and in the famous hospitality.
▪ Family Orientation. To the Filipinos, one’s family is the source of
personal identity, the source of emotional and material support,
and the person’s main commitment and responsibility.
▪ Joy and Humor. Filipinos have a cheerful and fun-loving approach
to life and its ups and downs. Laughing at ourselves and our
trouble is an important coping mechanism.
▪ Flexibility, adaptability and creativity. Filipinos have a great
capacity to adjust, and to adapt to circumstances and to the
surrounding environment, both physical and social.
▪ Hard work and industry. The desire to raise one’s standard of

living and to possess the essentials of a decent life for one’s family,
combined with the right opportunities and incentives, stimulate
the Filipino to work very hard.
▪ Faith and religiosity. Innate religiosity enables Filipinos to

comprehend and genuinely accept reality in the context of God’s
will and plan. Thus, tragedy and bad fortune are accepted and
some optimism characterizes even the poorest lives. This faith is
related to bahala na.
▪ Ability to survive. Filipinos make do with what is available in the
environment.
WEAKNESS OF FILIPINO CHARACTER
▪ Extreme Personalism. Filipinos have a tendency to “take things

personally.” Because of this personalistic world view, Filipinos have
difficulty dealing with all forms of impersonal stimuli. Hence, one
is uncomfortable with bureaucracy, with rules and regulations, and
with standard procedures—all of which tend to be impersonal.
Personal contacts are involved in any transaction and are difficult
to turn down. Preference is usually given to family and friends in
hiring, delivery of services, and even in voting.
▪ Extreme Family-Centeredness. Excessive concern for the family
creates an in-group to which the Filipino is fiercely loyal, to the
detriment of concern for the larger community or the common
good.
▪ Lack of Discipline. Our lack of discipline often results in inefficient

and wasteful work systems, the violation of rules leading to more
serious transgressions, and a casual work ethic leading to
carelessness and lack of follow-through.
▪ Passivity and Lack of Initiative. One waits to be told what has to be
done. There is a strong reliance on others. This is related to the
attitude towards authority. Filipinos have a need for a strong
authority figure and feel safer and more secure in the presence of
such an authority. There is a high tolerance for inefficiency, poor
service, and even violations of one’s basic rights.
▪ Colonial Mentality. This is made up of two dimensions: (1) lack of

patriotism or an active awareness, appreciation, and love of the
Philippines; (2) an actual preferences for things foreign.
WEAKNESSES OF FILIPINO CHARACTER
▪ Kanya-kanya Syndrome. Filipinos have a selfish, self-serving
attitude that generates a feeling of envy and competitiveness
towards others, particularly one’s peers, who seem to have gained
some status or prestige. Towards them, Filipinos demonstrated the
“crab mentality.” This syndrome results in the dampening of
cooperative and community spirit and in the denial of the rights of
others.
WEAKNESSES OF FILIPINO CHARACTER
▪ Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection. Joking about the most

serious matters prevents us from looking deeply into the problem.
The Filipino lack of self-analysis and our emphasis upon form is
reinforced by an educational system that is often more form than
substance and a legal system that tends to substitute law for
reality.
The END of Chapter 2

ETHICS
The Development of Moral Character
▪ Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas
had the conviction that ethics is fundamentally related to
what kind of persons we are.
▪ On the assumption that what kind of person one is
constituted by one’s character.
▪ Etymologically, the term “character” comes from the
Ancient Greek term Charakter, which initially referred to
the mark impressed upon a coin.
▪ The term character refers more generally to any
distinctive feature by which one thing is distinguished
from others.
▪ In philosophy, the term character is typically used to
refer to the particularly moral dimension of a person.
Aristotle often used the term eqh for character, which is
etymologically linked to “ethics” and “morality”
▪ The Greek word used by Aristotle and most commonly
translated as virtue is areth.
▪ A human person who is acting excellently consistently is
said to have a great moral character.
▪ Excellence is a quality that makes an individual a good
member of its kind. Excellence is connected to its
function.
▪ We judge the moral character of the person based on
consistency.
▪ Character is tested across time.
▪ Moral character is the force behind moral action.
ETHICS
(Good and CHARACTE
DECISIONS ACTION R
Bad)
(values)
Examples:
Money ------ Mukhang Pera
Food --------- Baboy
Studious Student ---- GOOD STUDENT
Consistently
(actions) Character Excellently
(actions)
identity/personality
PINAKAMBUTI
PALAGI /PINAKAMAGA
LING
Questions:
▪ Who are the people who contributed much to your
character?
▪ Will there also be a person who can influence us
immorally?
Stages of Moral Development (Lawrence Kohlberg)
▪ Regardless of our culture, we all develop in our moral thinking
through a series of set stages.
▪ Moral education should help children develop their moral
thinking toward more advanced stages.
▪ Moral Psychology studies what IS moral development.
▪ Moral Philosophy considers what OUGHT TO BE.
▪ The IS of psychology and the OUGHT of philosophy must be
integrated before one can have a reasoned basis for moral
education.
▪ Central to moral education is the problem of relativity of values.
▪ Are there universal values that children should develop?
▪ Kohlberg’s theory of moral education is both psychological and
philosophical.
▪ There are three Stages: (Pre-Conventional [Stage 1 and 2];
Conventional Stage [Stage 3 and 4]; and Post-Conventional Stage
[Stage 5 and 6]).
▪ PRE-CONVENTIONAL (Self-Focused) —concerned

with concrete consequences to individuals, focusing on
pursuing concrete interest, while avoiding sanctions.
▪ Stage 1: Punishment: Authority orientation [Obey

or Pay / Authority—Fear].
▪ What is right is to obey the rules, avoid physical damage to
persons and property. The reason is that one wants to avoid
punishment. Also, there is the deterrence to power and
position. In relation to social perspective, what is considered
is simply one’s own interest as there is still no sense of
another’s point of view.
▪ Stage 2: Pleasure Orientation [Self-satisfaction /
What is in it for me?”
▪ Hedonistic orientation with an instrumental view of human
relations. Beginning notions of reciprocity, but with emphasis
on exchange of favors—”You scratch my back and I will
scratch yours.”
▪ What is right is one’s immediate interest, and letting others
act also in their own interest. Thus, each to his own. What is
right is what is fair. You do your thing, I do my thing; we have
fair, equal exchange.
▪ CONVENTIONAL (Group-Focused) —concerned

with fulfilling role expectations, maintaining and
supporting the social order, and identifying persons or
groups involved in this order.
▪ Stage 3: Peer and Group Acceptance Orientation
(Approval—Group Norm/ Loyalty—Belongingness)
▪ “Good boy” orientation / interpersonal concordance
orientation: seeking to maintain expectations and win
approval of one’s immediate group.
▪ What is deemed right is what pleases or helps others; what is
approved by others; what reinforces mutual relationships
such as trust, loyalty, respect, gratitude.
▪ Stage 4: Legalistic Orientation (Law and Order / Duty
to Society)
▪ Social Structure Orientation. Orientation to authority, law, and
duty, to maintaining a fixed order, whether social or religious,
assumed as a primary value.
▪ What is right is doing one’s duty; showing respect for laws,
authority, and society, and contributing to the maintenance of
society and institutions.
▪ One’s reason for doing one’s duty and the like is that, action which
breaks the social or moral agreements impairs the system, which
is a value. It would be hazardous to digress from conformity, from
social norms.
▪ POST-CONVENTIONAL (Group-Focused)—
concerned with fulfilling role expectations, maintaining
and supporting the social order, and identifying persons
or groups involved in this order.
▪ There is the effort to define the moral values and
principles than have validity and application apart from
the authority of groups or persons and the ability to see
beyond laws and norms of society.
▪ It is here that one examines, adopts, and applies the
different ethical frameworks or principles.
▪ Stage 5: Common Good (Standards of Society / Social
Contract)
▪ Social contract orientation, with emphasis on equality and mutual
obligation within a democratically established order.
▪ This stage includes what is right; individual rights and standards
which have been critically examined, and agreed upon; one says
“these rights have been examined, and since they are right, they
are the ones to be followed.”
▪ Good of the many—CONCENSUS RATHER THAN MAJORITY RULES
▪ Stage 6: Universal Principles (Decision of Conscience /
Logical Moral Principles)
▪ Principles of conscience that have logical comprehensiveness and
universality. Highest value placed on human life, equality, and
dignity.
▪ Kohlberg was not able to observe this stage in his group, and thus,
he projected it. What is right is following self-chosen ethical
principles based on judgments that are universalizable,
irreversible, and consistent.
▪ What is right are the universal principles of justice, and the

reasons given are the validity of universal moral principles and the
sense of personal commitment to these principles.
▪ The social perspective taken is the moral point of view from which
even the social arrangements are derived; from this
universalizable moral point of view, moral judgments are made.
▪ Stage 1 and 2 are typical of young children and delinquents and
are described as ‘pre-moral’ since decisions are made largely on
the basis of self-interest.
▪ Stage 3 and 4 are the conventional stage at which most of the
adult orientation operates.
▪ The final “principled” stages are characteristic of 20 to 25 percent
of the adult population, with perhaps 5 to 10 percent arriving at
Stage 6.
▪ At Stage 1, life is valued in terms of power or possessions of the

person involved.
▪ At Stage 2, life is valued for its usefulness in satisfying the needs
of the individual in question or others.
▪ At Stage 3, life is valued in terms of individual’s relations with
others and their valuation of him.
▪ At Stage 4, life is valued in terms of social or religious laws.

▪ Only at Stage 6 is each life seen as inherently worthwhile aside
from all other considerations.
▪ In terms of motivation for moral action, at the lowest stage, the
individual acts to avoid punishment or to obtain exchange of
favors; at the highest level, to avoid self-condemnation.
▪ A study of Holstein indicates that children who were advanced in

moral judgment had parents who were also advanced in moral
judgment.
▪ Quite separately, however, the parents’ tendency to stimulate
reciprocal role-taking was also related to the child’s maturity. The
parent who sought the child’s view, who elicited comparison of
views in dialogue, had more advanced children.
SUMMARY
PRE-CONVENTIONAL STAGE
Stage 1. Punishment: Authority orientation [Obey or Pay /
Authority—Fear]. - nagawa ang isang tao ng mabuti dahil sa ayaw
nya maparusahan
Stage 2. Pleasure Orientation [Self-satisfaction / What is in it for
me?” - nagawa ang isang tao ng mabuti dahil may inaantay itong
kapalit.
SUMMARY
CONVENTIONAL STAGE
Stage 3. Peer and Group Acceptance Orientation (Approval—
Group Norm/ Loyalty—Belongingness) nagawa ang isang tao ng
mabuti/masama para maging kasali sa isang grupo. (PEER
PRESSURE)
Stage 4. Legalistic Orientation (Law and Order / Duty to Society) -
nagawa ang isang tao ng mabuti dahil sinasabi ng batas/ hindi
nagawa ang isang tao ng masama o hindi mabuti kundi dahil
ipinapagbawal ng batas.
SUMMARY
POST - CONVENTIONAL STAGE
Stage 5. Common Good (Standards of Society / Social Contract)
nagawa ang isang tao ng mabuti dahil ikakabuti ng nakakarami hindi
ito nangangahulugan na kagustuhan ng nakakarami. May
pagkakaiba ang kabutihan ng nakakarami at gusto ng karamihan.
Hindi nagawa ang isang tao ng masama dahil ikakasama ito ng
nakakarami.
Stage 6. Universal Principles (Decision of Conscience / Logical
Moral Principles) – nagawa ang isang tao ng tama dahil alam nito
na ito ang tamang gawin, gayundin naman, ito ay hindi nagawa ng
hindi mabuti/masama dahil alam nitong mali ito.
Situation Analysis
MR. PETERSON’S DILEMMA
Mr. Peterson teaches a social studies class in the local
high school. Because of his great rapport with his students, he is
known as one of the best teachers in the school.
One day, after a class discussion of contemporary
problems in America, several class members approached
Mr. Peterson in his office to tell him that they planned to
boycott the school cafeteria in support of the migrant farm
workers across the country.
Situation Analysis
Previously, the students had picketed the local grocery
store and passed out leaflets in their neighbourhood. They
had also circulated a petition and had written letters to the
school authorities in an attempt to stop the school from
purchasing non-union lettuce and grapes. Both of these
attempts to change school policy had failed.
The students indicated that they not only planned to
boycott the cafeteria, but hoped to shut it down by setting up
a picket line during lunch hours.
Situation Analysis
The students told Mr. Peterson about the planned

boycott because of the many class discussions in which they
had talked about the American tradition of protest. They also
insisted that the success of the boycott depended on Mr.
Peterson not breaking their confidence; they did not want the
school administration to know about the plans.
Situation Analysis
Mr. Peterson feels sure that other teachers and the

administration do not know about the planned boycott. He
also knows that part of the student body would not be
sympathetic to the boycott and this could result in a physical
confrontation.
Situation Analysis
According to the school rule, any organized student

gathering on school grounds must be cleared by school
officials. Mr. Peterson also knows that faculty members are
supposed to notify the school administration of any activity
which may interfere with the school schedule.
Situation Analysis
Mr. Peterson discussed the various implications of the

boycott with the students. The students understand these;
however, they are determined to go through with the plan.
Should Mr. Peterson tell the school administration of
the impending boycott and picket line? Why or why not?
Criticisms
HEINZ’s DILEMMA
▪Respondents have no knowledge about married life.
▪ Male respondents
▪ Hypothetical situation
However,
➢ connection of psychology and philosophy in establishing moral
perspective on human behavior and character.
➢ human person is capable of making moral decisions that can benefit not
only one’s self but also others.
➢ one’s maturity depends on his education and environment.
Thank you!
End of chapter 3
ETHICS
OVERVIEW
TWO FACULTIES OF MAN
INTELLECT – gives man the capacity
to think.
WILL – gives man the capacity to

make decision
OVERVIEW
In our actions, which faculty do we follow?
e.g. Death Penalty

The Act
FEELINGS AND MORALITY
▪ Western philosophers were reacting to the position of
the church scholars who asserted that religion is a
necessary foundation for morality.
▪ Moral decisions must be founded on religious laws and

doctrines.
The Act
▪ David Hume believed that virtue is in conformity to
reason. Like truth, morality is discerned merely by ideas.
To distinguish the good and the bad, we have to consider
reason alone.
▪ Philosophers during the time of Hume placed greater

emphasis on reason over feelings.
The Act
REASON AND MORALITY
▪ Plato argued that the function of reason is to rule
the appetites and emotions.
▪ Mind or intellect (nous) is the immortal part of the
soul gives man the capacity for truth and wisdom.
The Act
REASON AND MORALITY
▪ René Descartes held that reason has prominence
over church laws and religious doctrines.
The Act
REASON AND MORALITY
▪ Stoics upheld that the human person must be able to control his passions
with reason in order to live a moral life.
▪ Decision must be founded on the right reason (law) for this we have share
in common with the gods.
▪ Reason is the law.
The Act
▪ Moral decisions would always involve feelings or
emotions.
▪ Moral decisions/judgments are formed not by
reason alone but through feelings.
▪ One’s view regarding the goodness and badness of
an action is based on passions, motives, volitions,
and thoughts.
The Act
▪ Whatever action that would give the spectator a
pleasing sentiment would be considered as morally
acceptable, while those that would be unpleasing to
the spectators would be considered morally
unacceptable.
e.g. feeling of sympathy to others
The Act
▪ A behaviour is considered to be virtuous if it is
useful or agreeable to people who are affected by
the action being considered.
▪ Interest should not be for one’s own but for
somebody else, that is, for the interest of those
which would be directly or indirectly affected by a
particular action.
▪ If an action is useful or agreeable to others and to
one’s self, it is then considered to be morally
acceptable.
The Act
▪ Hume’s ethical theory is an empirical approach to
morality.
▪ Moral decisions are based not on judgments based
on reason but on feelings.
▪ Subjectivity over objectivity
The Act
▪ CRITIQUE: Morality must be absolute and universal.
If it is based on feelings, then everything will
become subjective.
▪ For the religious moralists, Hume did not include the
role of God in determining the morality of one’s
action; hence, it is weak and groundless.
▪ However, usefulness and the good effect of one’s
action can still be the basis in determining whether
such action is considered morally acceptable or not.
(Utilitarianism)
The Act
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY
▪ Thomas Nagel believed that morality must be
rooted not in feelings or emotions because that will
make morality subjective. Morality must be
objective.
▪ Morality should be rooted in reason.
▪ Feelings should not be the basis of morality because
one’s feelings may be different from the feelings of
others.
The Act
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY
▪ Feelings may be irrational. They may be products of
prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
▪ One’s moral decision may depend on the effect of
one’s action to the person’s involved.
Situation Analysis
THE CASE OF TRACY LATIMER
Tracy Latimer, a 12-year old victim of cerebral palsy,

was killed by her father in 1993. Tracy lived with her
family on a prairie farm in Canada. One Sunday
morning, while his wife and other children were at
church, Robert Latimer put Tracy in the cab of his
pickup truck and piped in exhaust fumes until she died.
Situation Analysis
At the time of her death, Tracy weighed less than 40

pounds, and she was described as “functioning at the
mental level of a three-month-old baby.” Mrs. Latimer
said that she was relieved to find Tracy dead when she
arrived home and added that she “didn’t have the
courage” to do it herself.
Situation Analysis
Robert Latimer was tried for murder, but the judge and
jury did not want to treat him harshly. The jury found
him guilty of only second-degree murder and
recommended that the judge ignore the mandatory
10-year sentence. The judge agreed and sentenced
him to one year in prison, followed by a year of
confinement to his farm.
Situation Analysis
But the Supreme Court of Canada stepped in and ruled

that the mandatory sentence must be imposed.
Robert Latimer entered prison in 2001 and was paroled
in 2008.
Situation Analysis
Legal question aside, did Mr. Latimer do anything

wrong? This case involves many of the issues that we
saw in the other cases.
One argument against Mr. Latimer is that Tracy’s life
was morally precious, and so he had no right to kill her.
Situation Analysis
In his defense, it may be said that Tracy’s condition was

so catastrophic that she had no prospects of a “life” in
any but a biological sense. Her existence had been
reduced to pointless suffering, and so killing her was
an act of mercy.
Situation Analysis
▪ Our answer to this moral issue must not be affected

by our emotions, but rather, by our reason. If our
decision will be based on the feelings of the family,
our moral decision will become subjective (moral
relativism) and we may not be able to arrive at a
moral decision that will be acceptable to everyone
else.
Situation Analysis
▪ For Robert Latimer, the handicap case was not the
issue. To allow Tracy to live would be a torture
because after undergoing major surgery on her back,
hips, and legs, more major surgeries would still be
placed on the pipeline to cure Tracy.
Situation Analysis
▪ According to Robert, Tracy would not be able to live
a happy life due to her condition.
▪ The decision of Robert requires reasoning because a
father’s feeling for being the cause of the death of
one’s daughter would be emotionally unacceptable.
Situation Analysis
▪ The basis of morality, for Nagel, must be on the

happiness that one’s action may cause to the others.
▪ If an action is going to cause harm to others, then
the action is considered to be evil.
Situation Analysis
▪ In terms of moral truth, discovering the truth can only be made possible if
one is guided by reason.
▪ Most philosophers would consider this as the essence of morality.
▪ The morally right is to do the action that is supported by rational
arguments.
▪ Moral judgments must be backed up by good reason.
Situation Analysis
▪ Remember: not every reason is good but they may still
be valid.
▪ It will now be the job of the person to discern (intellect/reason) which
action is good.
Situation Analysis
▪ The act of killing Tracy would be considered as morally unacceptable
because each individual’s life is precious and therefore, nobody has the
right to take away one’s life.
▪ Reason tells us that everyone must be treated equally and a handicapped
person can still become an effective member of the society.
Situation Analysis
Things to remember
▪ Know the facts first.
▪ Prejudices must be set aside.
▪ Man should try to look at things according to how they are and not how
they wanted them to be.
▪ In decision-making, IMPARTIALITY is required. (No decisions must be
given more favor than the others.)
▪ The basis of morality must be REASON!

8 Steps to Moral Reasoning Process
1. Gather the Facts

▪ One should ask not only “What do we know?” but
also “What do we need to know?” in order to make
an intelligent ethical decision.
2. Define the Ethical Issues
▪ Issues can be presented as ___ vs. ____. This will
help the person analyse the interests that are
contradicting one another.
▪ E.g., the right of the teacher to give a failing grade to
students who are not academically qualified versus
the obligation of the teacher to become charitable
to students.
3. Review relevant ethical guidelines

▪ Determine the different ethical guidelines and
determine which can be best applied to the issue.
▪ Biblical, constitutional, and natural law principles
must be taken into consideration.
4. Obtain consultation
▪ Since no one can be an expert in making moral
decisions, it is important to consult persons who are
more competent in terms of morality.
▪ One may consult a religious leader, or a well-revered
teacher, or an elder in a society who can have more
wisdom than us.
▪ The view of these people may not be our final
ethical decision but they can at least serve as a guide
to our decisions.
5. List the Alternative Courses of Action
▪ Making moral decisions require creative thinking,
which will help one identify various alternative
courses of action.
▪ The more alternatives that can be listed, the better
the chance that the list will include some high-
quality alternative for a better decision.
6. Compare the alternatives with the principles
▪ Most of the time, the case will already be resolved at
this point because the principles will eliminate all
the other alternatives except the one which will
uphold a moral value.
▪ In case that there are no clear decisions that may
come into fore at this point, it is then necessary to
get to the next step.
7. Weigh the Consequences

▪ If the moral principles that have a bearing on the
case do not yet provide a clear decision, then it is
necessary to consider the consequences of an
action.
▪ It is important to take note of both the positive and
the negative consequences.
8. Make a decision
▪ In an ethical dilemma, one has to undergo the
painful process of critical studies and analyses.
▪ Decisions must be on the least number of problems
or negative consequences, and not the one that is
devoid of problems.
Thank You!
ETHICS
PART 2: Theories and Frameworks
What is the criterion of morality?
How can we know whether an act is good or bad?
Ethics
▪ Man searches happiness.
▪ This happiness can be attained only by living an ethical life.
(What is ethical life?, How can we know whether our action is morally
acceptable or not? How do we know that whether that what we see is source
of happiness?
Synopsis
Hedonism Epicureanism
Good = physical pleasure Good = mental or intellectual

pleasure
Bad = painful Bad = troubles of the mind
The Epicurean Ethics
THE HEDONIST PHILOSOPHY
▪ The founder of this philosophy is probably Aristippus of
Cyrene (c.340-450 BCE).
▪ “Hedone” - pleasure
▪ Pleasure is good and pain is evil.
▪ Search for pleasure is man’s birthright.
▪ Pleasure is always good regardless of its
source.
▪ Life is basically a search for pleasure. Because pleasure
is the natural goal of all life, we should try to have as
much intense sensual pleasure as we can.
▪ Happy life is having the most possible pleasure and
the least possible pain.
▪ Pleasure is the natural goal of all life, accordingly, man
should try to have as much sensual pleasure as we can.
▪ Physical pleasure is the best of all as it is more intense
than mental or emotional pleasures.
▪ Physical pleasure is the best of all things because it
makes life more exciting, dynamic, and worth living.
▪ The pleasure of the present is much more desirable
than the pleasure of the future for tomorrow might not
even come.
▪ “Eat, drink, and be merry today for tomorrow you may
die.”
▪ Whatever pleases the person most at the moment is
the highest good.
▪ Man should be happy at all cost.
EPICUREANISM
▪ Epicurus of Samos (c. 341-271 BCE) held that
philosophy must be looked up not as a mere
acquisition of knowledge but as a medicine of the soul.
▪ Philosophy frees an individual from ignorance and
superstitions.
▪ Ideas are capable of controlling and developing one’s
life.
▪ The chief aim of human life is pleasure.
▪ Democritus, the atomist influenced Epicurus.
▪ For Democritus, God was not the creator of anything,
consequently, human behavior should not be based
upon obedience to the principle coming from God.
▪ Everyday occurrences are only result of a purposeless
and random event.
▪ Aim: To banish from people the fear of gods which
prevents people from acquiring happiness.
▪ Man must not fear punishments from gods.
▪ Epicureanism was often charged as a godless
philosophy.
▪ Epicureans claimed that there are gods, but they are
different to the popular conception of gods.
▪ Gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we
can strive to emulate and, but whose wrath we need
not fear
▪ God does not have control over nature nor destiny, He
would not, therefore, be able to intrude in the affairs
of the people.
The Duty of the Human Person
▪ Epicurean Philosophy is egoistic hedonism.
▪ Pleasure is the only important thing in life.
▪ Rather than seek to have the most of anything, including the longest
lifespan, the wise and sophisticated Epicurean chooses to have the finest.
▪ A thing is valuable because it gives man a sense of pleasure.
▪ Epicurus’ view of pleasure is somehow sophisticated because he still
recommends a virtuous and moderate ascetic life as the best means of
securing pleasure.
The Epicureanism and Hedonism
▪ Epicureanism is mistakenly associated with expensive tastes, exotic food
and drink, elegant clothing, and a life devoted to the pursuit of such kind of
happiness. (Hedonism)
▪ The highest pleasures are intellectual and the greatest good is peace of
mind, not intense or exquisite physical pleasure.
▪ Every individual can control his own life because man has reason which
gives him the capacity to distinguish what is good from bad.
▪ Pleasure is the standard of goodness.
▪ Pleasure serves as gauge in determining the goodness of a human action.
▪ Since man always desires pleasure, then finding pleasure is good.
Types of Pleasure
▪ Pleasures are 1). natural and necessary, 2). natural but not necessary, and
3). neither natural nor necessary.
▪ Sensual pleasure will not lead to real happiness.
▪ Real happiness could be achieved by means of those activities that will free
the human being from troubles of the mind and from physical pain.
▪ What leads to a real pleasant life is the austere reasoning that will aid man
to the true realization of the meaning of life and the avoidance of the
greatest disturbance of the spirit brought about by mere opinions.
▪ There are types of pleasure which cannot be satisfied.
▪ Man should aspire for the things that will bring happiness but only with a
minimum desire.
▪ Nature requires man’s body to receive the satisfaction he needs.
▪ Aside from consuming only a little of what the human person desires, he
or she will, therefore, need only a little.
▪ Man will easily be satisfied.
Self-Centered Moral Philosophy
▪ The concern of Epicureanism is individual pleasure and not communal
pleasure.
▪ The height of pleasure is the freedom from all pains and getting rid of all
the discomfort of both the mind and the body.
▪ If such freedom teaches man to rationally manage his desires, then he has
reached the height of pleasure and the end of all evil.
▪ Those who are liberated from the troubles of the mind are already living
a good life.
▪ The aim of life is the attainment of pleasure – happiness – final goal of
every person.
▪ Pleasure can be obtained by mastery and control or limitation of desire as
far as possible to those that were strictly necessary.
▪ Epicurus added that pleasure also implies limitation of social relationships
(family, religious, and political).
▪ Good life could not be found from one’s service to fellow human person.
▪ Good life can be found only in a pleasant company of intellectually
fascinating friends.
▪ Civil society is needed only for punishing individuals who inflict pain upon
others.
▪ Basic Guide to Epicurean Living:
1. Do not fear God
2. Do not worry about death
3. Do not fear pain
4. Live a simple life
5. Pursue pleasure wisely
6. Make friends and be a good friend
7. Be honest in your business and private life
8. Avoid fame and political ambition.
Criticisms
▪ First, epicureanism upholds that life should be lived simply.
▪ This contradicts the claim that happiness may be obtained by way of
pleasure.
▪ Man should only have minimum desires and accordingly these desires
must be controlled.
▪ It is easily said than done.
▪ Second, pleasure cannot be just limited to the avoidance of physical pain
and troubles of the mind because they can still be considered as morally
acceptable if the experience of such pains may lead the person to the
greater glory and for the greater good.
▪ Third, there are individual who find pleasure in helping others.
Synopsis
Hedonism Epicureanism
Good = physical pleasure Good = mental or intellectual

pleasure
Bad = painful Bad = troubles of the mind
Thank You!
ETHICS
The Stoic Ethics
Cynicism the Origin of Stoic Philosophy
▪ Cynicism was a school which revolted against the
rigidly ordered philosophies of Plato and
Aristotle.
▪ Founded by Antisthenes and took Socrates as its
model.
▪ After the death of Socrates, Antisthenes founded
a school called the Cynosarges (the silver dog).
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Diogenes of Sinope (404-323BC)
▪ Antisthenes was greatly influenced by the stinging attacks on such sophistic
values as power, prestige, wealth, and clever deception.
▪ The Cynics believed that the very essence of civilization is corrupt. (Tragic
fate of Socrates)
▪ Manners are hypocritical and phony.
▪ Material wealth weakens the people and makes them physically and morally
soft.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ The desire for success and power produces dishonesty and dependency.
▪ Flattery, fashion, and convention destroy individual and make everyone
vulnerable to the whims of future.
▪ Happiness could not be obtained by means of pleasure for luxury always
brings complications and, eventually, to great frustrations.
▪ HAPPINESS can come from self-discipline, rational control of all desires
and appetites, and minimal contact with conventional society.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Few Cynics exhibited the moral or intellectual virtues of Antisthenes or
Diogenes. For this reason, Cynicism fell into disrepute.
▪ Later Cynics were hostile, arrogant individuals, who despised everyone
else and hated the society which they lived.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Zeno of Citium (c.334-262 BCE) was the known
founder of Stoicism.
▪ Stoicism – “portico or painted porch.”
▪ According to history, in order to help Zeno overcome
his attachment to social convention, Crates would
publicly embarrass Zeno by smashing a pot he was
carrying.
▪ The Stoics have great admiration to the strong
character of Socrates who faced death with courage
and serenity.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Due to the fate of Socrates, the followers of Stoicism realized the
immoralities of the people of Athens, hence, they placed a tremendous
emphasis on the morality of the human person.
▪ He was able to inherit the Cynics’ distrust of social niceties.
▪ Stoicism had given importance to the three division of philosophy
formulated by Aristotle: namely, logic, physics, and ethics.
▪ Morality is life in accordance with nature and controlled by virtue.
▪ The Stoics believed that both pain and pleasure, poverty and luxury,
sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Like Epicureanism, Stoicism was also aiming for happiness.
▪ This happiness cannot be not found in pleasure but in wisdom.
▪ Stoics believed that excessive desires may lead a person to depression and
therefore, to unhappiness.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Wisdom will enable man to control what has been within the
human power and to accept with dignified resignation what
had to be.
▪ Therefore, happiness comes from self-discipline, rational
control of all desires and appetites, and minimal contact with
conventional society.
The Stoic Ethics
Stoic Philosophers
Epictetus, the Sage Slave (c. 50-130CE)
- Controlling what we can and accepting what is beyond our control.
- He was always reminded that what happened to him had no bearing on his
own wishes or behavior.
- The only absolute control he has was over his own reaction to what was
happening.
- “Bear and forbear.”
▪ Man should control his attitude.
The Stoic Ethics
The Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius ( 121-180 CE)
▪ Although he lived his life in the midst of lies and betrayals, Marcus was
loved by many Romans for his kindness and mercy.
▪ He refused to turn away from his incompetent stepbrother, choosing
instead to carry out both their duties.
▪ He convinced the senate to pardon the family of his traitorous general.
▪ Instead of taking a revenge against those accused as his lover’s wife, he
promoted them as such will be for the good of Rome.
The Stoic Ethics
The Philosophy of the Stoics
▪ The stoic philosophy centers on the Ethical living. Its ethical teaching is
based on the two principles:
1. The universe is governed by absolute law which admits no exception.
2. The essential nature of the human person is reason.
(LIVE ACCORDING TO NATURE!)
The Stoic Ethics
▪ The Stoic maxim has two aspects. First, it means that human persons
should conform themselves to nature in the wider sense, i.e., to the laws
of the universe; and second, they should conform their actions to nature
in the narrower sense, i.e., to their own essential nature - reason.
▪ The universe is governed not only by law, but also by the law of ourselves,
and we, in following our rational nature, are conforming ourselves to the
laws of the larger world.
▪ There is no possibility of disobeying the laws of nature for we, like all else
in the world, act out of necessity.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Virtue is a life according to reason.
▪ Morality is rational action.
▪ Morality is a universal reason, which is to govern our lives, not the caprice
of the self-will of the individual.
▪ Life should be according to the life of the whole universe.
▪ One is a gear in a great machine that without which, this machine will not
be able to function.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Although natural order is divine, man has the capacity to understand its
divinity as well as its laws through the reason possessed by all human
person.
▪ Stoics see in nature the operation of reason and law.
▪ For the Stoics, the world was so arranged that everything on it was
acting on the principle of purpose.
▪ The world has a rational substance – “Logos” (God or Absolute Reason)
The Stoic Ethics
▪ God being reason, then the world is governed by reason.
Meanings:
1. There is a purpose in the world, and therefore, there is order, harmony,
beauty, and design.
2. Reason being law, the universe is subjected to absolute sway of law.
▪ The universe is governed by the rigorously necessity of cause and effect.
▪ Every individual is not free and then there can be no freedom of the will
that s governed by necessity.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Stoics believed in destiny and fate.
▪ No one knows what will happen in the future. Man cannot control what
may transpire, but man should learn to control the attitudes
towards what might happen.
▪ Stoics talked about choosing appropriate actions.
▪ Man has some degree of influence over his own actions.
▪ For the Stoics, happiness means attainment of wisdom.
The Stoic Ethics
The Human Drama
▪ Stoicism sees the world as a stage where every person is an actor or
actress.
▪ There is a director (God) who selects actors to play various roles.
▪ Divine providence governs everything that happens in the world.
▪ Stoics viewed the world not as a product of chance but as a product of an
ordering mind, or by reason – Divine Providence.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Adopt realistic expectations and accept one’s limit.
▪ Hardships and sufferings are not totally negative.
▪ The goal is not really to avoid trials and sufferings but to use them to
become a good person.
▪ Each actor has its own role to place.
▪ Actors do not have control over the story, however they can control their
attitudes and emotions.
▪ Knowing the role which an individual will play, he/she acquires wisdom in
dealing with life.
▪ Moral virtue is the only good and wickedness is the only evil.
The Stoic Ethics
The Stoic Morality
▪ What is a good deed?
▪ What is the meaning of virtue?
▪ When is a person considered to be virtuous?
The Stoic Ethics
▪ The foundation of Stoic morality is a doctrine that has its own basis in
physics. i.e., in the nature of living things.
▪ This doctrine is oikeiōsis which means “orientation and appropriation.”
▪ The basic desire of all living things is self-preservation. (The one thing that
is most important to human person is our own existence and its
continuation.)
▪ People choose what they think will be good for them and avoid what they
think will be bad for them.
▪ Stoic ethics is based on selfish attitude.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Stoics held that people should learn to live in accordance to nature = living
according to virtue.
▪ Moral tenet: Virtue alone is necessary and sufficient for happiness.
Virtue was not only the final end and the supreme good: it was also the
only real good.
▪ Virtue means living according to reason, and reason tells us that all things
happen must happen in order to actuate a superior good willed by the
Divine Nature.
▪ Man is said to be virtuous if he wishes that events will be in accordance to
the will of the Divine Providence.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Passion and emotions are irrational elements and vices and must be
eradicated in order to complete the domination of reason.
▪ If this complete domination of reason cannot be retained, the stoic will
have to recourse to suicide, for it is better to flee life than to lose the
tranquility of the spirit.
▪ Stoic morality is focused on the absolute renunciation of things, i.e.,
temporal things.
▪ Such renunciation is made for selfish motive – not to lose the tranquility of
the soul.
▪ Stoics Morality is based on egoistic pride.
The Stoic Ethics
What is the Stoic’s concept of Justice?
▪ There is a great significance in the human relations since each person
shared a common element – reason.
▪ All have right reason which is regarded as the Law.
▪ Those who share law must also share justice, correspondingly, they are
regarded as members of the same commonwealth (COSMOPOLITANISM)
▪ Every human person is acting on a universal brotherhood.
▪ Every human person is equal to one another.
▪ Depriving others of their right is against the concept of cosmopolitanism,
hence, morally unacceptable.
The Stoic Ethics
▪ Although Stoicism shared many characteristics with the Epicureanism, it
has made some radical innovations.
▪ They regard self-control as the center of ethics and they view all of nature
in materialistic terms.
“while making reasonable efforts to get what we want, it is wise

to learn to be happy with what we get.”
The Stoic Ethics
Criticism
▪ The following of the Reason or the Divine Providence may lead to idleness
since everything is already planned, accordingly, there is no need for a
person to work hard.
▪ Learning to be happy with what one gets may lead to contentment can be
looked in two perspective.
▪ On the positive side, one will be able to accept one’s fate and will not feel
bad should there be failures.
▪ On the negative side, being contented may lead one to rely on one’s fate.
The Stoic Ethics
Thank you!
ETHICS
ARISTOTLE: The Virtue Ethics
▪ In the Ancient Period, philosophers were concerned about the origin of
the universe (Cosmocentric).
▪ Sophists focused their studies on man as a person and as a thinking being.
▪ They question whether man is capable of attaining knowledge,
accordingly, one’s social responsibility is determined and at the same
time, the goodness of an action is specified.
▪ Good is relative to specific culture. – Herodutus
▪ “Man is the measure of all things.” – Protagoras
▪ Is there really a universal moral principle that will serve as the basis for
doing good deeds?
▪ Although Socrates was a relativists, he believed in standard/objective
ethical standard.
▪ Good and evil and not pleasure or pain.
▪ A good deed is obtained when one is doing justice to others.
▪ (JUSTICE) When the aspects of the soul (rational, spirited, and appetitive)
are balanced, good life is granted to such individual, accordingly,
HAPPINESS.
▪ A well ordered soul – doing good deeds.
▪ For Plato, good life means knowing and fulfilling one’s own function.
▪ Failure to recognize and fulfil one’s function would lead to CONFLICT.
(INJUSTICE)
▪ In the Republic, when the 1) peasant, 2) military, 3) philosopher-king play
their particular roles, an organized community/society is assured.
▪ An ethical action happens when the human person performs his function
in the society.
▪ The ethical principles of Socrates and developed by Plato influenced the
ethical beliefs of Aristotle, who was then considered to be the most
intelligent student of Plato.
▪ He earned the reputation of being the mind and the
reader of the school (Plato’s Academy).
▪ For Plato, his Academy is consisted of two parts: the
body which is the students, and the brain which is
Aristotle.
▪ He built an altar in honor of Plato.
▪ Aristotle, which was supposedly be replacing Plato as
the head of the Academy, the trustees of the school
picked a native Athenian instead.
▪ Another reason: he opposed some of the doctrines of
Plato.
▪ Aristotle trained the Alexander the great, son of King
Philip of Macedon.
▪ Founded his own school ‘Lyceum’ which he named
after the god Apollo Lyceus.
▪ Methods of teaching is ‘paripatetics’(Hakim).
The Virtue Ethics
▪ The Academy and Lyceum for a short period of time were bitter rivals,
however, later on, because of their particular interests, their rivalry
subsided.
▪ Academy was focused on mathematics and pure understanding.
▪ Lyceum was focused on anthropological studies of barbarian cultures,
chronologies, of various wars and games, the organs and living habits of
animals, the nature and location of plants.
The Virtue Ethics
The Philosophy of Aristotle.
▪ Aristotle was suspicious of the idea that knowledge of the world cannot
be accessed via the senses (Plato’s rationalistic Idealism).
▪ Aristotle turned to the phenomena of changing and the changeless.

▪ Thing changes because of its nature permits it.
▪ Things have principle of actuality (act) and principle of potentiality
(potency).
▪ Matter(potency) and form(act) – hylomorphic doctrine
(Because of this, he is sometimes called the father of science.)
The Virtue Ethics
The Human Person for Aristotle
▪ A human being is composed of body and soul.
▪ Body and Soul are not separate entities, rather they are correlative
constituents of one being.
▪ Man being composed of body and soul is nether a body nor a soul.
▪ Soul “entelechy” – definite form of the body.

The Virtue Ethics
▪ For Plato, man is composed of two separate entities, the body and the
soul.
▪ In this case, Plato was talking of pre-existence and immortality of the soul.
(Learning is a process of recollection)
▪ In contrary, for Aristotle, death could cause the discontinuance in
existence of both body and soul.
(Human mind is a tabula rasa or blank slate)
▪ The soul is that which animates the body(subordinate).
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Soul has two parts namely 1) rational and 2) irrational
▪ The irrational part is divided into 1) vegetative part (nutrition, growth, and
reproduction) and 2) desiring part
▪ Desiring part is further divided into three progressive levels 1) epithumia

(unruly and irrational sense desires and covetousness, 2) thumos
(spontaneous impulses) and 3) boulesis (wishes and desires).
▪ Rational soul(independent of the body) is divided into 1) Phronesis

(practical intellect which is ordained towards action and determines the
appropriate means to attain an end, moreover, it aims to control the
irrational part) and 2) Speculative Intellect (pure thought or intellection,
level of contemplation).
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Man has REASON – it makes man different from all other creatures.
▪ Man’s reason makes him resemble to the Supreme Reason(God) (rules and
guides the destinies of individual and nations, and lead all things to their
proper ends)
▪ Speculative intellect is that which is closely connected with reason.
▪ Through contemplation, man will realize that all things are leading to their
proper ends (Teleological – purpose/end).
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Every action of the human person is aiming towards an end.
2 Types of End
a. Instrumental end – means for other ends
b. Intrinsic end – done for its own sake.
▪ Aristotle tied the word GOOD to the special function (purpose) of a thing.
▪ Human person is good only when he is functioning as a human person.
▪ Everyone must be able to discover first the distinctive function of everyone
in order to obtain goodness.
What is now man’s function/role?
The Virtue Ethics
▪ The function of man is an activity of the human soul that implies a rational
principle.
▪ An action is considered to be good(activity of the soul), if is it done in
accordance with the rational principle (VIRTUOUS ACT).
▪ Within communal life of the Polis (fullest extent of man’s activity according
to reason) Act of Contemplation.
The Virtue Ethics
The Aristotelian Ethics
Versions of Aristotle’s moral philosophy
a. Eudemian
b. Nicomachean (considered as the ethics of Aristotle)
c. Magna Moralia
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Ethics is not only science (knowledge which deals with absolute and
eternal truths)
- ART (art of living well-balance)
▪ Ethics follows a dialectic method(comparative opinion regarding the good
and the bad, and arriving at a set of prudential directives of limited
generality).
▪ Ethics in this regard is a practical science and it concerns the nature and
purpose of human action.
▪ In his teleological view, everything exists for SOME PURPOSE.

The Virtue Ethics
▪ Man naturally seeks happiness (eudaimonia – a person is really alive
rather than just merely existing).
▪ The nature and purpose of human action tend towards happiness.
▪ A human person is fully aware, vital, and alert.
▪ It implies exhilaration – great suffering and great joy, as well as great
passions.
▪ Full of life.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Happiness is not connected with pleasure.
▪ Pleasure is connected with irrational part of the soul.
▪ Pleasure is not the goal/end of life, same thing as the acquisition of
wealth.
▪ Aristotle rejected fame and public success , for he believed that these will
not give him Eudamonia(happiness)
▪ Every person aims for pleasure, wealth, and honor. But none of these
ends, though they have value, can occupy the place of the ultimate good
for which every people should aim.
▪ The self-sufficient we are, the happier we will be; and the famous are less-
sufficient.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ An ordinary man has a greater peace of mind, security, and satisfaction in
knowing that he can provide for his own needs than there is in
depending on others.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ The highest and fullest happiness comes from a life of reason and
contemplation—not a life of inactivity or imbalance but a rationally
ordered life in which intellectual, physical, and social needs are all met
under the governance of reason and moderation (Soccio, 186). According
to Aristotle, a reasonable person does not avoid life, rather, he engages in
it fully.
▪ Man can only live a full life if he would be living with the polis or the
society. A rich and full life is a social life.
▪ A human being is a political creature designed by nature to live with the
others. Hence, all the actions of the human person can be adjudged as good
or bad depending on the goodness or badness of its effect on others.
The Virtue Ethics
(What is that particular action that will lead the human person to this
ultimate happiness?)
▪ From the objective point of view, a morally virtuous act consists of a
measured activity, following the rule of the (mesotes) or just middle, i.e.,
"neither deficient nor excessive”
▪ Any action that is done or indulged excessively or insufficiently would go
out of bounds and would become unreasonable and improper to the
nature of human being.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Any action that is coming from the just middle is ruled by reason, which
orders the desires and passion into a harmonious whole.
(What is a virtuous act?)
▪ A virtuous act is following the mandates of the rational part of the soul.
▪ A virtuous act is that which proceeds from a habitual state or disposition
acquired through constant practice, where the doing of the virtuous act
has become a kind of second nature on the part of the human person.
Such action has been done firmly and surely, without fail or without any
doubt or hesitation.
▪ a virtuous act is that which proceeds from the right intention.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ A moral virtue is a rationally measured activity following the rule of the
just middle, motivated by right intention and proceeding from a
permanent disposition acquired through habitual action.
(Where can we find the norm of the mesotes? What is the norm for right
intention? More so, in doing a particular action, what kind of disposition will
be needed in order to perform such an activity?)
The Virtue Ethics
An Action that Proceeds from Contemplation
▪ In order for the human person to be sure that his action is done in
permanent disposition, such action should be done in the act of
contemplation. Performing such activity is said to be related to the moral
virtues.
▪ Whenever an action is performed based on contemplation, such action is

said to be coming from (phronesis) or the practical wisdom/intellect,
which provides the insight to the truth about the intrinsic worth and
excellence and beauty or goodness or the (kalon) of the action done.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Phronesis is the practical intellect that properly decides to act. It takes the
appropriate means in the situation in view of the intended goal and takes
command of one's desire and passion.
▪ Phronesis (Practical wisdom) is the proper activity and virtue of the
practical intellect by which the human person, as the source of action, is
the union of desire and thought.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ In applying the phronesis, Aristotle, like Plato, viewed the communal life of
the polis as the proper place for the exercise of the moral virtue. In fact, it
is the very life of moral virtues and thus, the polis constitutes one of the
ends of the human person.
▪ Life is a blessing because it is an opportunity to be with the community
where happiness really abounds.
▪ As the human person has a function to fulfill, his life constitutes being one
with the community.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Happiness is the product of our action based on our distinctive
nature(rational part of the soul).
▪ It is the fruit of a virtuous living, the constant and proper exercise of
reason in all of man's actions and endeavors.
▪ In this case, it is proper to assume that a virtuous act is acting according to
our highest nature, that is, based on a contemplative activity.
▪ An action based on contemplation is the best action because not only is
the reason the best thing for us, but the objects of reason are also the best
knowable objects.
▪ Contemplation is the highest and most perfect type of reflection, the way
it is in god.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ According to Aristotle, the main problem of morality is seen to be how to
discipline the lower desires and passions and how to educate and cultivate
the intellectual part of the soul in order to attain man’s fulfillment.
▪ For Plato, good signifies a transcendent, otherworldly end of man.
▪ For Aristotle, the moral end is seen as something immanent in human
activity and achievable in this life.
▪ Goodness can be obtained when one performs his
function in the community.
▪ Such action must be rooted from contemplation and must proceed from
the habitual action.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ An action of the human person is good if it originates from contemplation.
▪ A person who is performing his action according to his function (ergon) in
the most excellent way (arête) and in a habitual fashion is a acting as a
human person. (moral character).
▪ If one does an action habitually, such habit will eventually make up his
character and such character will determine his destiny.
▪ It is important to establish one’s character based on his good deeds
inasmuch as such character will establish the value of the human person
as a human person.
The Virtue Ethics
Critique on the Aristotelian Ethics
▪ Aristotle held that every human person is aiming towards the attainment
of eudaimonia, which is considered by Aristotle as the highest happiness.
▪ Aristotle also upheld the value of mesotes, the principle of the Just
Middle, which states that the basis of morality is the avoidance of the two
extremes.
▪ Consequently, aiming for eudaimonia may be contrary to the idea of the
just middle because eudaimonia aims for the highest happiness which is
an extreme.
▪ If the basis of morality is the middle position, then aiming for the best
would be considered an extreme and therefore not good.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ A virtuous act is that which is done voluntarily.
▪ If doing good deeds already becomes a habit that it becomes already a
secondary nature of the person, then some of his charitable deeds maybe
done already involuntarily and, therefore, not to be considered a moral
action anymore.
The Virtue Ethics
▪ Aristotle’s concept of good actions is based on what is considered during
his time as the supposed action of the elite people in the society. In this
regard, his concept of goodness may already be incoherent in our modern
day context.
Thank you!
ETHICS
The Natural Law Ethics
▪ The Virtue ethics of Aristotle paved the way for the
development of Thomas’ Natural Law Ethics.
▪ He christianized the philosophy of Aristotle.
▪ Adopted the ethics of Aristotle but transformed it by
introducing the two fundamental notions:
a. the notion of God as the Creator and the Source
of the beingness of man and the world.
b. synderesis
Albert the Great
▪ “Universal Teacher”
▪ Recognized the fundamental difference between
Philosophy and Theology.
▪ He thought that philosophers like St. Anselm of
Cantenbury and Peter Abelard had focused so much on
the competence of reason, not realizing that from the
rigorous point of view, much of what they ascribed to
reason was, in fact, a matter of faith.
▪ He translated the whole works of Aristotle into Latin.
▪ He considered Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher.
Albert the Great
▪ He wanted to make the philosophy of Aristotle clearly understandable to
the whole of Europe, for this reason, he translated the whole works of
Aristotle into Latin.
▪ He considered Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher.
▪ The fondness of St. Albert the Great with Aristotle developed(influenced)
St. Thomas’s love for the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
▪ He became involved in the celebrated controversy with
the Averroist headed by Siger de Brabant who gave
the propositions such as the eternity of the world and
the unity of the intellect in all human beings.
- This position of the Averroist made the Church
authorities to disregard Aristotle’s metaphysics.
- Thomas opposed these propositions and what he did
was he established an interpretation of Aristotle’ that was
moderate and acceptable in Christian Schools.
> Summa Contra Gentiles & Summa Theologiae
The Philosophy of Theology of St. Thomas
▪ Philosophy begins with the immediate objects of sense experience and
reason upward to more general conceptions; and eventually to the
conception of God.
▪ Theology begins with a faith in God and interpret all things as creation of
God.
▪ He made philosophy and theology play their complementary roles in the
persons’ quest for truth.
The Philosophy of Theology of St. Thomas
▪ Despite of the differences between philosophy and theology, they do not
contradict each other.
▪ There are things which can be known though revelation(theology), e.g.
mystery of incarnation, however, they are truths which can be known in
both fields equally(philosophy and theology).
▪ Human beings are incapable of knowing the nature of God in this life
because our knowledge is limited by its origin in sense-experience.
▪ Divine reality is beyond man’s capability of human understanding.
▪ It is natural function of the human mind to link effects which it encounters
in nature to their causes.
(Five ways/proofs of proving God’s existence – Quinquae Viae)

FIVE WAYS OF PROVING GOD’S EXISTENCE
▪ Unmoved mover (Whatever is moved is moved by another.)
▪ Uncaused cause
▪ Possibility and Necessity (Contingent being vs. Necessary being)
▪ Gradation of Perfection
▪ Governance of the world
The Nature of God
▪ The Quinquae Viae do not tell man the nature of God, however it adds
something to the conception of God.
- God is powerful
- God is eternal
- God is pure actuality
- God has the perfect goodness
- God is the supreme intelligence.
▪ Man is created in the image and likeness of God.
▪ God is the ultimate cause of man (effect)
▪ Since, goodness and wisdom can be seen from man, then it says that God
is good and wise but in most perfect way who is the cause of the
existence of man.
▪ Goodness and wisdom must pre-exist transcendentally in God.
▪ Good and Wise
- analogical term - they are similar terms and yet different in certain
extent.
Relationship of God with his Creature
▪ Contra Aristotle, St. Thomas believed that there is Divine Creation.
▪ God is the first cause of everything who himself is uncaused.
▪ God’s purpose in creation is for the communication of his perfection
(goodness by bringing into existence outside of Himself a world which is
best as a whole).
▪ There is a hierarchy of being in different degrees of goodness.
▪ The universe contains both the corruptible and incorruptible. (happiness
and pain; life and death). Suffering and death occur not because God wills
these evils, but because of the privations inherent and unavoidable in
creatures of different grades of goodness.
▪ Why did God not create better world instead?
▪ What we can know is that God created the universe because of his
goodness. Should He have created another universe, the same universe
would be created out of his goodness?
▪ God created the universe ‘ex nihilo’
▪ He believed that the world came into being instantaneously.
▪ God does not have a relationship with his creatures. (God is necessary
being)
▪ Creatures have a real relation to Him because were it not for the creative
work of God, they would not have come into existence (contingent being).
THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN PERSON
▪ The source and the ultimate end (final end) of man is God.
▪ God is that of which everything is but a participation and imitation; from
whom all things proceed and to whom all things return.
▪ The moral end of man is the Good in which a person, in his innermost
being, yearns for and made manifest to him in synderesis and conscience.
THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN PERSON
▪ Conscience – is the concrete particular judgment by which, in a given
situation, a person knows what he ought to do.
▪ Synderesis – is more general as it is the intellectual habit or disposition by
which, the human person, in any given situation, is in a possession of the
fundamental principles of morality – do good and avoid evil.
▪ Synderesis is the innate principle in the moral consciousness of every
person which directs the agent to good and restrains him from evil.
▪ Because God created man in his image and likeness, the Man is also good
because, he, the creator is the highest good (Summum Bonum).
▪ Man should follow his nature as good in order to achieve the real purpose
of his existence.
▪ Doing evil is against the real nature of man.
▪ The real meaning of one’s existence can only be obtained when the
human person would be able to do good deeds and follow his nature.
▪ Doing what is good is man’s moral law.
▪ Moral law is the dictate of the voice of reason: “the good must be done
and the evil must be avoided.”
▪ Action in accordance to the voice of reason = good action(acting rightly)
▪ Action against the voice of reason = bad action (acting wrongly)
▪ Whenever a person is faced with a particular situation, the voice of
conscience will serve as the natural guide in making a moral decision.
▪ Following the voice of the conscience means what a person is doing is
good. If not, he would feel a sense of guilt, self-reproach, or remorse.
▪ Morality is not set of arbitrary set of rules for behavior.
▪ The basis of moral obligation is found first of all in the very nature of
humanity.
▪ Human nature is the proximate norm of morality.
▪ The Threefold Natural Inclination of the Human Person
1. Self-preservation
2. Just dealing with others
3. Propagation of species.
The Happiness of the Human Person
▪ Each and every individual human being is always geared towards the
happiness as his goal.
▪ Happiness is what man considers as GOOD.
The Happiness of the Human Person
▪ How can a human obtain happiness?
> not in wealth
> not in wordly power
> not in the goods of the body(pleasurable things)
▪ Ultimate happiness consists in contemplating God and not in the goods of
the body.
▪ Man’s happiness consists in wisdom based on the consideration of divine
things.
▪ Contemplation of God is man’s happiness.
▪ Man in his contemplation of God, must fined way to obtain that ultimate
happiness.
▪ Man’s action is always geared toward God.
▪ Man should always be aware of the morality of his actions. Following his
nature.
(How can man know whether his action is moral or immoral?)
▪ The Three Determinants of Moral Action
a. Object or the end of an action (finis operas) – that to which the act
naturally tends before all else.
- natural purpose of the act
- if the action is consonance with the natural moral law, then the action is
considered to be morally good.
b. Circumstances – when added to the to the natural of the moral act will
certainly affect its morality.
- may mitigate or aggravate the goodness or badness of a particular action
c. Intention of the agent (finis operantis) – the reason why the agents acts
- a good act with a bad motive(intention) makes it bad.
- morality of an action depends on end.
- Human acts are good if they promote the purpose of God and his honor.
- An act is considered evil if it deviates from the reason and the divine moral
law.
▪ ACTION FOLLOWS BEING.
▪ If a thing is serving its purpose based on the reason of its creation, then
the object is a good object.
▪ If human being acts in accordance to its nature as a human person, then
he is a moral person.
▪ Because man is endowed with reason, then he must incline himself toward
goodness – he should always follow his conscience(dictate of reason).
▪ Man is responsible for the effects of his actions.
▪ The Moral Principle as Basis of Human Action
1. The principle of double effect
a. The action directly intended must be good in itself, or at least
morally indifferent.
- it should always have a good effect (Moral)
- if good effect is impossible, evil effect should not be intended.
b. the good effect must follow from the action or at least as
immediately as the evil effect, or the evil effect may follow from
the good effect.
c. The foreseen evil effect may not be intended or approved but
merely permitted to occur.
d. There must be a proportionate or sufficient reason for allowing
the evil effect to occur while performing the action.
2. The Principle of Totality – the right to cut off, mutilate, or remove any
defective or worn out non-functioning part of his body if it is for the general
well being of the whole body.
- this forbids the donation of a healthy organ for it will weaken the donor.
(against self-preservation)
3. The Principle of Stewardship – human life comes from God and no
individual is the master of his own body.
4. The Principle of Inviolability of Life – life is God’s and has been loaned to us.
- Only God has the complete control or dominion over the person’s life.
- No person has the right to take away one’s life and other’s life.
5. The Principle of Sexuality and Procreation – underscores the two-fold
purpose of sexual union: unitas et procreation
- every person has a natural inclination towards propagation of the species.
- It is natural for man to incline himself towards sexual unity and to enjoy
sexual union.
- human beings are God’s co-creators
Natural and Inalienable Rights of a Human Person
1. Right to Life
2. Right to private Property
3. Right to Marry
4. Right to Physical Freedom and Personal Liberty
5. Right to Worship
6. Right to Work
Corresponding Duties of the Six Natural and Inalienable Rights
1. Duty to Keep Healthy and to take care of oneself
2. Duty to take care of one’s property and respect the property of others.
3. Duty to support one’s family
4. Duty to Respect Private boundaries
5. Duty for Religious tolerance
6. Duty to perform at one’s best
Thank You!
Ethics
Ryan Balbuena Katigbak
UNIVERSITY OF BATANGAS
The Ethics of Immanuel Kant
 Immanuel Kant was born on April 22, 1724 in a small

Prussian town of Konigsberg in northeast Germany.
 He grew up in a religious family.
 Although Kant retained a high regard for religion and had
a deep moral sense, he rejected the puritanical pietism that
prevailed in his family.
Kant’s first education was at Collegium Fredericianum.
Kant entered University of Konigsberg where he studied
classics, physics and philosophy.
 He was extremely studious and competent.
 However, nothing was extraordinary with him that his
teacher never thought that he will be one of most
important thinkers of the modern times.
 After finishing studies, he was not given any offer from the
University.
 He first served as a lecturer with the title of Privatdozent,
a lowly instructor with any official title.
 He became a private tutor and at the age of 46, he was
promoted to the position of professor of logic and
metaphysics.
He served at the clock of the people in his hometown since
everyday, he routinely does the same activities.
 Kant lived during the Age of Enlightenment, when a
Western man flashed with the success of modern
experimental science and Newton’s physics, felt confident of
himself and of his reason.
 It was time for Rationalists, who held that man access to
knowledge by a sheer a priori reason, independent of
experience.
 It was also time for Empiricists, who held that all knowledge
come from a sense of experience (a posteriori) and that except
for logic and mathematics, only statements based on
experience are considered valid.
Kant’s Epistemology as Foundation of Ethics
(Deontological Ethics)
 Immanuel Kant disagreed with the philosophy of both
rationalists and empiricists but affirmed that human
persons possess a faculty that is capable of giving
knowledge without an appeal to an experience.
 He agreed to David Hume that all our knowledge derived
from experience but disagreed that we cannot have
knowledge of any reality beyond experience.
 (according to Kant, Man can still have knowledge even without
experience, in other words, there are knowledge which are
independent of experience)
Kant’s Epistemology as Foundation of Ethics
(Deontological Ethics)
 Not all our knowledge arises out of experience.
 Man have knowledge not from the sense of experience
but directly from the faculty of rational judgement, and
therefore, a priori.
The Deontological Ethics
 Immanuel Kant distinguished analytic, synthetic and synthetic
a priori judgments.
1. Analytic Judgment – the understanding of the predicate is

contained within the understanding of the subject.
e.g. square is a four equally sided polygon
Four equally
Square is a sided
polygon
e.g. A square is a four equally sided polygon.
 Square is the subject
 Four equally sided polygon is the predicate
 in our understanding of the predicate, our mind supplies that it refers
to the subject. (when we say square, it refers to four equally sided
polygon, and whenever we say four equally sided polygon, it refers to
square, in this sense, you did not use your senses to verify the
UNIVERSALITY and NECESSITY – VALIDITY of the statement. Since you
did not use your sense (touch and sight) to know that a square is a for
equally sided polygon, then it embodies the characteristic of a priori.) It
is a priori because it is independent of experience.
another examples are: man is a rational animal
a circle is a non-sided polygon
all bachelors are single
 This judgment is also referred as ANALYTIC A PRIORI
2. Synthetic Judgment – the understanding of the predicate is
NOT contained within the understanding of the subject.
e.g. banana is sweet
Banana is Sweet
 Unlike a square is a four equally sided polygon, that when we say, square,
we immediately think that it refers to square, and vice versa, whenever
we encounter the term sweet, banana is not the first thing that comes into
our mind, and when we say banana, sweet is not the first thing that
comes into our mind. Now in order to know the VALIDITY
(TURTHFULLNESS/NECESSITY) of the statement, we need now to use our
sense of TASTE (EXPERIENCE). This judgment, then, refers to a posteriori
since there is a need for EXPERIENCE.
 This judgment is also referred as SYNTHETIC A POSTERIORI
3. Synthetic A priori Judgment - it is an offshoot of the first two
judgment.
Note: you should notice that the first judgment embodies the belief of the
rationalist whereas the second embodies the belief of the empiricist
e.g.
7+5 = 12
 It is synthetic because the predicate (12) is not contained in the subject
(7+5). It is also analytic in the sense that one no longer needs experience
(counting/computing whether that is manually or mentally) to arrive at
the answer. Plus, it is a VALID statement since it bears the marks of
UNIVERSALITY and NECESSITY, because no one can dispute that
7+5=12. ANYWHERE. ANYWHERE. AT ALL TIME. Then in such regard, it
is a priori.
continuation…
Now, you may disagree that it is does not have the characteristic of a
posteriori since you can easily arrive at 12 as an answer even without
computing the given manually or mentally. Here, the help of experience is
negated. Granted. However, how about big numbers, such as 4,589 + 1,877
= 6,466. (For sure, nagcompute kayo. Hahaha ) In this case, you need now
the help of experience as you will compute the given manually or mentally
just to arrive at the answer. Despite it bears the characteristic of a posteriori
as it now requires experience, it also bears the characteristic a priori since
UNIVERSALLY (anywhere, anytime) and NECESSITY (truthfulness), 4,589 +
1,877 would always give us 6,466.
For these reasons, this judgment is referred SYNTHETIC A PRIORI

SYNTHETIC A PRIORI synthesizes the dispute between the Empiricist
and Rationalist regarding the question, how does man know or what
is the source of knowledge.
REFER TO SLIDE NO 6.
In the Synthetic A Posteriori, Kant explains the necessity of senses
(experience) however, senses are useless without that rational
capacity of man to understand what is obtained by the sense.
This is inspired by the belief of Aristotle that “there is nothing in the
intellect which does not pass through the sense.” (1. Walang magiging
laman ang ating utak 2. na hindi muna dadaan sa ating mga
pandama).
Try to think of it, a man who is blind (sense of sight does not
function), he can never have an idea/knowledge of color. Again,
Walang magiging laman ang ating utak 2. na hindi muna dadaan sa
ating mga pandama, his/her sense of sight is closed as it does not
function, then walang dadaanan un idea of color, kahit anong
paunawa mo na ang kulay dilaw ay ganito, ganyan. He/she will never
understand it.
On the other side, let’s say that all your sense are functioning (How many
senses do you have?), but you do not have the rational capacity to
understand or comprehend what is obtained/grasped by the sense, then
those obtained by your sense or let’s say those that you experience, all of
those would be USELESS. For example, a mentally retarded person, his/her
sense may be functioning well, but he lacks that capacity, then sometime
he/she mis-assesed what he has experience. Kaya nga pamali mali sila. Pag
sila ay nagkamali we sometimes defend them by saying, “hayaan mo na at
hindi naman nila alam ang kanilang ginagawa.” Also for this reason, once
the defendant of an accused to a certain crime was able prove that his client
is mentally ill/retarded, such person will not be sent to prison cell, rather
he/she will be sent to a mental institution because he has no concrete and
proper understanding of things even his/her senses are functioning well.
Hindi ma-proseso ng isip (kasi nga wala un rational capacity kasi mentally
retarded) kung ano ang mga nakuha sa experience.
To put it simply, for example your younger brother or sister, let’s say whose
age is 5-7 years old went to your kitchen after smelling the aroma of dish
which your mother cooked for the whole family. That youngest sibling of
yours touched/grabbed the hot frying pan on top of the gas stove.
Bunso: araaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy
(Narinig ni Nanay….)
Question: What do you think will be the immediate reaction of your Nanay
to your younger sibling?
Normally, Nanay will be worried.
Let’s use the same example:

Ikaw na 18/19 years old: touched the hot frying pan.
Araaaaaaaaaayyyyyy…..
(Narinig ni Nanay….)
Question: what will be the immeidate reaction of your Nanay to you?
Normally, instead of worrying about the burn on your hand, mamumura pa
tayo.
Why did our mother have a different reaction on the same incident?
First, with regards to the reaction to your youngest sibling, yes, his /her
senses are functioning well(empiricist-experience), but at the young age,
he/she cannot yet process/understand by his/her intellect(rationalist) the
object of his/her experience, which on the given example, a recently used
frying pan is hot.
Second, you, all your senses are functioning well and since you are at the
right age, what is expected is your mental capacity is fully developed,
accordingly, what is obtained by your senses can be processed and
understood by your intellect. For this reason, our mother would not worry
about our burn rather, she will scold us, mamumura (katanga tanga eh),
makukurit pa. 
What Kant wants to show is the interdependency of senses(experience-

empiricism) and Reason or Mind(rational capacity-rationalism). BOTH
ARE NECESSARY.
(I hope you were able to understand this topic on Kant )

 Kant agreed with Hume that our knowledge begins with
experience(empiricism). However, he sees the
mind(rationalism) as an active agent doing something with
the objects it experiences.
 Man is an I-think. Not as much as one who is subjected to
some objects
 The subject (Man) is the one that legislates, sets the rules and
boundaries, for the emergence of the object. This is Kant’s
transcendental method.
What is transcendental Method?
 Knowledge – Limited to the world we experience.
 Limited by manner in which our faculties of perception and
thinking organize the raw data of experience.
 Noumenon “thing in itself” - reality which exist independently of
us but we can only know only as it appears to us and is organized
by us.
 Since man’s knowledge is limited to those which he can only experience, and
the noumenon as the thing in itself cannot be an object of experience, then
man cannot know what it is in itself. The noumenon or the thing in itself is
unknowable.
 Now, this is what Kant refers to TRANSCENDENTAL METHOD, a subject (Man)
tries to know the NOUMENON which we already know as unknowable. By
saying trying, that is what transcend means – trying to go beyond the
conditions of possibility. (transcend – pinipilit mong alamin ang noumenon,
pero hinding hindi mo malalaman kasi hindi sya object of experience.)
What is transcendental Method?
There are two realities, namely; phenomenal (phenomenon)
and noumenal (noumenon) reality.
Phenomenon refers to the things as they present themselves
to Man. In other words, things as objects of man’s experience.
e.g. base on what we

can
see(experience/phen
omenon), it is a whole
apple (object of
experience)
Picture not mine

Without seeing(experience) the other
side of the apple using a mirror, what
experience presents to us is that it is a
whole apple. We will believe in it. And
that is Phenomenon. Trying to go
beyond what we can experience
(phenomenon), is transcendental
method. Trying to know the noumenon
is transcendentral method. In this case,
the apple in itself (refer to the meaning
of the noumenon) Now, without the use
of a mirror, there is no chance for us to
know that other side of the apple. It
means that man’s knowledge is limited
to what he can experience.
The Kantian Concept of Morality:
 Man is not subjected to external impositions.
 Man is an autonomous, self-regulating will, conforming to
the absolute but internal demands immanent in him as a
rational will.
 Man is capable of making moral decisions.
 The task of moral philosophy is to discover how we are able
to arrive at principles of behavior that are binding upon all
humanity (Universally Accepted Moral Principle).
 Human person is subject not to the external but to the
internal condition of humanity (GOOD WILL).
 Will of man is considered to be good when it so acts that it
conforms itself to what duty demands.
 True fidelity to what duty demands.
Man fulfils his duty not because he is coerced or forced by external factor
to do so, but he willingly decided to fulfil to his duty. Hindi ka pinilit kung
hindi bukal sa iyong loob na gampanan ang iyong
responsibilidad/tungkulin.
 Deontologism (deontos) emphasis of duty or obligation.
 Duty is that which ought to be done.
 Question: How can one know his duty?

 What is morally right or wrong is solely a matter of intent,
motive, and will.
 Because human person is a self-regulating will, morality is
therefore based on the human person, intuition which is the
internal motive or intention.
The goodness and badness of an action depends on intuition
which is the internal motive or intention.
 Kantian morality can also be considered as form of
intuitionism or a form of motivist theory.
Duty is that which ought to be done despite the inclination
to do otherwise.
A human person is acting morally if and only if he does
whatever is obliged to do (fulfilling his duty).
Moral action is that which is done from a sense of duty or
obligation. In this sense, you are a good person.
 He distinguished actions which are done in accord with
duty from that which is done from a sense of duty.
In accord with duty: a student who studies not for the reason that it is
his duty, for example, to have bright future. In this sense, a student,
though fulfilled his duty, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A MORAL PERSON
(good person) because his INTENTION is not for the fulfilment of his
DUTY. In this case, the student cannot also be considered as an IMMORAL
PERSON since he still accomplished his duty, rather, he is an AMORAL
PERSON which stands in between of moral and immoral person.
From the sense of duty;
A student who studies because it his obligation to study and learn things
that become essential for him to have a good future. In this case, such
student is considered to be MORAL PERSON. It might appear quite
confusing with the in accord to duty, but it is different in the sense that in
the in accord, the intention of the student in studying is immediately to
have a bright/good future, but in the from the sense of duty, his
immediate intention is his obligation to study and learn which will serve
as make his secondary intention-bright future attainable.
In short, you do your duty simply because it is your duty and not for
another reason. Kahit tamad na tamad ka ng mag aral at mas sinisipag
kang mag tiktok, isipin mo lang na duty mo ang mag aral, hindi mo duty
ang mag tiktok, then fulfil your duty. Kung tintamad ang mga estudyante
na mag aral, tinatamad din ang mga guro, pero dahil duty ng mga guro
na magturo, nagtuturo po rin sila kahit tamad na tamad na sila.
The action of a teacher who teaches for the sake of salary is categorized as
ACTION DONE IN ACCORD WITH HIS DUTY. Here, he/she is just an
AMORAL PERSON. He did not do any good nor any bad.
The action of a teacher who teaches his/her student because it is his/her
duty to share knowledge to his/her study is characterized as ACTION
FROM THE SENSE OF DUTY. Here, such teacher is a MORAL PERSON.
Like where we are right now, we are greatly affected by COVID-19, you
(students) should open your LMS not simply because you wish to comply
with the requirements asked from you by your professor, rather, for the
immediate reason that you want to learn. Despite of the COVID-19, you
must still fulfill your duty. The same thing goes to us, as your teachers, we
do LMS because we want to impart knowledge to our students, kasarap
gang walang ginagawa, kung nahihirapan ang maga estudyante sa LMS,
kaming mga guro ay dagdag din itong gawain, however, we still need to
fulfil our duty.
When can a person be considered IMMORAL PERSON?
- When he/she does not fulfil his duty at all.
The emphasis of Kant here is one’s MOTIVE in fulfilling his duty.

Here, consequences of the action are disregarded.
 Amoral (neither moral nor immoral or simply not possessing any
moral value.
 Moral, action done is sense of duty and if he recognizes that he
has a special obligation.
 Essence of morality is found in motive from which act is done.
 The goodness of action is determined whether the act is done
out of duty or not.
How can one determine that one is acting from the sense of
duty?
- when his action is considered as UNIVERSAL PRECEPT
or CODE OF BEHAVIOR (UNIVERSALIZABILITY)
- it means that an action is acceptable to many. (sasang ayon ba
ang lahat? In the case of the teacher and the student, EVERYONE
(universalizability) would agree that their duty is to teach and study
respectively, kung mayroon hindi sasang ayon, it would defeat the concept
of universalizability, then such presumed duty is not their duty.)
The Deontological Ethics: Categorical Imperative
Categorical Imperative
 It is a command or maxim that enjoins a person to do a
certain action without qualification inasmuch as doing such
an act is the most universally accepted thing to do
(UNIVERSAL RULE)
 Here, person will be acting from the sense of duty.
Halimbawa: kung ang katanggap tanggap sa lahat ay tama ang panunulad
sa mga pagsusulit(pandaraya), ito ang magiging categorical imperative,
pero, lagi naman may kokontra na hindi katanggap tanggap ang
panunulad(pandaraya), ibig sabihin nito, hindi iyon ang categorical
imperative, kundi ang kabaliktaran nito, iyon ay ang pagiging tapat sa
pagsusulit. Gamit ang pananaw ni Kant, LAHAT (universal) naman ay
sasangayon na mali anng panunulad at tama ang pagiging tapat sa
pagsusulit. Kung gayon, iyon ang CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
 3 types of imperatives
1. imperative of skill – necessary measure or means of a person
must take in view of the end or goal which he wishes to pursue.
• Hypothetical or conditional
2. imperative of prudence – necessary measure or means of a
person out of tact or practicality to attain happiness.
3. imperative of morality – necessary measure or means to
obtain goodness.
• Intrinsic to the nature of action, independent from any
ulterior end or consequences.
• Unconditional or categorical (OUGHT TO DO)
• Conscience according to St. Thomas
Note: the first and second imperative are condition and hypothetical which
means, a person has the option to comply or not to comply, in other words, a
person can decide whether he/she is going to fulfil what is being asked of
him, whereas regarding the third, it is UNCONDITIONAL and
CATEGORICAL, this means that he/she needs (MUST) fulfil it. Being
intrinsic/natural, then, he has no option but to do it, which in this case, it
refers to his duty.
For example regarding the first imperative, I wish to be a good basketball
player, I have the option to practice or not, regarding the second imperative, I
wish to be happy, I still have the option whether I will do things that will
make me happy. Now, regarding the third imperative, I do not have the option
but to fulfil it, why, because it is my duty, it is intrinsic in me, like universally,
there is a rule that no one has the right to take another’s life, I have no option
but to abide with it, now in case of some individuals who fail to fulfil such
imperative of morality, they will face necessary consequences, e.g.
imprisonment.
Three Formulations whether man’s action is based on the categorical imperative
or not
1. Act only on the maxim whereby they can, and at the same time will, that it will
become universal law. (Kumilos na ang naturang kilos ay syang magiging batas/sinusunod
ng lahat).
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become universal law of nature
“thou shall not cheat”
panunulad, hindi naman ito ang katanggap tanggap sa lahat, kaya naman ang pagiging tapat ang
katanggap tanggap. Dito, ang tamang ikilos ay un katanggap tanggap sa lahat at iyon ay ang hindi
panunulad o pandaraya sa pagsusulit. Kung ang naging katanggap tanggap na sa lahat ay ang
panunulad, ay di saka magiging tama ang panunulad, pero hindi daw iyon ang mangyayari kasi
di sya universal kasi laging may kokontra na magsasabi na mali ang panunulad.
or not
2. Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, every
case as an end, never as means only. (Ituring mo ang iba bilang tao hindi bilang gamit o sa
ibang salita, huwag mong gamitin ang iba)
Kant’s principle of justice, every individual must be of equal value.
“Do not do unto others what you do not wish others do unto you.” – Confucius
kung makikipagkaibigan ay makipagkaibigan dahil itinuturing mo syang kaibigan o tao, hindi
iyong kakaibiganin mo ang isang tao dahil may makukuha ka sa kanya, at kung ganito ang
nangyari, ginagamit mo lang yong tao.
- dyinowa mo dahil mahal mo hindi dahil gusto mong makamove-one.
- bff mo dahil bff mo hindi dahil tinuturuan ka sa mga lessons na nahihirapan ka.
- tumulong ka sa isang pulubi hindi dahil gusto mong makatulong kung hindi para sumikat,
katulad ng ginagawa ng ilan natin pulitiko.
or not
3. Act so as your will become the universal law.
The basis of my action and my decision should always be the universal law. If my
action is going to be acceptable to everybody, then that said action will be my
obligation. Not to do my obligation will make me immoral.
Continuation…
Each subject must through his own use of reason will maxims which have the
form of universality, but do not impinge on the freedom of others: thus each
subject must will maxims that could be universally self-legislated.
Another formulation: A free will and will under moral laws are one and the same”
This means that man having autonomy does not mean that he can do whatever he wants. I want to
kill someone, taking autonomy to the absolute perspective then it can be said that I can kill
whoever I want, however, in the exercise of autonomy or freedom, it should not affect other’s
freedom so far as they also have their own freedom. We are free when we act according to our
nature, it refers to what is intrinsic to us – a priori, that is, categorical imperative(moral laws). In
this regard, moral laws(categorical imperative) will ensure mutual respect among subjects.
Categorical Imperative is the guide to moral action (Voice
of duty, a sense of oughtness).
Imperative is a priori hence it is definite and changeless. It
is the only thing in the realm of morals that definite and in
a relative and changing world.
Since imperative is a priori then it is intrinsic, accordingly, our
categorical imperative which denotes our DUTY is INTRINSIC in
us.
The Kantian Concept of a Moral Person
 Human person is an autonomous, self-regulating will
who is capable of making a moral decision.
Ang tao ay maykapangyarihan o kakayanan sa magdesisyon na hindi
naiimpluwensyahan ng iba.
 Autonomy, as governing, regulating, restraining oneself,
including one’s own choice or courses of action in accord
with the most principles which are one’s own and which
are binding on everyone.
 Every person has worth and dignity inasmuch as he is an
end in himself and capable of making his own moral
decisions.
 Every person’s must not be treated as means for other
person’s ends.
 Mutual respect between persons in moral relation on the
basis of justice.
 Its violation would form injustice, hence such action is
considered morally unacceptable
 Kant distinguished perfect duty vs imperfect duty.
Perfect duty – must always be observed irrespective of
time, place, or circumstance.
e.g. not to cause harm to others
Imperfect Duty – which a person must observe only on
some occasion.
e.g. a doctor who prioritizes his/her relative. (pinauna
ang kamag anak)
being a relative he has a duty to his/her relative.
the doctor may or my may not elect to fulfil that
role.
What Kant wants to emphasize here is that man is an autonomous,
self-regulating will who is capable of making a moral decision.
(May kakayanan magdesisyon)
Critique on the Kantian Ethics
 For as long as one is doing an action based on duty, the said action is considered
to be morally good irrespective of its consequences.
 Kantian ethical principle is heartless for it does not look back on its
consequences.
(based on the principle of Kant’s ethical theory, as long as you are doing your duty because it is
your duty then you are a good person, but the question is, how about those soldiers of Hitler who
were only fulfilling their roles.)
 Kant failed to take into consideration a situation wherein there are cases of
conflicting duties.
(BF/GF duties vs Student Duties) walang sinsabi si Kant kung ano ang mas nararapat mamayani.
Chapter 10
The Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarianism maintains that everyone desires happiness an pleasure.
Accordingly, an act is considered as morally good it is produces the
greatest amount of happiness with everyone (greatest good of the
greatest number)
Pag madami ang naligayahan, ang kilos ay ituturing na katanggap tanggap o tama.
Ang sinusunod dito ay ang kung ano ang nakakapagpaligaya sa nakakarami. (RULE OF
THE MAJORITY)
 The rightness and wrongness if an action are determined by the

goodness and badness of their consequence (outcome).
Ang tinutukoy ng consequence ay kung sino at ilan ang nanagana(benefitted) sa
ginawang kilos, muli, ang panuntunan ay kapag madami ang naligayahan ay
maituturing na ang nagawang kilos ay tama/kapuri-puri.
Utilitarian Ethics is founded on the principle of UTILITY.

If you will try to look on the dictionary, one of the synonym of UTILITY is USEFULNESS,
then, what is useful is regarded as good. On this case, WHAT ISUSEFUL TO THE
MAJORITY or WHAT WOULD BENEFIT THE MAJORITY is regarded as GOOD.
Ordinarily, usefulness is determined by the amount of happiness obtained. On the
other side, UNUSEFULNESS to the majority is bad. Unusefulness is determined if an act
instead of bringing happiness, that means, it brings pain.
 This philosophy is greatly influenced by Thomas Hobbes who put an
emphasis on the people’s selfish concern for their won pleasure.
 The Utilitarians were also aware if the idea of David Hume, who believed
that people would never be able to know the universal law.
 Morality then is focused on the people’s capacity for sympathy – tendency to
consider the pleasure of others. (Anong nakakapagpaligaya sa nakakarami).
 John Locke claimed that the aptness in us to produce pleasure is what we
should consider good; and the desire to produce pain is considered evil.
 Happiness of others serves as the basis of human goodness.

(What makes man happy according to Utilitarianism is pleasure, then pleasure to the
majority is the standard of goodness.)
The Book, Introduction to the principles of morals and
legislation, of Jeremy Bentham with the sentence:
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of
two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”
(ang kilos na makakapagpaligaya ay ituturing na tama at ang kilos
na nakakapagdulot ng sakit ay ituturing na masama)
We have to follow the principle of the Greatest

Happpiness, i.e., choose that action that leads to the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Kaya naman, sa bawat kilos ng tao ayon kay Bentham ay nararapat
nyang isipin kung ito bang kilos na ito ay
makakapagdulot/makakapaghatid ng ligaya at sakit sa iba-
nakakarami.
Bentham rejected all monarchies and established
churches, claiming that “all government is in itself one
vast evil for not being able to provide its subordinates
with the necessary happiness that each one
experiences.”
 Bentham and Mill held the idea that the
human person should perform an action that
will bring happiness to the greatest number
of people.
 The rightness and wrongness of an action
are determined by the goodness and
badness of their consequence.
 Principle of utility
 Amount of pleasure and amount of pain
 Utilitarianism – “Actions are good insofar as they
tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to
produce unhappiness.”
 Pleasure – is the determinant of an action as good.
 The morality of action as entirely dependent on
consequence or results of human well-being of
OTHERS or more so of the WHOLE SOCIETY.
One may be deceived that Utilitarianism is entirely similar with
Epicureanism, however, what distinguishes the two school of
thought is that, utilitarianism thinks of the well being of the
society-MAJORITY while epicureanism thinks only of one’s
welfare.
Ang utilitarianism kahit na ang panuntunan ng tama ay ang

nakakapagpaligaya(pleasure)sa tao, pero nilinaw na ito ay
naiiba sa Epicureanism sa kadahilan ang tinutukoy na
napapaligaya ng Utilitarianism ay hindi lang sarili bagkos ang
iba, lalot higit ang buong kuminidad. Malaking iba ito sa
ipinaglalaban ng Epiureanism an ang mahalaga lang sa kanila
ay un nakakapagpaligaya(pleasure) sa isang indibidwal.
Dahil ang pinaglalaban ng utilitarianism ay ang
nakakapagpaligaya sa iba, ibig sabihin ang pinahahalagahan
nito ay un epekto, bunga, o resulta(CONSEQUENCE) ng anuman
kilos sa ibang tao o komunidad. Sa aspetong ito, itoy nararapat
lamang din tawagin TELEOLOGICAL na ngangahulugan “end’ o
purpose.” At iyon nga ang dapat maging “end” o “purpose” ng
kilos ayon sa Utilitarianism ay ang makapagpaligaya sa
nakakarami.
Every human person ought to choose the action, among the many other
possible ones, that produces the most benefits, i.e., comfort or happiness,
at the least cost of pain or unhappiness. Indeed, some pains may result
from the action that human beings may take. However, what is important is
that each person should do the action that has greatest possible balance of
happiness over unhappiness for all individuals affected.
Maaring may mga kilos na nakakapagdulot ng masakit, ngunit maari pa din itong gawin
kung sa gagawing kilos ay marami(MAJORITY) pa din ang mananagana(BENEFIT).
Halimbawa: leakage ng exam, dahil marami ang mananagana, maituturing ito na tama o
katanggap tanggap, batay sa panunutunan na pinanghahawakan ng Utilitarianism. Sa
simpleng dahilan, marami ang nanagana.
In contrast with the claim of Epicureanism, Utilitarianism as
introduced by Bentham and Mill tried to avoid any sense of
individualism or subjectivism. On this note, they gave
another alternative formulation of the Principle of
Utility-Principle of the Greatest Number
An action id good if it produces the greatest

happiness for the greatest number of people. And
bad if it produces more harm than benefit for the
greatest number of the individual.
 Principle of Equity
The Hedonistic Calculus (Jeremy Bentham)
 Pleasure – proper measure or criterion of right conduct
 Pleasure-pain calculus or hedonistic calculus a method of determining
which of alternative actions would be preferable because of the amount of
pleasure to be anticipated.
1. Intensity – how strong (the more intense, the better) sa pagtindi ng sarap, sa
pag tama ng kilos
2. duration – how long (the longer, the better) sa haba ng sarap, sa pag tama ng
kilos
3. certainty – how like or unlike it will occur (the more certain, the better) sa
pagkatiyak na makukuhang sarap, sa pag tama ng kilos
4. propinquity – how soon will it last (the longer, the better) sa pag tagal ng
sarap, sa pag tama ng kilos
4. fecundity – how like it will produce more (the greater the chance that
an action will produce pleasure, the better) sa paglaki ng posibilidad na
makapagdulot ng sarap ang isang kilos, sa pagtama ng kilos
5. purity – relative absence of pain (the purer the pleasure, the better)
sa pagkatiyak na hindi sakit ang maidudulot ng isang kilos, sa pagtama nito
6. extent of action – number of people affected (the greater number of
people affected, the better) sa pagdami ng nanagana/nasarapan sa isang kilos,
sa pagtama ng kilos na ito
 Bentham maintained an individual’s egoistic pleasure as a goal of a good
action.
 This egoistic pleasure is shared because the pleasure and interests of
one person coincide with those of others. (Ganunpaman na ang
pinahahalalagahan ay ang pansariling kaligayahan(egoistic pleasure) pero hindi
maitatanggi na itong mga nakakapagpaligaya sa sarili ay sya din naman
nakakapagpaligaya sa iba(coincide with those of others), ibig sabihin ang mga tao ay
nagnanais ng mga parehong bagay sapagkat, ang mga bagay na ito ay
nakakapagpaligaya sa kanila(Man desires same things).
 Therefore, Calculate carefully the amount of pleasure and pain that any
act will bring.
 After calculating both, the amount of pain should be subtracted from the
amount of pleasure in order to determine the balance.
(sa pagsagawa ng isang kilos, matutong suriin ang taas ng makukuhang sarap laban sa
matatamong sakit. Pagkatapos ngpagtutuos na ito, kung lamang ang makukuhang sarap
kumpara sa makukuhang sakit, ang kilos na isasagawa ay ituturing na mas mabuti)
Pleasure should be greater than plain, if it is what is obtained, then the action is good.
The Benevolent-Spectator Principle
 Stuart Mill disagreed with hedonistic calculus that he modified
Bentham’s egoistic principle.
 Reasons:
 impossible to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain which can be
obtained from a certain action. (hindi kayang timbangin ang taas na makukuhang
sarap at baba ng makukuhang sakit sa isang kilos)
 No means by which a human person can determine which is more
intense (pleasure) or more acute (pain) (walang paraan/instrumento na
makakasukat at makakapgsabi na ang isang kilos ay mas matindi/mataas ang naidulot na
sarap o ang isang kilos ay mababa lamang ang naidulot na sakit.)
 Mill placed greater importance on the happiness of all rather than one’s own
happiness.
 Happiness of all should always be taken into consideration before making a
moral decision. (sa paggawa ng desisyon kung ano ang gagawin, kailangan laging isaalang-
alang ang kaligayan(sarap) ng lahat at hindi ng iilan lamang.
 Need for us to choose acts that produce for us the greatest quantity of
pleasure, help other achieve their own happiness in that way we would be
able to secure our own. - (Greatest Happiness Principle)
 Yes, Mill accepted the Greatest Happiness Principle of Bentham, however, he added another
criterion, that is, the quality of ALTRUISM(OTHERNESS). This means that one’s own happiness
should not be the standard but rather the happiness of all the concerned.
Kung kay Bentham ang mahalagaya ay makakuha ang isang indibidwal(egoistic) ng mataas na
sarap/ligaya, pra naman kay Mill, mas nararapat na isaalang-alang ay ang makukuhang
sarap/ligaya hindi ng isang taonlamang, o ng iilan, kung hindi lahat(ALTRUISM-OTHERNESS).
 According to Mill, in the task of choosing between one’s own happiness and the
happiness of other, one should be impartial as an disinterested and benevolent
spectator.
Ibig sabhin ni Mill, sa pagpili/paghusga kung alin ang mamayani/masusunod sa pagitan ng
kaligayan ng isang tao at kaligayan ng iba/nakakarami, nararapat lamang na sa paghusga ay
walang kinikilingan/kinakampihan/pinapanigan(disinterested) at tingnan mo ito bilang sa
pananaw ng isang nanonod na may mabuting kalooban (benevolent spectator). Sa paraan ito,
makakasigurado na ang mapipiling bigyan ng halaga ay ang kaligahan ng
iba(others/community) kasi kung may pinapanigan at sa pananaw ng isang manonood na may
hindi busilak na puso, tiyak na ang uunahin nito ay ang pangsariling interes, at iyon ay nag
makakapagpaligaya/makakapagdulot ng sarap sa kanya(Egoistic)
Hedonistic Calculus vs Benevolent-Spectator Principle
Hedonistic Calculus
Benevolent-Spectator
• Principle: Greatest Happiness Approach
(taas ng makukuhang Principle: Greatest Happiness of
ligaya/sarap kilos) the Others (Majority)
- ang unang konsiderasyon sa
pagsasagawa ng kilos ay ang
kapakanan ng iba, iyon ay ang
makakapagpaligaya sa iba
• Quantitative Hedonism
(quantity is related to • Qualitative Hedonism (Quality
measure) – pleasure and pain mean kind – uri/kalidad)
calculus - ano ang uri ng kilos na
- ang pinaglalaban dito ay ang isasagawa?
taas ng makukuhang -
ligaya/sarap sa isingawang
kilos)
Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism
 Both Bentham and Mill maintained that the principle of utility should always
be considered in terms of one’s own moral decisions.
Bentham Mill
ACT UTILITARIANISM – the RULE UTILITARIANISM – people
rightness or wrongness of an act is must evaluate the moral
determined by its effect on the correctness of an action not in
general happiness. (Ang tanong dito reference to its impact on the
ay, ang kilos bang isinagawa ay general happiness, but rather, with
nakapagpaligaya sa marami? Kung OO,
respect to the impact on the
ang kilos ay maituturing na tama at
kung HINDI, ang kilos naman ay general happiness of the rule that
maituturing na mali. Wala ng iba pang the action embodies. (Hindi ang
isasaalang-alang.) unang tanong dito ay, ang kilos ba ay
nakapagdulot ng ligaya sa marami,
kung hindi, ang kilos ba ay maitutuing
na tama o naayon sa mga umiiral na
batas, kung oo, kahit iilang ang
napaligaya/ o kahit pa sabhin na
marami, mananatili ang kilos na mali.
Bentham Mill
ACT UTILITARIANISM RULE UTILITARIANISM
e.g. death penalty to a convicted e.g. executing a rapist may be
rapist – here, this will be judged as allowed by a law in a certain
good since many will be happy nation, however, it will remain as a
especially those families of his/her form of killing, and killing is always
victims. More so, it will also bring wrong, then, death penalty being
comfort(happiness) even to the against the rule – you shall not kill
non-victims for they would no or no one has the right to kill
longer worry that same thing will another person, then it remains to
happen to their loved ones. Here, be wrong or morally unacceptable.
death penalty is good or morally
accpetable.
Bentham Mill
e.g. death penalty to a convicted e.g. executing a rapist may be
rapist – here, this will be judged as allowed by a law in a certain
good since many will be happy nation, however, it will remain as a
especially those families of his/her form of killing, and killing is always
victims. More so, it will also bring wrong, then, death penalty being
comfort(happiness) even to the against the rule – you shall not kill
non-victims for they would no or no one has the right to kill
longer worry that same thing will another person, then it remains to
happen to their loved ones. Here, be wrong or morally unacceptable.
death penalty is good or morally
acceptable.
Another example
Bentham Mill
e.g. President Duterte’s fight e.g. Killing the drug addicts remains
against drugs. It killed many to be morally unacceptable since
persons involved in drugs, this is regardless they have been involved
justifiable because it brings in illegal substances that may lead
happiness or pleasure on the part them to do different form of crimes,
of the public since their security is still, it is a form of killing.
insured/guaranteed.
Bentham Mill
• Hedonistic Calculus • Benevolent-Spectator

(Pleasure and Pain Approach
Calculus)
• Quantitative • Qualitative Hedonism

Hedonism
• Rule Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism
Critique on Utilitarianism
 Following Utilitarianism, it is allowed to sacrifice the few if it is for the
betterment of the majority. On this ground, one can ask, what about the
rights of the minority? (Paano naman un iilan, dahil ba silay iilan ay ayos lang na
maisaalang-alang ang kapakanan nila para lang sa kapakanan ng nakakarami?)
 This is a form of injustice for it would appear that some are more important than
others. People are unequally treated. Always remember, everyone has rights, then
either you belong to the majority or minority, both have rights.
 Another example, those who lost their lands, specifically those who live in the
mountain ranges. Their lands were forcedly bought from them by various
businessman who would say that they would open countless job opportunities to the
public, however, the rights of those who live in the mountains were sacrifice. Their
rights are of equal value with the rights of the public. All of them are human. No on
is greater than the other.
Critique on Utilitarianism
 Evil motives is acceptable for as long as it produce desirable results to
everybody.
 Accepting this principle would mean, the action of Robinhood is commendable
or morally acceptable because his act of stealing goods from the rich produces
desirable result, since it benefits the majority. But despite of the
consequence/outcome of such act, we believe that stealing would always be
wrong or inacceptable.
Chapter 11:
Pragmatic Ethics
Pragmatic Ethics
• The term pragmatism is derived from the Greek word
pragma, which means “act” or “deed.”
• Practice or practical
• It was introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced as
purse) in 1878. It was given wide and popular circulation
through the brilliant essays of William James.
• John Dewey methodically implemented it into the daily
affairs of American institutions (James 1992, 39).
Pragmatic Ethics: Concept of a Good Life
• These three were united by their conviction that there must
be a close connection between thinking and doing.
• The efficacy in practical application somehow provides a
standard for the determination of truth in the cases of
statement, rightness in the case of actions, and value in the
case of appraisal.
• Kung naisasabuhay(application), ito ang magsasabi na ang isang bagay
ay totoo(truth), tama (rightness), mahalaga (value). Refer to the early
statement.
• Pragmatism is more of a theory of knowledge, truth, and
meaning than morality.
• However, there appears moral interests and moral language
in it.
• Sa unang pagsusuri, hindi ito maututuring na moral theory na
magsasabi kung ano ang tama o mali dahil mas lamang na ito theory of
knowledge o pagpapaliwanag ng kaalaman ng tao, ngunit, hindi naman
maitatanggi na sa ilang sa sulat ni James ay makikitaan ng ito ng
masasabing moral theory.
• It mediates the schools of thought: empiricism and
rationalism.
• Sa panig ng Empiricism, sumangayon ang Pragmatism na ang tao ay
walang kumpletong kaalaman sa mga bagay bagay, ang kaalaman nito sa
mga bagay bagay ay sa ibat ibang anggulo/perspektibo.
• Sa panig ng Rationalism, sinangayunan ng Pragmatism ang paniniwala
na ang kahon ng kaalaman(realm of values) natin ay mahalagang aspeto
sa atin pagunawa sa atin mga nararanasan.
• According to Pragmatism, ideas are clear and distinct only
when we are able to translate them into some type of
operation.
• Ang mga ideya na mayroon ang tao ay nagiging malinaw at tiyak kung
itoy magagamit sa aktwal.
• Halimbawa: maunawaan ang isang ideya katulad ng sinsabi ni Kant
patungkol sa unang uri ng Paghusga (kind of Judgment) – Analytic A
priori, na ngangahulugan na ang predicate ay nakapaloob sa subject
(refer to the discussion on Kant). Sa una ay maaring hindi ito maunawaan
ngunit sa pamamagitan ng paggamit nito sa aktwal at dito nga ay
paggamit ng isang halimbawa, mas madaling maunawaan ang ideyang
nabanggit. Ang halimbawa ng Analytic A priori judgment ay ang tatsulok
ay hugis na may tatlong sulok. Sa isang umuunawa madali na ngayon
nyang mauuunawaan kung ano ang tinutukoy ng Analytic A priori.
• Dapat tandaan na ang Pragmatism ay nakatungtong sa paniniwala na ang
mga bagay bagay ay dapat ay naisasagawa or naisasabuhay dahil kung
hindi ang mga ito(bagay) ay magiging walang saysay. Things which
cannot be put into practice are worthless/useless. Pragmatism means
practical or practice.
• If a word will not be tied up to any observable practical

results, it will be considered meaningless because its
meaning is the sum total of its practical consequence.
• Pierce agreed with the empiricist in its claim that meaning is

based on experience and determined by experience.
• James’ concept of morality focused on more apparent issues.
• James looked for what he called the cash value statements,
the practical pay off.
• Ang halaga ng isang bagay ay kung hindi ay naisasabuhay o
napapakinabangan (practicality). Walang saysay ang isang bagay kung
ito ay hindi nagagamit.
• Perhaps you sometimes hear from the elder of the family the cliché,
“Maging praktikal sa buhay!!!” Perhaps you already know what does this
statement mean. This embodies the whole concept of Pragmatism.
• Example: you are financially able, the resounding question is, why did you
choose to study at University of Batangas?
one of the answer maybe is the University offers the same quality education
and studying here in the province is easier in many aspect like you can easily
go home even you are renting a boarding house, meals to eat will be least of
your problem especially to those who still live at home(lalabas lang ng
kwarto, may nakahanda ng pagkain, maghugas din naman ng pinggan☺ ), in
Manila, that’s a common struggle, everyday you need to think what are you
going to eat(kakain mo palang ng umagahan, iisipin mo na ulit saan ka
kakain ng tanghalian), another thing that makes education in the province
more appealing is it’s affordability, however you can still obtain the same
quality of education which universities in Manila offer.
Pragmatism as a Basis for Doing Good
• It is considered as epistemological. (Dahil ang halaga ng isang
bagay ay nakabatay sa kagamitan nito)
• Our ideas are clear and distinct only when we are able to
translate them into some mode of operation.
• If a word refers to an object or a quality about which no

practical effects can be conceived, such a word has no
meaning.
Pragmatic Ethics
▪ Idea would be meaningless if it will not be put into action
and such action must bring practical results.
▪ The good ness of an action depends on its practicality.
▪ A true and valid form of knowledge is one which is practical,
workable, beneficial and useful. (nagagamit at
kapakipakinabang)
▪ Hence, the goodness of an action depends on its
consequences(bunga).
Pragmatic Ethics
▪ Pragmatism is also referred as: EXPERIMENTALISM
INSTRUMENTALISM
RECONSTRUCTIONISM
PROGRESSIVISM
▪ Pragmatism believed that truth is the cash value of an

idea, accordingly, can only be considered good depending
upon the monetary considerations that such judgment or
statement will incur.
▪ An act is good if it benefits the human society.

(kapakipakinabang)
Pragmatic Ethics
Critique to Pragmatic Ethics
• Provided an answer to Utilitarianism’s concept of justice.
(hindi na ang pinagtatalunan ay kung marami-majority ang nakinabang,
ang pinaguusapan ay kapakipakinabang-good of the minority ba ang
isinagawang kilos)
• Important to place one’s self first so that the person may
become better in his position to be of better service to the
society and be able to provide happiness to the greatest
number of people. (Unahin mo muna ang sarili mo kasi kung ayos
ka na, mas madali nang gumawa ng anuman kilos na
makakabuti/makikinabang ang iba)
Pragmatic Ethics
• Performing one’s duty would become meaningless if it will
not produce practical results.
Halimbawa: bakit sa kabila ng pagiging walang bunga(practical results) ng
walang sawang paalala ng mga magulang/guro ay sa kanilang mga anak at
mga estudyante ay patuloy pa din nilang ginagampanan ang kanilang mga
tungkulin? Dahil ba itoy walang nagiging bunga ay ititigil na ba nilang
gawin ang kanilang mga obligasyon o responsibilidad? Kung susundin ang
pragmatism, ssabihin natin na nararapat nang itigil dahil walang nagiging
bunga, pero alam natin na hindi iyon ang sagot, kailangan pa din nilang
ipagpatuloy ang kanilang tungkulin.
Pragmatic Ethics
• Truth is the cash value of idea. Overly materialistic to the
detriment of the spiritual development of a person.
Kung ang iisipin lang ay kung ano ang magiging sukli o balik o pakinabang
ng isang kilos/bagay, magiging makamateryal tayo. Kung baga, nakilos tayo
dahil sa magiging kapalit.
• This would lead to Selfishness since the focus of one’s action
is not the happiness of the greatest number but the
practicality of one’s action to his own self. (Dahil sa kilos ay ang
iniisip ay ang pakinabang nito sa sarili, magiging makasarili naman ang
magiging bunga nito-pragmatism)
Pragmatic Ethics
Note: Pag sinasabing maging praktikal, may pinagpilian opsyon.
Parehong opsyon ay tama, mas pinili mo lang ay kung alin ang mas
madali.
Halimbawa: Hindi pwedeng sabihin na mas praktikal ang manulad kaysa
sa mag aral kasi ang panunulad ay mali at ang tama ay ang pag aaral.
The students in UB are arguing between using the overpass or crossing

the street under the overpass for it won’t make them tired. In this
case, practicality should not be used as a justification.
Not using the overpass or crossing the street not on pedestrian lane is
considered to be morally unacceptable because if you won’t use the
overpass and merely cross the street you are violating a rule which is
jaywalking.
Pragmatic Ethics
End of the Chapter

Chapter 12
The Power Ethics
The Power Ethics
Friedrich Nietzsche
Philosophy:
• God is Dead
• Superman
• Will to power
• Master Morality vs Slave Morality
The Power Ethics
Friedrich Nietzsche
➢ In the University of Leipzig, he met Professor Friedrich
Ritschl – kindled in him a passion for philology(the study
of classical philosophy) and literature.
➢ Here, he discovered the Philosophy of Arthur
Schopenhauer through his book “The world as will and
representation.”
Nung si Nietzsche ay nagpunta sa isang tindahan ng mga libro, may
kung anong nagwika sa kanya(Daimon) na hawakan at bilihin ang libro
ni Schopenhauer. Ito ay hindi nya normal na gawain na basta basta
nalang bibili ng libro, hindi nya mawari kung anong mayroon sa libro at
naging interesado sya. Pagkauwi nya sa kanyang tinutuluyan ay agad
nyang binasa ito. Bawat linya sa librong ito ay nagpapahiwatig ng
kapangitan/kasamaan (renunciation, negation, and resignation)
The Power Ethics
Arthur Schopenhauer
▪ Pessimism, belief that life is disappointing and that for
every satisfied desire, ten new unsatisfied and
withdrawal. (Sa buhay mas marami tayong nararanasan
kalungkutan, kasawian, sakit kaysa sa nararanasan nating
kaligayahan/kasayahan)
▪ Detachment and withdrawal. (Maiiwasan natin ang pagkabigo,
kasawian, kalungkutan ng buhay kung matututo tayong wag ilubog
ang mga sarili natin sa mga bagay bagay. Isipin natin ang mga bagay
bagay ay nadaan lang, lilipas din. Halimbawa, bakit tayo nasasaktan
sa kaibigan nagtaksil sa atin? Kasi, ibinigay natin ang sarili natin,
kung una palang ay may reservation ka na, hindi ka masasaktan pag
may ginawa syang masama sayo.)
The Power Ethics
▪ Life is nothing more than a constant will to survive (ang
buhay ay laban ng patatagan dahil ito nga ay puno ng mga
kalungkutan, kaya nabubuhay ang tao para lang
manalo/mapagtagumpayan/malampasan ang mga ganitong mga
karanasan), constant struggle to nothingness (ang buhay ay
walang hanggang pakikigpaglaban na wala naman tinutungo).
▪ Equally committed to an equally meaningless existence.
(dahil ang buhay ng tao ay puno ng mga kasawian, masasabing ang
buhay ay wala naman talagang halaga. Kung iisipin, nabubuhay lang
tao para makaranasan ng mga kasawian. Dito, maiisip natin na
talagang walang halaga/kwenta ang buhay. Ngayon, dahil tayo ay
nabubuhay, ang kailangan natin gawin ay tatagan ang loob at manalo
sa mga kinakaharap at nakaambang kasawian sa ating mga buhay.
The Power Ethics
▪ Pawns of life force, detach our self from the cycle of
wanting-getting-wanting more.
• Tayong mga tao ay mga tau-tauhan lang dito sa mundo. (Ito ay hango
sa pyesa ng larong chess). Bilang tauhan, tyak tayong makakaranas
ng kasawian, dahil ang buhay ay puro lungkot/kabiguan/kasawian.
• Bakit ang tao ay nasasaktan/nasasawi?
• Kasi daw ay ang tao ay may mga ginugusto na pag nakuha ay hindi
makontento, ang gagawin nito ay gugusto pa ng iba pa o ng higit pa,
pag nakuha, ay gugusto pa ng mas marami, sa ganitong paguugali, ay
dadarating na may ginugugusto ang tao na hindi nya makukuha, pag
nangyari un, kalungkutan nag kanyang mararamdaman. Kung ito
ang nagiging dahilan ng mga kasawian sa buhay ng tao, dapat matuto
ang tao na maalis (detach) sa ganun paguugali.
The Power Ethics
▪ Life is an irrational, purposeless striving for a pointless
existence. (Ang buhay dahil sa mga kasawian ng ibibigay nito ay
walang halaga. Ano iyon, nabubuhay tayo para masawi/magdusa?
Kaya naman, tamang isipin na tayo ay nabubuhay para sa wala.)
▪ Live at all costs (dahil ang buhay ay patatagan, mamuhay tayo sa
anuman pamamaraan) and curtail our desires (at para
maiwasan ang maaring maranasang kalungkutan/kasawian, matuto
and tao na pigilan/limitahan ang ating mga sarili sa mga ginugusto
nito)
▪ Free them from expectations, which inspire bitterness.
(Wag umasa sa mga bagay bagay, dahil magdadala lang ito ng sakit sa
ating mga sarili.)
The Power Ethics
Continuation:
▪ Halimbawa: 1. lagi kang pinadadalhan ng morning text like good
morning, kumain ka na, ano gingawa mo, ina-update ka sa kanyang
ginagawa, at sinsabihan ka ng ingat kada nagsasabi kang uuwi ka na, ay
dahil ikaw ay umasa/asang asa na may something ☺, (ay papano pag
wala Chinat pero hindi jinowa ☺), ay di nasaktan ka lang. Ang leksyon
dito, sabi nga ni Schopenhauer ay huwag umasa sa mga bagay bagay.
▪ Happiness is not part of life. (ang buhay ay puro kasawian, hindi
bahagi ng buhay ang kasiyahan)
▪ To avoid greater disappointment, free yourselves from
greater expectations. (wag asa ng asa, baka naman nga-nga ang
mangyari)
▪ Turn pain into knowledge, reason. (Hindi ka masasaktan kung sa
una palang ay ginamit mo na ang isip na wag umasa o tinuruan ang isip
na wag maghangad ng sobra sobra.)
The Power Ethics
Ang pilosopiya niya ay naimpluwensyahan ng mga unang turo ng Budismo
tungkol sa mga lungkot nng buhay. Si Buddha ay anak ng kilalang tao, nakatira
ito sa bahay na mala palasyo, sya din ay maituturing na miracle child dahil
natagalan ang kanyang mga magulang na magkaanak, kaya naman nun
ipinanganak sya ay lahat ng magaganda ay ibinigay sa kanya. Wala syang
hirap/kalungkutan naranasan, minsan, tumakas siya sa kanila, sa paglabas nya
ng kanilang palasyong bahay dito nya natunghayan ang ibat ibang
kalungkutan/kasawian ng buhay(four noble truths) katulad ng sakit(sickness),
katandaan(old age), pagdurusa(pain), at kamatayan(death). Sa paglalakad nya,
mga taong may sakit, matanda, nagdurusa, at patay ang kanyang nadaanan.
Dito nya naisip na mali ang kanyang unang pagtingin sa buhay na ang buhay
ay puro sarap, dito ay mahalaga nag papel na ginampanan ng kanyang mga
magulang kaya Siya’y nagkamayroon ng ganitong paniniwala. Hindi pala iyon
ang buhay, nasabi nya ang buhay ay puno ng paghihirap/kalungkutan.
The Power Ethics
Ang mundo daw na ito, dahil nga puno ng mga kalungkutan, ay hindi daw
nilikha ng isang mapagmahal na manlilikha, kung hindi ito ay demonyo, dahil
bakit nya lilikhain ang mga nilalang sa mundo kung ang mga ito ay magdurusa
lamang din. Ano iyon, nilikha nya para magdusa? Ano yon, natutuwa sya na
nagdurusa ang kanyang mga nilikha? Kung ganoon, demonyo syang
maituturing at hindi isang mapagmahal na manlilikha.
• Through the influence of his mother’s friend, Johann Wolfgang

van Geothe, he advised his readers that they should endeavor
to transform tears into knowledge in order to at least have
amore fulfilled and less troubled life. (dapat may natutunan tayo sa
mga nararansan natin mga kasawian sa buhay)
The Power Ethics
Friedrich Nietzsche
• Fulfillment is an illusion. (Ang tao ay walang makukuhang
katuparan ng kanyang mga ginugusto. Ang katambal na emosyon nag
katuparan ay ligaya, ay dahil nga wala naman katuparan dito sa
mundo, wala din kaligayahan. Puro kalungkutan lang ang buhay.)
• Fulfillment was to be reached not by avoiding pain, but by

recognizing its role as a natural, inevitable step on the way
to reaching anything good. (Ang ligaya ang katambal na emosyon
ng fulfilment at ito ay hindi makakamit sa pag-iwas sa mga
lungkot/kasawian ng buhay kung hindi sa pagtanggap nito na itoy
bahagi talaga ng buhay. Ang mga kalungkutan ay daan para sa isang
kaligayahan.
The Power Ethics
▪ Friedrich Nietzsche held that people should not expect

that there would be happiness in life. (Wag umasa na
makakakamit ng mga kaligayahan dito sa mundo, kung mayroon may
kaligayahan, ang katotohanan ay mas marami padin ang kalungkutan
ng buhay kaysa sa kaligayahan ng buhay.)
▪ Everyman has an inherent tendency to aspire for the will

to power. (Dahil nga ang buhay ay puro paghihirap, kaya naman
ang bawat isa ay may natural na paghahangad na magkamayroon ng
kapangyarihan/lakas ng loob na manalo o mapagtagumpayan o
malampasan-will to power ang mga kalungkutan nyang nararanasan
sa buhay.)
The Power Ethics
▪ Life is full of ups and downs. (Ang buhay ay may mga saya at
hapis/sakit.)
▪ In his writings, Nietzsche can be interpreted as a
philosopher who is searching for new means in order to
arrive at humanism without any constraints of the past,
which according to him, has sorrowfully brought man to
his distressing status today. (Pansin sa kanyang mga sinulat na
isa syang pilosopo na nagiisip ng bagong pamamaraan kung papaano
mamuhay-humanism na malayo sa lumang kaisipin dahil itong mga
lumang kaisipan ay nagpapaniwala sa mga tao na makakatagpo sila
ng kaligayanhan dito sa mundo, sinabi nya na hindi ito ang katotohan
ng buhay. Ang buhay ay magulo, puro paghhihirap, ngayon, ang
tanong at hamon ay papaano mamuhay sa ganitong katotohanan.)
The Power Ethics
▪ He commented that culture, particularly the German
Culture, the whole humanity is headed for a new
barbarism, and some ways had to be found in order to
divert his culture from the impending cataclysm. (dapat
ang tao’y makawala sa lumang paniniwala na may kaligayahan dito
sa mundo, kung hindi ito matutunan ng tao, itoy patungo sa isang
delubyo-cataclysm).
▪ In order to prevent the modern culture from such
upheaval, people should model their way of living to
Greek Culture. Para maiwasan na mangyari ito, gawin ehemplo
ang kultura/pamumuhay ng mga Griyego.
The Power Ethics
▪ Greek Culture has two elements namely, Apollonian Culture
and the Dionysian Culture.
Ang Apollonian culture ay tumutukoy sa kaayusan(measure, restraint, form,
individuality to life-order) samantalang and Dionysian culture ay tumutukoy
sa kawalan ng kaayusan (unplanned, uncharted insertion into the stream of
life without concern about where it might lead-disorder). Dapat
magkamayroon ng balanse ang dalawang uring ito ng kultura. Kung sakaling
ang isa ay lamang sa isa, pagkawasak ng mga tao ang kalalabasan.
Ipinakikita ng dalawang uri ng kultura na ang binubuo ng saya at lungkot,

bilang tao, dapat matuklasan nya ang buhay ay hindi lang saya, mas maganda
maisip nyang masakit sakit ang mararanasan nya sa buhay.
Refer to page 145 for the complete definition provided for the two kinds of
culture.
To ensure that there will be balance between the Apollonian
and Dionysian Culture, an Ubermensch (Overman) or Superman
is needed.
The Power Ethics
The Will to Power
• Nietzsche called for the revaluation of values (Value
Theory)(Kailangan talikuran na ang mga lumang pananaw kung
ano ang mabuti at masama.)
• In order to have a good society, there is a need for a new
system of values. (Para mkapamuhay sa gitna ng pagdurusa,
kailangan ng mga bagong paguugali.)
• Rejected the traditional concept of sympathy and humility
as the proper foundation for moral values. (Ayon kay
Nietzsche, nararapat magkamayroon ng pagbabago sa mga lumang
paniniwala o panuntunan ng tama (values). Pwede natin tanungin
ang ating mga sarili, ito bang mga paniniwalang ito ay
nakapagpasaya sa tao? Hindi maitatanggi na ang tao ay nagdurusa,
naghihirap, nakakaranas ng kasawian, kung gayon, ‘yon mga lumang
paniniwala ay dapat ng talikuran.)
The Power Ethics
• Instead of clinging to the old values like sympathy and
humility, everyone should aspire for the will to power for old
values (humility, patience and sympathy) will only make man a
feeble loser who is motivated by resentment. (Iyong mga lumang
paniniwala ng tao na ang mabuting ugali ay kababan ng loob, pasensya,
pakikiramay(humility, patience and sympathy), ginagawa lang ng mga ito
na maging talunan ang mga tao. Halimbawa ngayong panahon ng COVID-
19, ‘yon mga taong may mabubuting kalooban(old values) na mamahagi
ng kanilang mga biyaya sa mga lubos na naapektuhan, sa pananaw ni
Nietzsche, nagiging mahina lang ang mga ganitong uri ng tao, dahil pag
naisang araw ay sila din ay hihingi ng tulong, ay kung noon una ay hindi
sila nag magandang loob ay di sanay may makakain pa rin sila kahit ilang
linggo o buwan pa ang itagal ng lockdown dulot ng COVID-19. Tandaan,
bilang naimpluwensyahan ni Schoperhauer, ang buhay ay puro
paghihirap, kaya dapat maging matatag(will to power). We live to survive.
Pag inisip mo ang ibang tao o nagmagandang loob ka ay baka ikaw sa
banda banda dyan ang hindi maka-survive.
The Will to Power
▪ Rejected the concept of equality.
Kasi nga ang buhay ay puro paghihirap, ang pinakamahalaga ay
magkamayroon tayo ng lakas ng loob na mapagtagumpayan ang mga
sakit, kasawian ng buhay (will to survive), kaya naman, hindi mahalaga
ang pagkakapantay pantay(equality), ang mahalaga ay maging malakas
sa iba’t ibang aspeto ng buhay katulad ng pisikal, intelektwal,
emosyonal. Kung malakas ang tao sa mga aspetong ito, madali nyang
mapapaglabanan ang mga ibibgay na sakit/kasawian ng buhay.
Ganitong pagiisip ang mayroon ang isang Superman.
The Will to Power
▪ This idea of Superman is related to the concept that any
act of an individual that will enhance and develop his will
to power is good; whereas any act that will hinder its
growth is evil, and therefore must be avoided. Sa konsepto
ng Superman, ang kapuri-puri/tama ay anuman na
makakapagdagdag sa kanayang lakas ng loob (will to power), at ang
anuman makakapagpahina sa kanya ay ituturing na masama.
▪ Sa konsepto ng superman, ‘yong mga dating pinanghahawakan ng
tao na mga magagandang paguugali ay iyon ay masama, at ang tama
ay iyong anuman makakadagdag sa lakas ng loob ng isang tao. Ang
lakas ng loob na ito ay ang magiging sandata nya para kaharapin
ang mga sakit/kasawain ng ibabato sa kanya ng buhay. Magiging
talunan/mahina ang isang tao kung patuloy syang magiging mababa
ang loob, mapagpasensya, may simpatya sa kapwa(old values).
Tandaan, ang buhay ay pangit o puno ng kalungkutan, kaya ang
laban ay patatagan ang buhay.
The Will to Power
Nietzsche’s Moral philosophy is a belief that “anything that destroys man

will to power is evil”
In detail,
1. Anything that prevents man to have a power, be strong and make him
weak is immoral. (Anuman ang nakakahdlang sa isang tao para maging malakas ay
maituturing na masama.)
2. Anything that makes man powerful, strong and exercise his will to
power is moral. (Anuman ang nakakatulong para sa isang para maging malakas ay
maituturing na masama/maganda.)
The Will to Power
▪ Freeman is the Superman(will to power) for whom
nothing is forbidden except that which obstructs the will
to power. (Pag narating na ng isang tao ang estato ng isang
Superman, wala ng anumang makakahadlang sa kanya.)
▪ This Superman should not fall into the temptation to be a
tyrant because this means Dionysian Culture outpowered
the Apollonian Culture. Again, there should be balance
between the two culture. The superman will be the one
who will ensure the balance. (Dahil ang Superman ang
magpapanatili ng kaayusan sa pagitan ng Dionysian Culture at
Apollonian Culture, dapat hindi ito maging isang diktador, kasi
ipinakikita ng isang diktadow ang hindi balansyadong relasyon sa
pagitan ng dalwang kultura.)
The Will to Power
▪ Man should do the necessary measures just to be a
Superman. (Dapat gawin ng isangtao ang mga bagay na nararapat
maging ano pa man ito para lang sya ay maging isang Superman.)
▪ It has no concern for the weak/masses. (Dahil ang buhay ay

puro sakit/kasawian, dapat gawin nang mga kailangan para tayo ay
maging Superman, wag isipin ang mga mahihirap o maralita, dahil
silay mahihina, tatapak tapakan sila. “Kaya baga sila, mahihina, ang
mahalaga ay ako’y malakas.”)
The Will to Power
Hindi dapat kaawaan ang mga mahihina(poor and the masses), kasi pag
nangyari ito, ibig saibihin naging malambot ang iyong puso, ito’y
nangangahulugan ng pagiging mahina. Tandaan, will to power. O
maging pinakamalakas.
▪ The mark of a society is its power to exploit the weaker

member for the benefit and the interest of the strong
and the powerful few. (Hindi masamang gamitin o tapakan ang
mga mahihina kung itoy para sa ikalalakas ng isang tao. Kumbaga,
kaya baga kayo mahihina-weak, pasensya kayo,
makapangyarihan/malakas ako-superman.)
▪ Ito na ‘yong sinsabi ni Nietzsche na kailangan na ng tao na magpalit

o talikudan ang kanyang lumang paniniwala o mga paguugali.
Hindi na iyon napapanahon, kasi kung iyon at iyon parin, ikakahina
mo iyon. Ang dapat asamin ay ang maging pinakamalakas.
The Will to Power
▪ Absolute moral principle(e.g. Kant’s) must be rejected,
destroys individual’s freedom to act.
Kung magakakamayroon tayo ng iisang paniniwala sa kung ano ang
tama(dapat ito ang gawin), ang gingawa daw nito sa tao ay nawawala sa
kanya ang kanyang pagiging malaya.
▪ Universal morality is a tortuous straightjacket which
prevents the individual from asserting himself. (Kung
mayroon nagiisang panuntunan kung ano ang tama o mali, para
itong kadena na pinipigilan ang tao na makapagpahayag ng kanyang
sarili.)
The Will to Power
Master Morality vs Slave Morality
▪ Rejected Judeo-Christian Values (ex. humility, patience,
sympathy, generosity, concern for others, etc.,) These
values/virtues make man weak.
▪ It should be replaced by ETHICS OF POWER(will to power
which is embodied by SUPERMAN)
▪ Huwag na dapat tangkilikin on mga Judeo-Christian na paguugali
na nagpapahaga na dapat ang isangb tao ay may kababaan ng loon,
pasensya, pakikiramay, mapagbigay, pagaalala sa iba, at iba pa sa
kadahilan na ang mga ito ay ang nagpapahina sa mga tao. Ang dapat
asamin ng tao ay maging Superman, isang nilalang na malakas sa
anumang pamamaraan.)
The Will to Power
Continuation…
▪ It follows the belief that “MIGHT IS RIGHT” (Kung sino ang
malakas sya ang tama. Katulad ng ilang mga pulitiko. Sabihin natin
si walang KOKOte Pimentelat ng iba pang nasasangkot sa usapin ng
korupsyon sa pamahalaan, dahil syay/silay
makapangyarihan/malakas, kahit may mali na syang nagawa noong
nilabag nya ang protocol ng DOH, hindi sya inaresto/kinasuhan, at
dahil nga malakas sya, ang paliwanag ng DOH ay magkamayroon
daw naman ng pangunawa sa sitwasyon nito dahil manganganak
ang kanyang asawa. Ngayon, parehong insidente, ang sangkot ay
isang ordinaryong Pilipino, lumabas ng bahay sa kabila ng pinaigting
na quarantine measure, dahil sya’y maituturing na mahina sa aspeto
ng kanyang estado sa buhay, sya ay hinuli.)
▪ Influenced by Darwin’s survival of the fittest. (Kung sino

ang makapangyarihan/malakas, siya ang magwawagi./MATIRA
MATIBAY)
The Will to Power
Kung ang pag gamit sa iba ay syang magapapanatili ng iyong buhay, o
magpapalakas sa iyo, ito ay katanggap tanggapo tama.
▪ Nietzsche advocated egoism and individualism as the

basis of morality. (Ang pinakamahalaga sa isang tao ay kung
papaano nya mapapagtagumpayan ang mga darating na mga
sakit/kasawian ng buhay kahit pag nangangahulugan ito na
gagamitin nya ang ibang tao,. Dito masasabi na ang teoryang ito ni
Nietzsche ay makasarili, na sa kanyang pananaw ay ang bagong
tama.)
The Will to Power
Herren Moral (Master Morality) SUPERIOR Herden Moral (Slave Morality) INFERIOR
• Independence, self-approbation, and the action • Represents the behavior which is unsure of itself,
that flows out of strength or power. or an action that is borne out of resentment
• Its values are courage, self-reliance, high- • Its values are humility, patience, and the like
mindedness, candor, and creative leadership Judeo-Christian Values/Virtues. Kung itong mga
• Its greatest virtues are RUTHLESSNESS, ito ang mga values ng tao, kakayang kayanin
EXPLOITATION, and MASTERY OVER OTHERS lamang sya ng mga makakapangyarihan.
(These are contra JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES as • Perverted morality
they make man weak/inferior) • (Sa lumang paniniwala, lalo’t higit ng mga
• Dahil ang buhay ay puno ng pagdurusa, dapat ay relihiyon, walang masamang magdusa/maghirap
maging makapangyarihan kahit ibig sabhin niyo dahil lahat ng iyon ay may magiging gantimpala.)
ay pagiging wala awa sa kapwa(ruthlessness)
paggamit sa kapwa(exploitation), at pamamayani
sa kapwa(mastery over others). Tandaan, WILL
TO POWER/SURVIVE (SUPERMAN). Maging
makapangyarihan sa kahit naong paraan.
Walang pakialam sa iba, basta syay buhay.
• E.g. Aristocrats (rulers)/Some Filipino Politicians
The Death of God
“God is dead”
• He did not mean that God existed before and now no longer does. (Hindi naman ibig
sabihin dito ni Nietszche ay literal na patay ang Dyos.)
• There is no intelligent plan to the universal or rational order. (Walang kaayusan
matatagpuan sa mundo. Magulo ang mundo. Hindi ito maitatangi dahil sa mga nararanasan
sakit/kasawian. Kung sasabihin na may Dyos na nagpaplano ng mga nangyayari sa buhay, itanong sa
sarili, plano rin ba ng Dyos na ako ay magdusa/maghirap/makaranas ng mga kasawain sa buhay? )
• Belief in God destroys the humanity and denies them their freedom. (Sa paniniwala sa
Dyos, nawawala sa tao ang kanyang pagiging malaya dahil sa halip na may gumawa sya ng paraan
para maiwasan ang mga sakit/kasawian ng buhay, iisipin nalang nya na ang kanyang mga
pinagdaraan ay plano ng Dyos, na sa kabila ng mga ito ay mayroon syang matutunan.)
The Death of God
• Instead of believing in God, Nietzsche proposed that everyone should aspire to
be SUPERMAN(will to power/survive/master morality). Its values are no
longer the Judeo-Christian Values. (Kaysa maniwala sa Dyos bilang magsasaayoa ng,
kaysa isipin na may dahilan ang Dyos sa mga pangyayari, dapat hangarin ng tao na maging
Superman dahil pag nakamit na nya ang estado na ito, madali nyang mapapagtagumpayan ang
mga sakit/kasawian ng buhay.)
• God created everything but his role has already ended after the work
creation.
• May Dyos, ngunit, wala na syang ginampanan papel pagkatapos ng paglikha sa mundo sa
kadahilan kung sasabihin na may papel padin ang Dyos, maaring itanong na bakit may
pagdurusa, na ang katotohanan pa ay ang buhay ay puno ng pagdurusa. Nasaan ang Dyos na
sinasabing mapagmahal? Bakit ang kanyang mga nilikha ay nagdurusa?
The Death of God
Mistakes in God’s creation
1. Creation of science – thou shall not know
(Sa kwento ng paglikha sa bibliya, bakit iniligay ng Dyos ang pinagabawal na prutas sa lugar na
makikita ng madali nina Eba at Adan. Kung hindi doon nilagay, kung itinago sana ng Dyos, hindi
nagkamali ang tao. Kaya ito ang unag pagkakamali.)
2. Creation of woman – from woman comes all the calamity of the world.
(kung hindi nilikha si Eba, hindi magakakasala si Adan)
Halimbawa:
a. In Greek Mythology, bumagsak ang City of Troy gawa ni Helen(isang babae)
b. Ayon sa mga historians, kaya bumagsak si Ferdinand Marcos ay gawa ni Imelda Marcos (isang
babae)
c. Sa bibliya, kaya natalo si Samson ay gawa ni Delilah(isang babae)
Batay sa mga ibinigay na halimbawa, masasabi nga talagang pagkakamali ang
mga babae. ISA KAYONG PAGKAKAMALI!!! ☺ ☺ ☺ (hindi ako ang nagsabi nyaan
kundi si Nietzsche. Hahaha ☺ )
The Death of God
Batay sa mga ibinigay na halimbawa, masasabi nga talagang pagkakamali ang mga babae. ISA
KAYONG PAGKAKAMALI. ☺ ☺ ☺ (hindi ako ang nagsabi nyaan kundi si Nietzsche. Hahaha ☺ )
(assignment: Sa mga babae, mag-isip ng maaring sagot(rebuttal) sa paniniwala ni

Nietzsche na PAGKAKAMALI ANG MGA BABAE)
Note: kung magkikita pa tayo, mapapagtanggol nyo pa ang inyong panig, kung
hindi na ay di paniniwalaan natin na pagkakamali ang mga Babae.)
The Death of God
• Nietzsche, as Influenced by later Schopenhauer who was also influenced by the
his friend’s mother named Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, though it may appear
that his philosophy had a negative conception of life. However, his philosophy
should not be taken as totally negative. (Si Nietszche bilang naimpluwensyahan ng nanay
ng kanyang kaibigan, huwag dapat ituring ang kanyang kaisipan na tahasang negatibong
pananaw.)
• Nietzsche may have taken life to be difficult but it does not mean that people will
not anymore find fulfillment. (Kahit na ang buhay ay takaga naman mahirap, puno ng mga
pagdurusa, hindi ito nangangahulugan na hindi na ang tao makakakamit ng inaasam na
nangangahulugan kaligayahan.)
The art of living lies in finding meaning in our struggles. (Mayroong maganda
o naituturo ang mga pagdurusa na pinagdadaanan ng mga tao.)
Critique:
• Man’s inclination to power if not controlled may lead to chaos. (Controlling
man’s inclination to power is tantamount to obstructing his inclination to
power, which is contradictory.) (Ang isang tao, pag hindi nakontrol ang kanyang
kapangyarihan, isang malaking delubyo ang magiging epekto nito.)
• Religion serves as means in order to control man’s selfish aspirations so as to
avoid chaotic community. (Ang relihiyon ang babalanse sa makasariling mga kagustuhan
ng isang indibidwal. )
Critique:
• Failure to understand that every human person is also naturally a spiritual
being, believe in afterlife. This means, if man does not find fulfilment in this
world, his reward awaits in the life after death. (Dahil ang tao ay isa rin ispiritwal na
nilalang, kaya naman kung hindi siya makakasumpong o makakakmit ng kaligayahan dito sa
mundo dahil puno ito ng kahirapan, hapis, sakit, at iba pa, ang kanyang gantimpla ay
nagaantay sa kabilang buhay.)
• Man is a social being, he needs others in order to survive even the weak. (Ang
tao ay hindi nabubuhay ng sya lamang o magisa a buhay.)
Critique:
• Failure to understand that every human person is also naturally a spiritual
being, believe in afterlife. This means, if man does not find fulfilment in this
world, his reward awaits in the life after death. (Dahil ang tao ay isa rin ispiritwal na
nilalang, kaya naman kung hindi siya makakasumpong o makakakmit ng kaligayahan dito sa
mundo dahil puno ito ng kahirapan, hapis, sakit, at iba pa, ang kanyang gantimpla ay
nagaantay sa kabilang buhay.)
• Man is a social being, he needs others in order to survive even the weak. (Ang
tao ay hindi nabubuhay ng sya lamang o magisa a buhay.)
End of the Chapter
Chapter 13
The Right and the Good
William David Ross
• tried to answer the conflicting duties (Immanuel Kant)
para kasi kay Kant, ang batayan ng pagiging mabuting tao ay ang paggawa
nito sa kanya duty o obligation/ responsibilidad.
May dalawang pula ito, una ay kahit anong maging bunga ng isang kilos,
hindi na iyon ang isinasaalang alang, ang pinaguusapan ay ang paggawa ng
obligasyon/responsibilidad. Halimbawa, pumatay tao, dahil batay sa
kanyang pangalan ay iyon ang kanyang obligasyon, wala nang
konsiderasyon sa magiging bunga nito, basta ang mahalaga ay maisagawa
ang obligasyon. Ang pangalawa ay papaano sa isang pagkakataon ay
nagtatalo ang iyong dalawang obligasyon. Halimbawa obligasyon mo bilang
kaibigan na samahan ang iyong kaibigan sa panahon malungkot sya,
sumabay ito sa obligasyon mo na bilang nakakatandang kapatid ay alagaan
ang nakakabatang kapatid. Ano ang iyong uunahin? Sa ganitong
pagkakataon ay walang sinabi si Kant kung alin sa nagbubungguan
obligasyon ang magiging prioridad o gagawin.
Gayun man ang pananaw ni Ross sa pilosopiya ni Kant, naniniwala padin
naman sya na mahalaga ang pag alam ng obligasyon para masabi na ang
isang kilos ay maganda/tama o masama/mali.
▪ Moral rules serve as moral guidelines in such a way that they
must be adjusted or modified.
▪ There are situations wherein rules should be set aside
depending on the needs of the particular situation.
▪ Absolute rules are insensitive to the consequence of the act.
(ang mga panungtunan moral/batas ay mahalaga sapagkat ang mga ito ang
magsisilbing gabay ngunit may mga pagkakataon humihingi na baguhin o
baliin ang mga batas.)
(may mga pagkakataon na kailangan din tingnan ang bunga ng isang kilos
bago ito husgahan kung tama o mali. Maaring nagawa ang isang kilos dahil
iyon ang hinhingi ng pagkakataon.)
▪ Without rules, one would never be able to determine which
action, from the series of choices, should consider good.
(mahalaga ang mga panuntunan moral/batas para mahusgahan ang kilos
kung tama o mali. Isipin nalang kung walang batas na nagsasabing mali ang
panunulad ng sagot sa kaklase, kung wala nito, hindi masasabi na ang kilos na
ito ay mali.)
▪ Considered UTILITARIANISM as ALSO a good basis for moral

decisions.
▪ However, he was also aware of the problem of utilitarian
regarding sa the concept of JUSTICE.
(Maaring maging batayan ng paghusga sa isang kilos kung tama o mali ay ang
konsepto ng UTILITARIAN, nagunit hindi naman inisangtabi ni ROSS ang pula
dito hingil sa paglimot nito sa iilan sa pagbibigay ng halaga sa kaligyahan ng
nakakarami. Hindi pantay na pagtingin-UNJUST, na dahil lang madami ay sila
na agad ang tama at yoon kakaunti ay sya na kagad ang mali o
masasakripisyo.)
▪ Developed an ETHICAL PRINCIPLE which is a COMBINATION
OF THE DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS OF KANT AND UTILITARIAN
ETHICS.
DEONTOLOGISM UTILITARIANISM
Absolutistic The problem of
Conflict of duties Justice
Ross’ Ethical Theory

In situation wherein there is a conflict of duty, what we
should put in minds are the prima facie obligations to act
dutifully; though such duties can be overridden by other
duties depending on situations.
(Sa panahon na nagtatalo ang ating dalawangobligasyon o higit pa, ang

kailangan gawin ay ang mas mahalaga o mas mataas na obligasyon. Ito ay
maaring maging pangalawa na lamang kung may obligasyon na mas
mahalaga pa dito batay sa sitwasyon.)
The Ethical Principle of William David Ross
▪ It is important to know the rightness and the goodness of an
act before making moral decision
▪ There are two indispensable qualities of a moral act:
RIGHT and GOOD
▪ RIGHT belongs to the action, independent of motives
▪ GOODNESS belongs to the motives.
Malaki ang pagkakaiba ng tama(right) sa mabuti(goodness). Ang
pinatutungkulan ng TAMA ay ang nagawang kilos at hindi ang
intensyon/nagtulak sa isang tao para gawin ang isang bagay. Samantalang ang
MABUTI ay hindi tungkol sa nagawang kilos kundi sa intensyon/nagtulak sa
isang tao sa kangyang kilos.
▪ An action is good if it is coupled if its comes from
right action with a good motive.
Right Good Moral

Action Intention Action
▪ Other things to be considered in determining whether a certain
acts is moral or not.
▪ In this event, one should ask certain questions like, why, who,
what, when, and how in the performance of one’s action.
Bukod sa pangunahin batayan (rightness of the action and goodness in
intention) para mahusgahan ang isang kilos kung tama o mali, mayroon
padin ibang mga bagay ang dapat isa-alang alang o bigyan ng konsiderasyon.,
ito ay ang mga sumusunod, bakit(why) nagawa ang kilos, sino(who) ang
gumawa ng kilos at ginawaan ng kilos, ano (what) ang ginawa, kailan(when)
ginawa, at papaano (how) ginawa.
Halimbawa:
1. gamit ang teorya ni Ross, mas masasabing mabuti kung ang isang tao ay
tumulong sa taong hindi nya kilala, kaysa ang kanyang tinulungan ay
kanyang kakilala.
2. Bakit ang ilang pulitiko ay nagbibigay ng tulong, baka naman ito ay para
lang sya ay makilala ng mga tao/sumikat para manalo sa susunod na
eleksyon.
The Actual Duty vs. The Prima Facie Duty
▪ ACTUAL DUTY is one’s real duty in a given situation
▪ It is the action that we ought to choose from among many
other choices of actions.
▪ PRIMA FACIE DUTY is that which directs or commands what
ought to perform when other relevant factors are taken into
account.
▪ “at first glance” / “so far as it appears”
Sa halimbawang ikaw ay hinihingan ng iyong kaibigan ng panahon para
makasama sa kadahilanan sya ay broken hearted at sa parehong pagkakataon
ay ikaw ay kailangan umuwi agad sa bahay pagkakatapos ng klase dahil
kailangan mo pang alagaan ang nakakabata mong kapatid para makapahinga
naman si Nanay. Sa halimbawang ito, ang actual duty mo ay ang paguwi,
ngaunit prima facie duty mo ay samahan ang iyong kaibigan dahil sa tagpong
iyon ay yon ang mas mahalaga dahil malamang pag wala syang makausap ay
makaisip sya na gumawa ng isang bagay na mali. Samantalang ang nasa
bahay naman si Nanay, kaya sa pagkakataon na iyon ay may mag alaga sa
nakakabata mong kapatid.
Refer to page 155 for another example
Sa halimbawang ibinigay, ito ang sinsabi ni Ross na bukod sa Rightness of the
Action and the Goodness of Intention, may mga ibat iba pang bagay ang
kailangan tingnan o ikonsidera. Ngayon, kailangang talagang tingnan ang ibat
ibang anggulo para makarating sa isang tamang paghuhusga kung aling ang
actual duty at prima facie duty.
➢ Sa pagkakataon na nagbabanggaan ang mga duty(kung alin ba sa kanila

ang kailangan piliin gawin), yon mga duty na yon ay tinatawag na PRIMA
FACIE DUTY, at pag nakapagdesisyon na kung ano ang pinakakailangan
gawin sa partikular na tagpo, kung ano ang piniling gawin, iyon ang
ACTUAL DUTY.
➢ Kailangan timbangin kung alin sa mga prima facie duty ang

pinakamahalaga, kung alin, yon ang nararapat na gawin.
Ross offered two principles by which to resolve cases of
conflicting duties:
1. Act in accordance with the stronger, more stringent, and more
severe prima facie duty.
Sa mga nagbabangaan duties (prima facie duty), alin ang
pinakamabigat/pinakamahalaga.
2. Act in accordance with the prima facie duty that has greater
balance of rightness over wrongness compared to other prima
facie duty.
Sa mga nagbabangaan duties (prima facie duty), alin ang ang MAS TAMA na
gawin.
In determining what is the actual duty from the prima facie
duties, one should rely on his moral intuitions as the ultimate
guide in particular cases. Here, one has the duty to:
a. Learn and discern the facts in the case. (Alamin ang detalye ng
sitwasyon)
b. Consider the possible consequences of our actions. (Isipin
kung ano ang maaring mga maging bunga ng napiling gawin/kilos)
c. Reflect on our prima facie duties. (Pagnilayan/pagisipan kung ano
ba talaga ang mga prima facie sa sitwasyon)
d. Decide the best course of action under the circumstances.
(Magdesisyon kung anong pinakamagandang gawin sa sitwasyon)
There are seven types of Prima Facie Duties that everyone
should consider.
1. Duty of Fidelity. (Pagiging tapat)
2. Duty of Reparation. (Sa mga nagawang mali sa iba, nararapat na
magbayad puri/humingi ng kapatawaran)
3. Duty of Gratitude. (Matutong magpasalamat. Halimbawa, sa mga
pampublikong sasakyan, sa mga umaabot ng bayad sa driver, o kaya ay sa
mga service crew sa mga kinakainan natin, o sa mga security guard na
nagbubukas ng mga pinto, sa mga janitor/maintenance na nagpapatiling
maayos ang universidad, at iba pa.,)
4. Duty of Justice. (Ibigay sa iba ang nararapat sa dito)
5. Duty of Beneficence (Gawan ng kabutihan ang kapwa)
6. Duty of Self-Improvement (Mag-asam ng magandang pagbabago para
sa sarili)
7. Duty of Non-Maleficence (Huwag gumawa ng masama sa kapwa)
Ross’ Moral Theory
Right Good Moral

Action Intention Action
Critique on the Ethics of William David Ross
• Discern the facts and situation. It is difficult to determine what is really right and
wrong in certain situations.
(Mahirap sabihin o makasigurado kung ano ba talaga ang totoo)
• In determining the rightness of action, we have to rely on our own perception then
our decision is subjective on our own perception of a situation for it may vary
depending one one’s education and experience.
• Disguise of Ethical relativism
kahit na may ibinigay na panuntunan kung papaano makakarating sa tamang pagpili kung alin sa
mga nagbabangaang prima facie duty ang actual duty o nararapat gawin sa mismong pagkakataon,
may posibilidad parin na iton ay mahaluan ng personal na kagustuhan(subjectivity). Kahit pa ang
hindi pagsama sa kaibigang broken hearted ay nangangahulugan na maari syang gumawa ng
iakakapahamak nya, sa sayo pa din ang desisyon kung ibibigay mo ba sa kanya ang hinhingi nyang
oras, o mas pipiliin mong umuwi ng maaga. Katulad ng halimbawa na binigay sa libro, ang actual duty
ay ang pagapahiram ng pera sa kamag-anak na may sakit kaysa sa pagpapahiram ng pera sa kaibigan
walang pang matrikula, maari ka pa rin magdesisyon na ang mag pipiliin mong pahiramin ng pera ay
ang kaibigan mo kaysa sa kamag-anak mo na mas nangangailangan. Kahit dahil mas nangangailangan
ang iyong kamag-anak na ipinahahayag nito na ito ang ACTUAL DUTY, ang desisyon parin ay nasa
sayo. Ay kung ayaw mong sya ang pahiramin, pera mo naman iyon. Kaya may karapatan kang agwin
ang gusto mong gawin sa iyong pera.
Thank you
Chapter 14
Rawls’ Theory of Justice
▪ Desired to provide an alternative moral system to
UTILITARIANISM (GREATEST HAPPINESS OF THE GREATEST
NUMBER)
▪ For Rawls, Utilitarianism cannot provide a satisfactory account
of the basic rights and the liberties of citizens as free and equal
persons.
▪ Utilitarianism fails to uphold the concept of JUSTICE.
(Katulad ni Ross, hindi sang-ayon si Rawls na maging ang panukat para
mahusgahan ang isang kilos na tama o mali ay ang konsepto ng utilitarianism
dahil ito ay hindi patas sa kadahilanan binibigyan prioridad nito ang
kaligayahan ng nakakarami. Maaring itanong dito, paano naman yong
kailgayahan ng iilan. Dahil ba iilan sila ay ayos lang na masakripisyo ang
kanilang kapakanan para sa nakakarami. Ito ang tinutukoy na problema na
hindi pagkakapantay pantay sa utilitarianism.)
▪ JUSTICE should be considered as the basis of moral decision

and actions.
Rawls’ Ethical Principle
▪ JUSTICE should be considered as the basis of moral decision
and actions.
▪ JUSTICE is FAIRNESS (pagkakapantay-pantay)
▪ It was an attempt to synthesis of the strengths of utilitarianism
and deontologism. (Ito ay pagsubok na pagpagisahin ang magagandang puntos
ng Utilitarianism at Deontologism.)
▪ In these two ethical principles, he tried to avoid their
weaknesses, for utilitarianism, the lack of justice. (Hindi isinama ni
Rawls ang mga kahinaan ng Utilitarianism at Deontologism.)
▪ He introduced that every human being has DIGNITY regardless
of their position or social status ion life.
(Ang bawat isa ay may kanya kanyang DIGNIDAD maging ano man ang
katayuan nito sa buhay.)
▪ No matter how elegant and practical the ethical system could be,
it still must be rejected if it is untrue and no matter how efficient
and well-arranged the laws and institutions could be, said laws
and institutions must be reformed or abolished if they are
unjust.
(Gaano man kaganda at ka-praktikal ng mga moral na batas, ito ay dapat
ipawalang bisa kung hindi ito makakatotohanan. Ganun din, gaano man kaayos
at kaepektibo ng mga batas o institusyon, manyaring ayusin/balangkasin muli o
buwagin kung ang mga ito ay may kinikilingan/kinakampihan o hindi pantay
ang pagtingin sa bawat isa. )
The Hypothetical Situation
▪ In the hypothetical situation, equality is fostered. (Isipin natin na
tayo ay nasa isang kathan isip na sitwasyon(hypothetical situation), kung
saan may pagkakapantay pantay. Kungbaga ay mangarap na nasa isang
komunidad na nananaig ang pagkakapantay pantay sa bawat isa.)
▪ In this situation, man is put under the veil of ignorance. (Tayo ay
ipnapagpalagay na pinipiringan para wala tayong alam.)
▪ Under the veil of ignorance, one does not know anything about
social significant facts about himself and others, such as:
1. race 7. conception of good life
2. sex
3. religion
4. economic status
5. social standing
6. natural abilities
Sa kathang isip na komunidad na kung saan may pagkakapantay pantay,
nilalagayan ang tao ng belo ng kawalang kaalaman sa mga bagay bagay na
maaring maging batayan kung kayat magiging magkakaiba ang pagtingin ng
isang tao sa iba. Halimbawa, kung ikaw ay babae, mas malaki ang posibilidad na
kakampihan mo ang kapwa mo babae, ganoon din naman sa lalaki, kakampihan
nya ang kapwa nya lalaki. Sa relihiyon, kung ikaw ay katoliko, mas kakampihan
mo ang kapwa mo katoliko, kaysa sa myembro ng Iglesia ni Cristo, kung ikaw
naman ay myembro ng INC, mas kakampihan mo ang kasamahan mo sa
paniniwala kaysa sa taong hindi mo ka–INC. Kung ikaw ay estduyante ng UB,
mas kakampihan mo ang kapwa mo estudyante sa unibersidad kaysa estduanyte
ng ibang unibersidad. Ang sinasabi dito, para masigurado ang pagkakapantay
pantay, wag mag-isip ng anuman mga kwalipikasyon/katangian ng kapwa.
Tingnan mo lang ang kapwa mo bilang tao, walang mayaman, mahirap,
magaling sa ganito, atbp.
▪ By not knowing one’s position in the society or one’s conception
of the good, man is driven by this fiction to an equal concern for
the fate of everyone. In this case, people will never be able to
try to take advantage of each other. (Ang hypothetical situation ay
isang komunidad na walang nanglalamang o pareparehas ang pagtingin sa
bawat isa.)
▪ BE FAIR TO EVERYONE (JUSTICE is FAIRNESS)

Ang makikita sa larawan ay ang imahe ng hustisya. Sinsabi ni Rawls
ang hustisya ay pagkakapantay pantay, para matiyak ito, kukatha sa
isip ng isang sitwasyon/komunidad(hypothetical situation) na kung
saan ang mga tao ay nasa ilalim ng belo/takip ng kawalang
alaman(veil of ignorance) para hindi nya tingnan ang tao na
magkakaiba. Kaya ang imahe ng hustisya ay may piring sa mata(blind
folded) at ang hawak na timbangan ay mapapansin na
pantay/magkasintimbang sapat sa hustiya ay dapat lahat ng tao ay
pantay pantay. Walang mahirap, walang mayaman. Walang VIP o
walang ordinaryong tao. Kaya may sinasabing ang batas ay walang
kinikilingan at walang kinakampihan. Pantay pantay ang turing ng
batas sa lahat.
Two principles of Justice:
1.Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar
system of liberty for all (Rawls, 266). --- EQUALITY Ang lahat ay
may pantay pantay na kalayaan(freedom) at karapatan(rights) katulad ng
karapatang makapagsalita/mamahayag, mag-organisa ng samahan, atbp.,
Halimbawa, karapatan bumuto, ano man ang estado sa buhay,
nakapagtapos ka man ng pag aaral o hindi, basta nasa tamang gulang ka
na ayon sa isinasaad ng batas, ang magkakamayroon ka na ng karapatan
bumuto. Sa halimbawang ito, dito sa Pilipinas, lahat ng 18 taon gulang ay
may karapatan ng bumuto basta’t sya ay nakapagparehistro.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both:
a. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent
with the just savings principle; --- EQUITY Para sa
kabutihan/kapakanan ng mga mahihina(maliliit/mahihirap).
Continuation
1 2 3
Hindi naman dahil bingyan yong ng dalawang tungtungan yong pangatlong (3)
manonood ay labagna ito sa prinsipyo ng pagkakapatay pantay( justice). Dahil sa
tagpong iyong, mas kailangan ng pangatlo ang 2 tungtungan, at ang pangalawa
naman ay nangangailangan ng 1 lamang na tungtungan, kumpara sa unang
manonood. Ito ang simple pagsasalarawang ng EQUITY na sinasabi sa letter a.
b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
- lahat ng oportunidad/pagkakataon batay sa ibinigay na
kwalipikasyon. Halimbawa, mag isang kumpanya na naghahanap ng
lisyensyadong inhinyero, dahil ito ang itinakdang kwalipikasyon, hindi
na dapat tintingnan kung saan nakapagtapos, ang mahalaga ay
lisyensyado. Ang kinuhang exam ng engineering student ng
UP/UST/ADMU bago sila maging ganap na inhinyero ay sya din naman
exam na kinuha ng mga estudyante na nakapagtaposa Unibersidad ng
Batangas. Kung magiging batayan ang pinagmulang unibersidad,
samantalang ito ay wala sa inilagay na kwalipikasyon, ito ay magiging
dahilan ng hindi pagkakapantay-pantay
- Nasa konsepto padin ng pagkakapantay pantay( JUSTICE) kung ang
sweldo ng mga empleyado ay magakakaiba batay sa kanilang posisyon.
Halimbawa, kayoy maging lisyensyadong inhinyero, nararapat lamang
na mas mataas ang matanggap nyong sweldo kumpara sa hindi
nakapagtapos ng kolehiyo. Hindi man pantay ang inyong sahod, hindi
ito nangangahulugan na ikaw ay nanlamang o may hindi
pagkakapantay pantay(INJUSTICE) na naganap. Nararapat lamang iyo.
Ito ang isa pang mukha ng JUSTICE. Kung sakaling naging panaty kayo
ng sweldo, masasabi mo na mali, na hindi pantay dahil bago mo
narating ang ganun posisyon ay marami kang pinagdaanan, katulad ng
pagaaral, atbp. Kung sa huli ay pantay lang din pala ang sweldo ng
lisyensyadong inhinyero sa manggawang sa kakulangang pinansyal ay
hanggang sekondarya lang ang naabot sa pag aaral.
▪ Fairness must rule out the DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE that allow
inequalities to produce differential rewards only up to the extent
that this is going to be necessary for the benefit of everyone,
most especially the least fortunate.
(Sa pagkakapantay pantay, iniisantabi ang mga aspetong nagiging dahilan ng
pagkakaiba nag isa sa iba. Dito, nararapat na bigyan ng konsiderasyon ang mga
indibidwal na kawawa/mahihina/maliliit/mahihirap katulad sa laarawan sa
slide 10.)
▪ A just society is not in which everyone is equal because this is
unrealistic. A society can only be just if there is equality and, if
ever there will be inequalities, such inequalities must be
demonstrated legitimate.
(Ang isang mabuting komunidad ay mayroon pagkakapantay pantay sa mga
myembro nito. Pianapayagan ang hindi pagkakapantay pantay kung itoy
lehitimo o katanggap tanggap. Halimbawa ay ang hindi pantay pantay ng sahod
ng mga empleyado dahil ito ay ibabatgay sa kanilang kwalipikasyon. Natural at
nararapat lamang na mataas ang sweldo ng isang engineer kaysa mga tauhan
nito sa kompanya. Isa pang halimbawa ay, tama at nararapat lamang na mas
mataas ang sahod ng guro kaysa sa karpintero. Tama lang na mas mataas ang
sahod/sweldo ng isang presidente ng kompanya sa maintenance ng kompanya.)
Categories of Justice and Fairness
▪ Justice is always connected to laws.
▪ The basis of justice will be always be the FAIR TREATMENT TO
EVERYBODY.
Ang katarungan ay ang pantay pantay na pagtingin sa bawat isa. Malinaw na ang
sinabi na bawat isa, ibig sabhin ay walang tinatangi, walang pinapaborahan, walang
kinikilingan. Papaano ito matitiyak? Isipin ang hypothetical situation(kathang isip na
sitwasyon) kung saan ang mga tao ay hindi pinapansin ang kanilang pagkakaiba sa
bawat isa. Sa aspetong ito, lahat ng tao ay pantay pantay halimbawa sa larangan ng
kanilang kalayaan at mga karapatan, nagunit hindi maitatanggi na talagangmay mga
lehitimong hindi pagkakapantay pantay ang mga tao, itoy katulad sa kanilang sahod
na natatanggap. Isa pang lehitimong hindi pagkakapantay pantay, halimbawa ikaw
ay taga Mabini, Batangas, na nag-aaral sa Unibersidad ng Batangas, nararapat
lamang na mas malaki ang iyong matatanggap na baon kada araw kumpara sa
kapatid mong nasa elementary pa lamang at sa mababang paaralan ng inyong
barangay nag aaral. Pag ang nangyari ay pinagpantay ang inyong baon, ikaw na sa
Batangas pumapasok ay magsasabi na itoy hindi makatarungan.
Ang katarungan ay tungkol batas. Sinasabi na sa paningin ng

batas, dapat lahat ay pantay pantay. Walang sinisino, walang
kinikilala. Mayaman man o mahirap. May pinag-aralan o wala.
Ikaw man ay malaking tao o maliit na tao ng lipunan. Kaya
naman ang imahe ng katarungan ay syang imahe ng batas.
Different types and concepts of Justice
1. Distributive Justice –”economic justice”
- uri ng katarungan na tumitiyak ang bawat myembro ng isang komunidad na
pantay pantay na nakakatanggap ng mga mga bagay bagay na
pinamamahagi. Simpleng halimbawa ay sa isang pamilya, hahatiin ng pantay
pantay/walang nakakalamang sa mga naiwang yaman ng magulang sa mga
anak. Bilang anak, itoy nagbibigay ng karapatan sa bawat isa. Mali na ang isa
halimbawa ay panganay ay mas malaki ang makukuha kaysa sa bunso.
Persons who are not equal in relevant matters must be treated

unequally based on their inequality.
- sinasabi din ng uri ng katarungan na ito, na maaring may hindi
pagkakapantay pantay sa makukuha kung ang batayan ay lehitimong mga
batayan/panukat. Halimbawa, tama lamang na mas mataas/malaki ang
sahod ng isang inhenyo kaysa sa kanyang mga tauhan. Makatarungan na
mas malaki ang matatanggap na sweldo ng isang inhenyero sa kanyang mga
tauhan.
2. Procedural Justice - tama o pantay na proseso/dadaan sa
tamang proseso
- Halimbawa ay ang isang kriminal na kahit na itoy nakagawa ng masama o
krimen ay makatarungan lamang dumaan parin ito sa isang proseso ng
paglilitis. Kaya naman kung mapapansin, ang mga nahuhuling mga kriminal
kahit lahat ng ebidensya ay itnuturo na sila ay may sala(guilty) ay ang turing
o tawag paring sa kanila ay mga suspek. Bilang suspek, kailangan padin
patunayan na sila nga ay nakagawa ng krimen. Ito’y mapapatunayan sa
pamamagitan ng isang proseso at dito nga ay proseso ng paglilitis.
- Isa pang halimbawa ay ang mga negosyante na sumasailalim sa isang
BIDDING para makakuha ng proyekto. Ang bidding ay isang proseso.
Makatarungan lamang na bago piliin ang isang kompanya para bigyan ng
proyekto ay dumaan muna sa ganitong proseso para makita kung aling
kompanya ang mas karapata dapat na bigyan ng proyekto.
- Sa pagdaan ng proseso, ang taong naatasang magdesisyon ay marapat lamang
na nasa gitna o ibig sabihin ay walang kinikilingan.
2. Retributive Justice – ang isang nagawang pagkakamali ay may
katumbas na kabayaran.
- Makatarungan lamang na ang isang napatunayang nakapatay ay magdusa sa
kalungan. Makatarungan na dapat ay ang nparusa ay katumbas lamang ng
nagawang kasalanan/krimen. Magiging makatarungan kung labis ang
parusa. Halimbawa ay nagnakaw lamang ng 5 manok ay ang katumbas na
parusa ay habang buhay pagkakabilanggo. O kaya naman ay isang nakapatay
ay ang parusa lamang ay isang taong pagkakabilanggo. Ang mga bingay na
halimbawa ay nagpapakita ng hindi patay na parusa sa mga krimen nagawa.
Sa unang halimbawa, hindi makatarungan ang parusa sa nagnakaw ng
manaok. Samantalang sa pangalawa, hindi naman ito makatarungan sa
pamilya ng napatay. Hindi masasabi na nabayaran na nito ang kanyang
kasalana nagawa.
- Kaya may batas, hayaan ang batas ang sumingil sa nagawang kasalanan sa
atin. Huwag ilagay ang batas sa sariling mga kamay.
2. Restorative Justice – dahil sa nagawang krimen/kasalanan.
Nawala ang dignidad ng biktima.
- Halimbawa ay isang babae na napagsamatalahan, ayon sa restributive justice,
nararappat lamang na makulong ang gumawa nito sa biktima. Ngunit ang
pagkakakulong ng may sala ay hindi sapat para mapanumbalik ang dignidad na
nawala/nawasak sa biktima, kaya naman ang isinisaad ng restorative justice na
ibalik/panumbalikin(restore) ang nawalang dignidad sa biktima. Kaya ang
biktima ay nadaan sa mga proseso ng pakikipagusap o counseling para un sugat
na pagkatao na naidulot sa kanya ng nangyari ay utay utay ay mabuong muli.
Kasamahan nito, tinuturuan din ang mga biktima para lubusan makawala sa
kadena ng pait ng nangyari ay utay utay na patawarin ang nakagawa sa kanya
ng kasalanan. Ang pagkawala ng poot sa taong nakagawa ng masama ay kalakip
sa paghilom ng sugat na naidulot ng pangyayari.
2. Compensatory Justice – kalakip ng karampatang parusa sa
nagawang kasalanan ay MULTA sa nagawang kasalanan. Ito ay ang
tinatawag na danyos perwisyo.
- Sa mga paglilitis, makakarinig tayo na bukod sa hatol na pagkakabilanggo sa
isang may kasalanan, sya din ay pinababayad din ng partikular na halaga sa
kanyang naging biktima.
- Naayon sa batas/hustisya ng Pilipinas na ang isang biktima ay hindi
magsampa ng kaso sa mga krimen na masasabing mababaw o yoong mga
pwedeng daanin sa areglo. Halimbawa ay isang driver na naibangga ang
kanyang minamanehong sasakyan nakabangga ng isa pang sasakyan, kaysa
umabot pa sa korte, pwedeng magkasundo ang dalawang panig na bayadan
nalamang ng may sala ang danyos. Ganundin ang nangyayari minsa sa mga
aksidente sa lansangan, dahil hindi naman sinasadya, minsan ay naareglo, sa
halip na may kaharapin kaso ang nakabangga, ay babayadan na lamang nito
ang gastusin sa pagpapagamot ng kanyang nabangga ganun din naman ang
kikitain sana nito sa trabaho sa mga panahon sya ay nagpapagaling sa
natamong sugat sa pagkakabangga sa kanya.
Theories of Distributive Justice
▪ With the idea of JUSTICE, Rawls held that there has to be an
equal distribution of opportunities and disadvantages to
everyone in the society. (Ang konsepto ng katarungan ay ang
pagkakapantay pantay sa lahat ng bagay. Pantay sa mga opportunidad o mga
biyaya/bagay na maaring matanggap at gayundin pantay din na papasan sa
mga hirap. Mali na mag ipiling mamayang ang nabibiyaan at pili nanamn
din mamayana ang nagdudurusa.)
▪ Rawls was basically reacting from different ethical principle that
were also trying to uphold FAIRNESS.
1. JUSTICE AS EQUALITY: EGALITARIANISM
▪ People should be given equal treatment. (lahat ay dapat tingnan ng
pantay pantay)
▪ There should be no relevant differences among people that can
justify unequal treatment. (Isipin na walang pagkakaiba ang bawat isa.)
▪ Everyone should be given exactly equal share of a society’s or
groups benefits and burdens. (Ang bawat isa ay pantay pantay ang hati
ng matatanggap,iyon man ay biyaya o mga hirap)
▪ The less fortunate have no cause to consider themselves
inferior. (Hindi dahil mahirap/mahina ang isang tao ay mas marami syang
makukuha/mas malaki ang kanyang bahagi. Ayon sa teorya ng Hustisya na
ito, lahat ay pantay pantay, walang nakakalamang. Halimbawa, ngayon
panahon ng COVID-19, kung susundin ang teoryang ito ng katarungan,
lahat ng mamayan, mayaman man, nakaangat sa buhay, at mahihirap ay
pantay lamang ang kanilang ayuda na dapat makuha sa pamahalaan. Lahat
ay dapat makatanggap bilang lahat ay pantay pantay. Hindi pwedeng gamitin
ng mahihirap/mahihina ang kanilang sitwasyon para mas malaki ang
kanilang makuha. LAHAT AY PANTAY PANTAY!)
There are two kinds of equality:
a. Political Equality - is the equal participation in and treatment
by the means of controlling and directing the political system.
(Halimbawa: pantay pantay sa mga karapatan ang mahirap at mayaman.
Basta tumuntong na sa 18 traong gulang, ano man estado sa buhay ay
nagkakarapatan bumuto. Ganun din, bilang mamayan ng isang bansa, ang
mga mamayan nito ay may pareparehong karapatang/kalayaan.
b. Economic Equality – equality of income, wealth, and
opportunity. (Pantay sa kita, yaman, oportunidad)
As per Rawls, man can be equal only to political rights

but there is legitimate economic inequality.
As per Rawls, man can be equal only to political rights but there is
legitimate economic inequality.
(May mga tao talagang mas mataas ang pagkita sa ibang tao. Halimbawa ay ang
isang Doctor ay mas mataas ang nattanggap na sahod kaysa sa isang Nurse. Ito’y
hindi panlalamang, kundi itoy makatarungan sapagkat mas mahirap ang
piangdaanan ng isang doctor kaysa sa nurse sa pagaaral kaya naman sa
panahon magkakatrabaho sila, nararapat na mas mataas ang sahod ng Doctor.
May mga tao din na mayaman at talagang may taong mahirap. May mga
mayayaman na hindi naman sa ilegal galing kundi pinagpaguran nila ito.
Magandang halimbawa ay ang mga nagtitinda sa palengke, lalot higit yon may
mga pwesto talaga, kung susuriin ang kanilang uri ng pamumuhay, marami sa
kanila ay nakakaangat ng kaunti sa buhay. Bakit? Masipag sila, madaling araw
palang ay nagsisimula na ang kanilang araw. May mahihirap naman an
kasalanan nila kung bakit silay nasa ganoon estado ng buhay. Ito naman yon
mga madaling araw palang uuwi at galing sa inuman. Sila yon mga tamad.
Hindi kasama dito yon mga kapos/mahihirap na matyaga/masipag sa buhay
ngunit hindi mabigyan ng magandang oportunidad. Sa usapang oportunidad,
makatarungan lang na mas maraming oportunidad ang nakapagtapos sa hindi
nakapagtapos. Itong mga hindi pagkakapantay pantay na ito ay makatarungan)
▪ This Principle of equality(EGALITARIANISM) is difficult because it
is impossible to have equality in all human beings because
everyone is different in terms of abilities, intelligence, virtues,
needs, desires, and other physical and mental characteristics.
(Mahirap masunod ang teoryang ito ng katarungan sapagkat hindi
maitatangi na talagang may hindi pagkakapantay pantay ang mga tao. At ang
hindi pagkakapantay pantay na ito ay hindi naman masama. May tao
talagang matalino, mayroon medyo mabagal ang pagkatuto, may mga tao na
kakaunti ang pangangailangan, katulad ng mayayaman, at may mga tao
naman maraming pangangailangan, katulad ng mga mahihirap. Kung
susundin ang teoryang ito ng katarungan at ipapatupad ang pagkakapantay
pantay, nararpat na ang estudyanteng matalino at estudyanteng medyo hindi
ganoon kabilis matuto katulad ng matatalino ay makakuha ng parehas na
marka, ganun din, makakatnggap ng parehong ayuda ang mayaman at
mahirap. Kung ipapatupad natin ng tahasan ang pagkakapantay pantay,
hindi naman makatarungan sa matalino na ang kanyang nakuhang maraka
ay katulad ng sa estudyanteng medyo mabagal ang pagkatuto, at hindi rin
naman makatarungan sa mahirap na ang kanyang matatanggap na ayuda ay
katumbas lang din ng ayuda na matatanggap ng mayayaman.)
2. JUSTICE BASED ON CONTRIBUTION: CAPITALIST JUSTICE
▪ Benefits should be distributed according to the degree of
contribution that each person provides for the benefit of the
society as a whole. (Ang matatanggap ng isang tao ay batay sa kanyang
naibahagai sa komunidad. Ibig sabihin, sa pagdami ng naibigay, sa paglaki ng
kanyang bahaging matatanggap. Sa kabilang banda, sa pagliit ng naibigay ay
sa pagliit din ng matatanggap. Ang matatanggap ay katumbas ng naibigay.)
▪ One’s contribution can be measured by the amount of work that

one rendered. The greater and harder one works, the greater
are the share of benefits. (Ang sukatan ng ambag/naibahagi sa lipunan
ay ang nagawang trabaho.)
▪ Hard work leads to success.
Ang halimbawang ibinigay sa libro ay yong isang saleslady na mas mataas ang
matatanggap nyang kita batay sa dami ng kanyang mabebentang produkto. Ang
prinsipyo dito ay bawal ang tamad, pasipagan ang laban, kasi sa pagsipag,
pagdaming mabebenta, katumbas nito ay magiging malaki ang balik nito sa
kanya. Iyo ang sinusunod ng ideya ng pangungumisyon.
CRICISMS:
▪ It seems to ignore the needs of the people. (Hindi nito binibigyan ng
pansin ang pangangailangan ng tao)
▪ It is considered to be insensitive to the disadvantaged group.
(Hindi nito tintingnan ang kapakanan ng mga kawawa/mahihina na grupo
ng mamayan.)
▪ There is a problem of objective measure on the value of
person’s product, especially in the fields of science, arts,
entertainment, athletics. (Mahirap sukatin ang taas ng naibahagi lalo
na sa larangan ng syensya, sining, pagtatanghal, at pampalakasan.)
▪ To answer the problem of insensitivity to the disadvantaged
group, the capitalist upheld the principle of the market forces of
supply and demand. The principle gives importance not on the
intrinsic value but on the extent to which it is both relatively
scarce and viewed by buyers as desirable.
Para masagot ang isa sa mga pula ng CAPITALIST JUSTICE, sinabi na masusukat
ang halaga/ambag ng isang bagay/tao gamit ang panukat na tintawag na supply
and demand. Ibig sabihin ay sa pagdami ng nangangailangan(demand) sa
paghalaga ng isang bagay. Ngunit hindi nito tinitingnan ang TUNAY na halaga
ng isang bagay(instrinsic value). Ang nangyayari minsan dahil sa
kagustuhan(desire) ng mamimili kaya ang isang bagay ay nagiging mukhang
pangangailangan. Sa sosyolohiya, iba ang gusto(desire/wants) kaysa sa
kailangan(needs). Ang nangyayari minsan ay yon gusto natin ay pinagmukukha
natin kailangan. Sa pagkakataon ito, ang isang bagay na sana ay hindi mataas
ang halaga dahil gusto lamang ng tao ay nagiging mataas ang halaga.
▪ Isang magandang halimbawa na sagot ng CAPITALIST JUSTCIE kung papaano
masusukat ang halaga ng isang tao/bagay, kasi naniniwala ito na sa paglaki
ng ambag ay sa paglaki din ng matatanggap. Ngunit kung pagkukumparahin
ang doctor at mga artista, hindi lang sa ganitong panahon ng COVID-19,
hindi maitatanggi na mas mahalaga ang mga doctor kaysa sa mga artista.
Kung susundin ang teorya ng CAPITALIST JUSTICE, marapat lamang na mas
malaki ang matanggap ng mga doctor kaysa sa mga artista, ngunit hindi
maitatanggi na kahit sabihin natin na mayayaman ang mga doctor, di hamak
na mas malaki ang sahod ng isang aratista kaysa sa isang doctor. Ito ang
isang pula/puna(criticism) sa CAPITALIST JUSTICE.
▪ Lalot higit kung pagkukumparahin ang mga guro sa mga artista. Mas
mahalaga ang mga guro ngunit lubhang napakaliit ng kanilang natatanggap
na sweldo kumpara sa isang artista.
3. JUSTICE-BASED ON NEEDS AND ABILTIES: SOCIALISM
▪ “from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs” (batay sa kanyang kakayahan, batay sa kanyang kailangan)
▪ Work burdens must be distributed to the ability of the people.
Those who are gifted with greater abilities must also be given
more responsibilities because greater responsibilities cannot
just be given to people who have lesser capabilities. (Ang mga
gawain ay hahati-hatiin batay sa kakayahan ng isang tao. Ibig sabihin, kung
ang ikaw ay magaling/talentado, mas marami di hamak ang gagawinmo
kaysa sa isang hindi ganoon kagaling o kataletado. Halimbawa pag
nagkakamayroon ng performance task as a group, kalimitan ‘yon magaling
sa grupo/malimit ay lider, sya ang madaming ginagawa, at yong iba na hindi
ganoon kagaling, ang mga ginagawa ay yong mga madadali katulad ng
pagbili ng meryenda, mga gagamitin, pagpapaprint. Kung ganito ang
nangyayari sa grupo, ito ang teoryang SOCIALISM.
▪ In this sense, work must be distributed based on the ability of
the individual so that work can be made more beneficial to
people and benefits of work well distributed in order to
promote human happiness and well-being. (Katulad ng
ordinaryong nangyayari sa isang group performance task, may myembro
dahil magaling ay mas marami ang kanyang nagagwa kumpara sa iba, sa
huli, pantay pantay ang makukuha ng mga myembro . Marami ka man
ginawa o ikaw ay yon mga taga bili ng meryenda, taga luto ng canton, ,
tagapagpaprint, taga-type, taga bili ng materyales, pantay lang ang
makukuha nyong marka. Dito iba ang capitalist justice, kasi kung ito ang
susundin, mas maraming ambag, mas malaki makukuha, sa socialism,
pantay pantay lang.
▪ Benefits must be also distributed according to their needs. (Ang
dami ng mga bagay na matatanggap ay batay sa pangangailangan. Ibig
sabihin, sa pagdami ng pangangailanga, sa pagdami ng matatanggap. Pag pag
kaunti ng kailangan, sa pag kaunti ng matatanggap. Kung susundin ito,
nagyong panahon ng COVID, mas marami dapat matanggap ang mga
mahihirap at yoon labis na naapektuhan ng COVID, yon mga arawan ang
trabaho na pag hindi nakapagtrabaho ay walang maiiuwing kita sa pamilya,
walang maiuuwing pagkain sa hapag kainan. Samantalang ‘yong mga
mayayaman, o yoon mga hindi naapektuhan, dapat ay wala silang
matanggap o kung mayroon man ay kaunti lang at hindi katulad ng
natatanggap ng mga mahihirap at yong mga nawalan ng trabaho.)
CRITICISM
▪ The socialist principle does not provide incentives to workers
who are given extra work. For this reason, the workers will not
anymore think of working harder because he knows that he
will not be receiving extra incentives. (Dahil nga madami man o
kakaunti ang ambag, pareparehas lamang nag makukuha/matatanggap na
kapalit, ikaw bilang pinakamaraming nakatakdang gawin ay nakakaisip na
hindi galingan/gandahan kung ano man ang ginagawa dahil maiisip mo na
ang marka na makukuha mo ay kaparehas lamang din naman ng kagrupo
mo na walang ginagawa. Ikaw ngayon ay tatamadin. Maisiip mo na, ay di
pareparehas nalang tayong mababa.)
▪ This concept of socialism is unrealizable because human beings

are by nature self-centered and competitive. (Itong pinaglalaban
ng socialism ay hindi manyayari dahil ang mga tao ay natural na makasarili)
▪ Socialist answered, man is by nature helpful. (Tugon ng Socialism
ay, ang tao ay natural na matulungin.)
4. JUSTICE AS FREEDOM: LIBERTARIANISM
▪ Libertarianism maintained the idea of Nozick “from each as they
choose, to each as they are chosen” (kung anong gustong ipagawa ng
iba sa iyo.” Halimbawa ay gusto ng publiko na magbayad ka ng mataas na
buwis dahil ito ang napagkasunduan/napagdesisyonan ng bawat isa, may
kakayanan ka at para ito sa ikakabuti ng marami, sa ilalim ng libertarianism,
mapipilitan kang sumunod dito.)
CRITICISM
1. The main difficulty with Libertarianism is the enshrining the
value of freedom from coercion at the expense of other’s right
and values without any explanation why this should be done. (isa
sa nasasaalang alang sa LIBERTARIANISM ay ang tamang konsepto ng kalayaan,
dahil katulad sa halimbawang nabanggit, maari kang maatasan gawin ang isang
bagay, katulad nga nag pagbabayad ng mataas na buwis, dahil lamang itoy
napagkasunduan ng bawait isa. Kahit walang paliwanag, dahil nakapagdesisyon
na ang bawat isa, ang magagawa mo nalang ay sumunod.)
2. Libertarian principle may generate unjust treatment of the less

privileged which contradicts the principle of equality. (Ang konsepto
ng LIBERTARIANISM ay maaring pagmulan nag hindi pantay na pagtingin sa
mga mahihina/kawawa/dukha-less privileged)
CONCEPT OF JUSTICE
1. Everyone is inviolable.
▪ The principle of inviolability is so sacred that not even the
general welfare of the society nor the happiness of the greatest
number can override or supersede it.
▪ Maximum total good may not be pursued by any means if it
will become unfair and disadvantageous to the minorities and
the unskilled.
(Ang sinsabi ni Rawls sa kanyang teorya ng KATARUNGAN ay LAHAT AY
MAHALAGA. Hindi maaring maisakripisyo ang kahit isa para lang sa kapakanan
ng nakakarami o ng lahat. Itong teoryang ito ni Rawls ay tahasan tumutuligsa sa
pananaw ng UTILITARIANISM na nagsasabi na para sa kapakanan ng
nakakarami, maaring may mga masakripisyong ilang tao.)
2. An erroneous theory is tolerable in the absence of a good one.
In a situation where there are two erroneous laws, Rawls held
that people should choose which of the two would be considered
better and less erroneous. (Sa tagpong may nagbabanggaan parehas na
maling batas, marapat na piliin ang batas na mas hindi mali. Halimbawa ay
isang hostage-taker na akmang papatayin ang isang pamilya na binubuo ng 5
myembro. Walang batas na nagsasabi na tama ang pagpatay, nagunit sa akmang
iyon, kahit mali ang pagpatay kailangan gawin iyon. Maaring magmukha itong
utilitarianism, pero ang pinararating nito act of injustice padin ang pagpatay
batay sa pangunhain panuntunan ni Rawls sa kanyang teorya ng katarungan na
ANG LAHAT AY MAHALAGA, ngunit, pinahihintulutan makagawa ng isang act
of injustice, ay dito ng aay ang pagpatay sa hostage taker kaysa ang magawang
act of injustice ay yong pamilya na may limang myembro. Mas malaking act of
injustice kung napatay ng hostage taker ‘yong buong pamilya.
3. Individual liberties should be restricted in order to maintain
equality of opportunity.
▪ Liberties of equal citizenship are of paramount importance in a
just society. (Ang karapatan sa pagkakapantay pantay ay nakapahalaga sa
isang komunidad na may katarungan/hustisya.)
▪ Individual liberties are not subject to political bargaining or

compromise because this will be unfair. Instead, the rights of
every individual should always be respected and each should
be given an opportunity to uphold one’s own dignity. (Ang bawat
isa ay may kalayaan/karapatan politikal na kailangan igalang. Pantay pantay
at nasa anumang estado ng buhay, ang bawat isa ay may karapatan. Lahat ay
may dignidad na kailangan igalang.)
Rawls cited four types of duties:
1. Fairness in dealing with others. Maging patas sa
pakikisalamuha/pakikitungo sa iba. Ibig sabihin, hindi dapat natin piliin
ang ating pinakikisamahan.
2. Fidelity. Being faithful to one’s promises, vows, and
responsibilities are giving justice to the person to whom the
promises are to be given. (Tupadin ang mga nabitiwang salita. Maging
totoo sa mga sinabi. Tumupad sa usapan/pangako.)
3. Respect to others. Igalang ang KAPWA. Malinaw dito na sinsabi na
KAPWA walang sinabi na ang igagalang lang ay yon mga matataas na tao ng
lipunan. Pantay pantay lang lahat ng mamayan.)
4. Beneficience. Gumawa ng mabuti sa KAPWA. Dahil ang pinaguusapang
ay pagkakapantay pantay, hindi ang gagawaan lang ng kabutihan ay yoon
taong alam mong may maibabalik sa nagawa mong kabutihan. Malinaw na
ang sinsabi ay KAPWA, walang sinsabi kwalipikasyon o etsado ng buhay.)
FOUR NATURAL DUTIES
1. Duty of Justice
2. The Duty of helping others in need or in jeopardy.
3. The duty not to harm or injure others
4. The duty to keep our promises.
Itong apat na karagdagan obligasyon/responsibilidad(DUTY) ay may
pagkakatulad sa unang apat na ibinigay ni Rawls na uri ng
responsibilidad/obligasyon(DUTY).
Pinakikita nitong mga nabanggit na obligasyon/responsibilidad kung ano ang

ayos batay sa antas para pag nagkataon na sa issang tagpo ay may dalawa o higit
pang responsibilidad ang kailangang gawin. Madaling mabuo ng desisyon kung
alin sa mga ito ang uunahin o bbigyan ng prayoridad.
CRITICISMS
1. The hypothetical situation under the veil of ignorance would
appear to be problematic. Ang paglalagay sa isang kathang isip na
sitwasyon kung saan ikaw ay walang alam sa pagkakaiba ng bawat taopara
masigurado ang pantay pantay na pagtingin ay mahirap mangyari sapagkat
bilang tao na may isip, hindi mo mapipigilan ang iyong isip na isipin ang mga
kwalipikasyon o katangian nag bawat tao na maaring magpaiba sa isa sa iba.
Dahil hindi mo maialis sa isip ang mga ganoon kwalipikasyon, tyak na
maapektuhan nito ang pagtingin sa kapwa.
CRITICISMS
2. Rawls considered UTILITARIANISM as lacking in JUSTICE,
however his concept of justice, ie., “liberties of individuals should
be restricted provided that such restrictions are for the benefit of
everyone” can be considered to be referring to the principle of
greatest number , which is contradictory to his view that every
individual is inviolable. (Sinasabi na ang teorya ni Rwals ay sagot sa pula ng
utilitarianism dahil itoy hindi makatarungan sa iilan na masasaalang alang para
sa ikakabuti ng nakakarami. Ngunit ang kanyang sagot sa LIBERTARIANISM, na
kung napagkasunduan ng marami, walang magagawa kundi sundin ito.
Nangangahulugan ito na ang kalayaan ng isa ay maaring isaalang alang para sa
kabutihan ng nakakarami. Ito ay taliwas sa kanyang sinasabi na ang BAWAT ISA
AY MAHALAGA at LAHAT AY PANTAY PANTAY(Everyone is inviolable).
Thank you
Chapter 15
Situation Ethics
Note: tried my best to transcribe the lesson in tagalog, however, because of the
limitation of language, there are words which do not have exact tagalog translation. I
hope through the examples that I have given, you will be able to understand the
different concepts discussed in this chapter. Kayang kaya n’yo naman ito unawain
- Ryan B. Katigbak
Situation Ethics
▪ “The New Morality”
▪ It is rooted from the classical tradition of Christian Morality.
▪ It has semblance with the Thomistic Moral Philosophy (St.
Thomas Natural Law Ethics) and the Divine Command Theory.
▪ HOWEVER,
▪ The DIFFERENCE is that the emphasis was on the PERSONAL
DECISION RATHER THAN MERE ADHERENCE TO A PRE-
ESTABLISHED CODE OF CONDUCT.
(Itong pananaw/batayan ng pagiging tama o mali ng kilos ng tao ay galing sa
teoryang moral ni Sto. Tomas ng Aquino at ng panukat na galing sa Dyos. May
pagpapahawig man, mayroon naman itong pagkakaiba at ito ay ang pagbibigay
nito ng espesyal na pansin sa desisyon/husga ng tao kung ano ang gagawin
kaysa sa pagsunod lamang sa mga nakatakda ng batas – batas na
iminumungkahi ni Sto. Tomas at inihayag ng Dyos.)
Situation Ethics
Dahil sa kanyang mga karanasan sa mga pinasukang trabaho, inialay nya ang
malaking bahagi ng kanyang buhay para ipaglaban ang kabutihan ng publiko
(Social Activism).
▪ He was hoping that by being active in the church, he would be

able to uphold his philosophy on social justice, especially his
principle on economic democracy for workers. (Si Flercher ay isang
mamayan na nakikipaglaban para sa kabutihan ng publiko, lalot higit ng mga
manggagawa. Naging bahagi rin sya ng Simbahan. Dito naisip nya na ang
mas magkakaroon sya ng kakayahan ipalaganap o isabuhay ang kanyang
paniniwala sa katarungan, lalot higit ang kalayaan ng mga manggagawa. Ang
tinutukoy nyang kalayaan ay ang kalayaan gumamit ng pera/yaman.
Papaano magkakamayroon nito ang isang mangagawa? Ito ay sa
pamamagitan ng makatarungan pagtingin/pakikitungo at pagpapasahod.
(Social Justice).
Situation Ethics
▪ Minsan habang sya ay nagbibigay ng isang seminar, dahil sa kanyang mga
adhikain (Social Justice), dalawang beses syang nabugbog ng mga
organisasyon na kanyang kinakalaban at nakakaway(anti-union groups).
▪ At dahil parin sa kanyang mga adhikain, sya ay pinatawag ni Senador Joseph
McCarthy sa asunto na pagiging kakampi/katulong ng mga komunista.
▪ Ang kanyang librong “Moral and Medicine” ay unang libro na nasulat na
tumatalakay sa mga tama o nararapat gawain (medical ethics) sa medisina
na hindi gamit ang maka-katolikong/kristyanong pananaw sa kung ano ang
tama o mali.
Situation Ethics
▪ In his bioethical principle, man should control and improve
their natural condition by reasoned choice rather than leaving
everything to chance. (Sa kanyang bioethical na pananaw, gamit ang
isip, dapat kontrolin o pagyamanin ng tao kung anong mayroon sya, huwag
aasa o isasalalay ang mga bagay sa pagkakataon. Dito sa aspetong ito may
pagkakaiba ang teoryang moral ni Fletcher sa Divine Theory at Natural Law
ni Sto. Tomas. Sinsabi na binibgyan ng espesyal na pansin ni Fletcher ang
desisyon ng tao, kaya nga sabi mnya huwag iaasa ang mga bagay bagay sa
pagkakataon/tadhana.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Natural Biological processes (e.g., methods of fertilization) are
not inherently better than artificial processes.
▪ Man is, by nature an intelligent being and artificial processes
are products of the intelligence. Kung susundin ay ang Divine Theory,
halimbawa sa mga mag-asawang hindi pa binibiyayaan ng magkaanak,
tatanggapin dapat itong kapalaran na ito kasi iyon nag plano ng Dyos sa
kanila. Sa tagpong ito, ang nangyari ay tanggap nalang ng mag-asawa ang
PRE-ESTABLISHED CODE OF CONDUCT(refer to slide no. 2), ang sinasabi ni
Fletcher, sa ganitong kaso, maari nang humingi ng tulong sa syensya sapagkat
ang syensya ay produkto ng pagiisip ng tao. Para kay Fletcher katanggap-
tanggap ang surrogate mother o yon mga in vitro fertilization. Itongmga
porsesong ito ay tintawag na “assisted by science.” Ayon kay Fletcher walang
nilalabag dito na NATURAL LAW which is originated from the DIVINE
LAW(Law given by God). Natural pa din kasi kinuha lang ang sperm at egg
cell ng mag-asawa ang nangyari lang ay pinroseso sa laboratoryo. Still this is
just ASSISTED BY SCIENCE, which in tagalog means, may tulong ang syensya.
Muli, ang syensya ay produkto lang ng isip ng tao.
Situation Ethics
▪ Noon 1967, tinalikuran nya ang kanyang Kristyanong Paniniwala at lahat ng
mga turo nito.
▪ Upon retiring from Episcopal Theological School. He moved to

Virginia where he became the first to receive the title
PROFESSOR OF MEDICAL ETHICS IN HUMAN BIOLOGY AND
SOCIETY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA.
Situation Ethics
The Moral Philosophy of Joseph Fletcher
Different Approaches to Morality
1. LEGALISTIC
2. ANTINOMIAN
3. SITUATIONIST
Situation Ethics
1. LEGALISTIC – upholds certain general moral prescriptions, laws,
or norms by which to judge, determine, and resolve moral
issues, and decisions. (Ayon dito, ang paghusga sa isang kilos kung tama
o mali ay batay sa isinasaad ng batas.)
> What does the Law Say? (Ano ang sinasabi ng batas sa nagawang
kilos?)
> Decisions that are not based on the prescribed law must be
considered unacceptable. (Ang kilos na hindi naayon sa batas ay
ituturing na hindi katanggap tanggap.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Restrictive and Circumscribed. (itong pananaw na ito sa moralidad ay
napakahigpit)
▪ This approach is too inadequate and insensitive to the

complexity of ever varying situation in which one could find
himself. (itong pananaw na ito ay walang konsiderasyon sa sitwasyon ng
isang tao na maaring nakapagtulak sa isang tao para magawa ang isang kilos)
▪ Naniniwala si Fletcher na ang ibat ibang relihiyon ay nabibilang sa

LEGALISTIC APPROACH TO MORALITY dahil sa kanila ang tama o mali ay
batas sa kung anong ang sinsabi sa kanila ng kanilang Dyos, simbahan, o mga
pinuno. Ang mali at mali. Ang tama ay tama.
Situation Ethics
2. Antinomian Approach – frees the people from obligations of
moral law. (Walang batas o polisiya na sinusunod.)
> there should be no absolute precepts or moral principles
that are enslaving people. (kabaliktarang ng Legalistic Approach
na may Batas na sinusunod, dito sa Antinomian, malaya ang tao
sapagkat walang batas na nagsasabi na ito dapat at ito ang hindi dapat,
ibig sabihin walang batas na umaalila sa tao.)
> the followers of this approach call for a response to a
particular s situation varying from one individual to
another. (hindi maaring may batas na tanging sinusunod dahil
maaring magkakaiba ang sitwasyon ng tao, kung may konkretong batas,
hindi ito magiging makakatotohanan sa lahat)
> absolute moral principles are considered as absolute
nonsense. (kung may konkretong batas, itoy walang halaga)
Situation Ethics
▪ From the Antinomian’s point of view, every man is endowed
with reason, accordingly, everyone has the capability of making
moral decision regardless of external rules. (Para sa pananaw ng
Antinomian, lahat ng tao ay may isip, kung kaya ang bawat isa ay may
kakayahan makapagdesisyon kung ano ang gagawin na hindi kailangan
ikonsidera ang batas na umiiral. )
▪ There are no valid universal principles which can hold true at all
time. (Dahil nga magkakaiba ang sitwasyon na maaring kinasasangkutan ng
tao, walang natatanging pamantayan/batas na magsasabi kung ano ang tama
o mali).
▪ Moral principles will depend on how the human person can

make use of them in their particular situation. (ang batas ay dapat
ayon sa kagamitan ng tao sa isang pangyayari/sitwasyon.)
Situation Ethics
3. SITUATIONIST APPROACH – it is in-between legalist’s absolute
norm and the antinomian’s lack of principles. (ito ay nasa
gitna nag legalist sa aspeto na may konkretong batas na dapat sundin at
ng antinomian sa apeto na walang batas na dapat maging panuntunan
ng kilos)
- rightness of an act depends upon a particular situation
but whatever that situation would be, one should always
act in the name of Christian Love. (ang pagiging tama/mabuti ng
isang kilos ay ayon sa partikular na sitwasyon, ngunit, dapat nag
magiging kilos ay naayos sa makaka-Kristyanong pagmamahal.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Situation ethics took some principle of natural law. It goes with
the natural law ethics in accepting reason as the instrument of
moral judgment, however, it rejected the natural law ethics’
principle that the good is given in the nature of things
objectively. (Itong Situation ethics ay may pakakatulad sa natural law
ethics sa aspeto na kailangang gamitin nag isip sa paggawa ng ng desisyon sa
mga gagawain o ikikilos. Ngunit, pinasubalian nito ang paniniwala ng
Natural law ethics na ang mga bagay ay mabuti sa kanilang mga sarili. Sa
madaling salita ay lahat ng bagay ay natural na mabuti.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Situationists rejected all “revealed” norms or laws but it went
with the Divine Command Theory in part by saying that one
can follow a moral law or violate it according to love’s needs.
Situationism would not plainly say, for example, that “an act of
charity is good.” (Tinalikuran ng Siutationist lahat ng ipinahayag na batas
ngunit ito naman ay kumatid sa Divine Command Theory sa pagsasabi na
maaring sundin o kaya naman ay labagin ang batas kung ito ay naguugat sa
may pagmamahal/pag-ibig na pangangailangan. Hindi tahasan/agad
sasabihin ng Situationism na ang isang mabuting kilos ay tama/katanggap
tanggap.
▪ Rather, one should say that “an act of charity is good if …”

(Masasabi na ang isang mabuting kilos ay tama/katanggap-tanggap
KUNG…)
Situation Ethics
▪ Helping others can be good or bad depending on a particular
situation. This is because helping others may lead to the
degradation of a person; or, on the part of the helper, the act of
helping may be done because he is aiming for something in
return. Hence, there is no presence of love in this situation and,
therefore, it cannot be considered as morally good. (Halimbawa,
pagtulong, ang kilos mismong ito ay maituturing na tama ngunit kung
susurin ito ayon sa teorya ni Fletcher, hindi agad masasabi na ito ay
katanggap tanggap o mabuti. Kailangan tingnan o surin ang sitwasyon.
Minsan ang pagtulong ay nagiging masama kung sa pagtulong ay ang
nakatanggap ng tulong ay nanliliit sa kanyang sarili. Maari din naman na
natulong ang isang tao para lang hamakin ang kalagayan ng tao na kanyang
tutulungan. Maari din na natulong ang isang tao dahil sa huli may inaantay
syang kapalit sa kanyang ginawang pagtulong. Ito ay katulad ng ilang pulitiko
na natulong para sumikat nang sa gayon ay manalo sa susunod na eleksyon.
Hindi sya tumulong dahil tama ang pagtulong ngunit ginawa nya ito sa ibang
dahilan, na ang dahilang itgo ay pangsarili. Ang mga halimbawang nabanggit
ay hindi katanggap tanggap.)
Situation Ethics
▪ In the context of Situationism, situation refers to a human
condition or any state of moral affairs and issues that demand
a moral judgment or action. (Kailangan laging tingnan ang sitwasyon
na humihingi ng kaukulang desisyon o kilos.)
▪ In any situation, the only thing to serve is love depending on a
situation. (Sa anuman sitwasyon, marapat na ang maging kilos ay
nagmumula/nag-ugat sa pagibig.)
Halibawa ay ang kaso ng pagpalaglag ng walamng muang na sanggol sa

sinapupunan ng kanyang ina. Kung ang bata ay bunga ng pangaabusong
sekswal, tintanggap/maaring ipalaglag ang sanggol, dahil ito ay hindi bunga ng
pagmamahal. Ang sinasabi ay sa gagawing desisyon, dapat laging nakaugat sa
pagmamahal/pagibig. Refer to page 176)
Situation Ethics
What Is CHRISTIAN LOVE?
Three kinds of LOVE:
1. Erotic (eros) – is the love that normally exists between a man
and a woman; but sometime, between a man and a man or
between a woman and a woman.
> it involves physical relations
(ang uri ng pagmamahal na ito ay karaniwan sa pagitan ng babae at lalaki, at
may pagkakataon din naman na sa pagitan ng lalaki sa kapwa nya lalaki at
babae sa kapwa nya babae. Sa uri ng pagibig na ito, ang mga sangkot na
personalidad ay nangkakaroon ng relasyon pisikal o sekswal, o sila ay
pumapasok sa relasyon makalaman o pagtatalik.)
Situation Ethics
2. Filial Love (filius – “son”) – refers to the love that exists
between a parent and a child, and between brothers and sisters.
(Ang uri ng pagmamahal/ pag-ibig na ito ay pagmamahal/pag-ibig ng isangm
agulang sa kanyang mga anak o pagmamahal/pag-ibig ng magkakapatid sa isat’t
isa.)
- There are cases wherein it becomes erotic in the case that a

father, for instance, false sexually in love with a daughter , or a
brother to his own sister, or a mother to her son. (May mga
pagkakataon na ang uri na ito ng pag-ibig/pagmamahal ay nahahaluan ng
sekswal/pisikal sa mga insidente na ang isang ama ay naging higit sa isang ama
ang relasyon sa kanyang anak na babae, gayundin kung ang relasyon ng isang
ina sa kanyang anak na lalaki ay naging higit sa magulang at anak na relasyon,
gayundin ang relasyon ng magkapatid kung itoy naging relasyon na magnobya at
magnobya. Itong mga pangyayaring ito ay tinatawag na INCEST o relasyon
pisikal na ipinagbabawal sapagkat ang sangkot ay magkadugo.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Both erotic and filial love cannot be considered as the best
form of love as both were marked by preferences. (Ayon kay
Fletcher, and unang dalawang uri ng pagmamahal, ang EROTIC at FILIALay
hindi ang pinakamagandang urei ng pagmamahal/pag-ibig sapagkat
mayroon itong sinisino/tinitingnan/pinipili. Halimbawa, ang isang guro ay
mas kakampihan/pipiliin nya ang kanyang anak na kanyang estudyante.
Bibigyan nya ito ng pabor. Kaya makakita tayo ng pagkakataon na pag may
naging kakalase tayo na anak ng ating guro, may isip tayong lagi itong
kkinakampihan, o kaya naman kaya sya nakakakuha ng matas na marka kasi
anak sya ng guro. Ang halimbawa na ito ay patunay na sa unang dalawang
uri ng pagmamahal/pag-ibig ay may pinapaboran/sinisino/kinakampihan.
▪ Dahil sa mga kahinaan(mayroon pinapaboran-biases at pinipili/sinisino –

preferences) ng dalawang naunang uri ng pagmamahal, sinabi ni Fletcher na
ang pinakadakilang uri ng pagmamahal/pag-ibig ay AGAPEIC.
Situation Ethics
3. AGAPEIC (agape – universal love) - refers to one’s care and
concern towards other irrespective of who they are.
(pagmamahal/pagibig –na ngangangahulugang pag-aalala, pagiisip sa
iba/kapwa maging sino man ito/sila. Dito ay walang sinisino, kinakampihan,
pinapaboran.)
- The best example of this is the CHRISTIAN LOVE. (Ang

pinakamagandang halimbawa ng AGAPEIC LOVE ay ang CHRISTIAN LOVE
dahil katulad ni Kristo, ibinigay nya ang kanyang sarili hindi para sa iilan,
hindi para sa mga nasunod sa kanyang mga utos, kundi para sa lahat lalot
higit ‘yong mga makasalanan. Maging sino man, maging ano man, walang
pinili si Kristo. Ibinigay nya ang kanyang buhay para sa lahat.
Situation Ethics
▪ Agapeic is basically the Charity, Respect, and Responsibility
towards others. (itong uri ng pagmamahal na ito ay paggawa ng mabuti
sa kapwa, pagrespeto sa kapwa, at pagiging responsible sa kapakanan ng iba.
Malinaw na walang ibinigay na kwalipakasyon pag sinabing iba, bakit, dahil
maging sino man ito, dapat ibigin o mahalin.)
- Itong uring ito mng pagmamahal/pagibig ang nararapat na maging batayan
ng gagawin ng isang tao sa anuman sitwasyon.
Situation Ethics
The Six Formulations of Christian Love
1. Only one thing is intrinsicially good, namely love; nothing else.
(Iisa lang ang natural na mabuti, iyo ay ang pag-ibig/pagmamahal.)
- inasmuch as the greatest is love, an action or decision that is

rooted in love will always be considered as morally good. (dahil
ang pinakadakila/pinakamabuti ay pag-ibig/pagmamahal, kaya naman lahat ng
kilos/gawa na nag-ugat sa pag-ibig/pagmamahal ay maituturing na mabuti.)
Situation Ethics
- Whenever one would make a decision or action, one should
always be acting through the agapeic love as it is never unjust
because it is always geared toward the good of others.
(Kabaliktarang ng panuntunan ng UTILITARIANISM na ang iniisip lamang ay
ang ikakabuti ng nakakarami, ang kilos na nag-ugat sa pag-
ibig/pagmamahal ay makatarungan sapagkat itoy para sa ikakabuti ng
lahat.)
- Love shows care, respect, and protects the dignity of the other.
(Ang pag-ibig/pagmamahal ay nagpapakita nag pagkalinga, pagaalala,
pagbigay galang/respeto at pagtataguyod ng dignidad ng iba.)
Situation Ethics
2. The ultimate norm of Christian Morality is LOVE, nothing else.
(Ang pangunahin batas ng maka-Kristyanong moralidad o pagtingin sa isang
kilos kung tama o mali/katanggap tanggap o hindi ay PAGMAMAHAL/PAG-IBIG
at wala ng iba pa.)
- Christianity is the religion of love. Therefore, all decision that

are to be made must be based on love. (Ang Kristyanismo ay religion
mng pagmamahal/pag-ibig. Kaya naman ang anumang gagawing desisyon ay
marapat lamangna naka-ugat sa pag-ibig/pagmamahal.)
- One should not show any preferences. This position seems to

uphold the same principle being upheld by John Rawls, who
held that every individual is inviolable. (Sa pakikitungo o
pagmamahal sa kapwa, dapat ay walang pinipili. Itong pananaw na ito ay
kahalintulad ng pananaw ni Rawls kung saan sinabi nya na ang lahat ay
mahalaga. Sa pagsasabi nito, nangangahulugan na wala dapat
piliin/paboran.)
Situation Ethics
- Everyone must therefore receive the same kind of treatment
and love, thus Christian love must be the foundation of all
actions. (Ang bawat isa ay marapt na ituring at mahal, kaya naman ang
pagibig/pagmamahal ang dapat maging panuntunan ng lahat ng kilos na
gagawin.)
Situation Ethics
3. Love and Justice are the same; for justice is love distributed.
(Ang pag-ibig/pagmamahal at katarungan ay iisa. Kung mahal mo ang isang tao,
ikaw din ay makatarungan. Halimbawa, mahal mo ang isang tao, hindi mo sya
lolokohin, o pagsisinungalingan dahil ang mga kilos na ito ay halimbawa ng
INJUSTICE o kilos na hindi makatarungan.)
- Love calls for justice and responsibility inasmuch as when

someone loves a person, he is also responsible for his welfare.
(Ang pag-ibig ay nangangahulugan ng katarungan at pagtiyak ng kapakanan
ng kapwa. Kung mahal mo ang isang tao, natural lamang na isipin mo ang
kanyang kapakanan, ganun din ang KAPAKANAN NG BUONG KOMUNIDAD
hindi ng iilan lamang.)
- When one would be doing a particular action, he should always

bear in mind the good things that his action would bring to
others. (Sa pagkilos ng isang tao, marapat lamang na isipin nito kung ano
ang maidudulot nitong kabutihan sa kanyang kapwa.)
Situation Ethics
4. Love wills the neigbor’s good, whether we like them or not. (Ang
pag-ibig/pagmamahal ay naghahangan ng kabutihan ng kapwa maging sino
man sila, ibig sabihin, maging gusto man natin sila o hindi.)
- The call to Christian love is to love others whether one
possesses good qualities or not. One has to learn to love others
whether he is likable or unlikable. Every person should learn to
love others whether they are friends or enemies. (Natural lamang
na may pinapaboran, ngunit ang maka Kristyanong pagmamahal ay
pagmamahal sa isang tao maging ito man ay may mga katangiang kanais-nais
o katangihan kasuklam-suklam. Mahalin/ibigin ang kapwa maging ito man
ay kaibig-ibig o hindi/kaaway.)
- One should learn to love even the most unlovable person.
(Dapat matutunan ng tao na mahal ang taong hindi kamahal mahal.)
Situation Ethics
5. Only the end justifies the means, nothing else. (bunga/resulta ang
magsasabi kung tama ang naging pamamaraan)
- Christian ethics would also teach its adherents that “the end
does not justify the means.” According to Christian Ethics, a
good does not justify the evil means because no matter how
good the consequence of the action could be, one should not
perform an action through evil means. Ayon sa Maka-kristyanong
paniniwala tungkol sa moralidad ng isang kilos, mawawalang bisa ang bunga
ng isang kilos kahit gaano pa ito kaganda o kabuti kung ito naman ay
nakamit sa maling pamamaraan. Ang dapat ay magandang bunga ng isang
kilos sa pamamagitan ng magandang pamamaraan. Halimbawa ay makapasa
sa isang pagsusulit sa tamang pamamaraan. Kahit maganda ang bunga, sa
halimbawa ay ang pagkapasa sa isang pagsusulit, ngunit kung nakamit ito sa
maling pamamaraan, katulad ng panadaraya sa pagsusulit, hindi ito
magiging katanggap-tanggap. Dapat ay magandang bunga galing sa
maganda/tamang pamamaraan.)
Situation Ethics
▪ However, Fletcher claims that an evil means does not always
signify that the end will become evil as well. If the end will not
justify the means, then what else would justify the mean. (Hindi
naman sa lahat ng pagkakataon ay ang masamang/maling pamamaraan ay
tiyak na magbubunga ng masama. Sinabi ni Fletcher kung hindi ang
bunga/resulta ang magsasabi kung tama ang naging pamamaraan, ano pa
ang maaring magsasabi/magdetermina nito? Halimbawa ay ang parusang
kamatay-death penalty ay katanggap tanggap kung ito lamang ang
natatanging paraan para matigil/matakot ang mga kriminal na gumawa ng
kasamaan sa kanilang kapwa. Katulad din ng pag alis sa sinapupunan ng
isang sanggol dahil itoy bung ang panghahalay sa ina, itoy magiging
katanggap tanggap dahil nanunumbalik nito ang dignidad na nawala sa
biktima ng panggagahasa. Ang dahilan dito ay sa tuwing makikita nya ang
magiging bunga ng pambababoy sa kanya, lagi nyang maalala ang sakit at
paiit ng nangyari sa kanya. Ang bata ay magiging habangbuhay na paalala sa
kanyang mapait na karanasan. Ang bottomline dito ay ang dapat gagawin
kilos ay dapat nag-uugat sa pag-ibig o pagmamahal.
Situation Ethics
6. Decisions are ought to be made situationally, not prescriptively.
(Ang desisyon na mabubuo ay nararapat na nakabatay sa sitwasyon, mali na
hindi nito isasaalang alang ang sitwasyon. Ibig sabihin nito ay hindi nagawa ng
desisyon hindi naayon sa sitwasyon.)
- Situation ethics gives high regard to freedom and responsibility.

(Mali ang ibinibigay na halaga ng situation ethics sa kalayaan at
responsibilidad ng isang tao.)
- There is no general moral prescription that will serve as the

basis of any moral decision. (Ayon sa situation ethics, walang
natatanging batas na magiging panuntunan sa paggawa ng desisyon dahil
ang mga gagawin desisyon kung anong kilos ang dapat gawin ay dapat
naayon sa sitwasyon. Ito ang pangunahin konsiderasyonng situation ethics.
Dahil may pagkakataon na magkakaiba ang sitwasyon, kaya naman mali na
magkamayroon ng natatanging batas na magiging pamantayan kung ano ang
katanggap tanggap maging ano man ang sitwasyon.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Because situations vary, the Christian love provides each
individual the proper decision under any circumstances.
Indeed, every decision may vary depending on the situation.
However, the situationists believed that though situations
change, such changes may be irrelevant as long as our moral
decision will be done in the name of Christian love. (Kahit na
magkakaiba nag sitwasyon, na maaring maging dahil kung bakit magiging
magkakaiba ang desisyon, itong mga pagkakaiba iba na ito ay magiging
walang saysay dahil ang dapat mabuong desisyon ay sa ngalan ng maka-
kristyanong pagmamahal/pag-ibig.)
Situation Ethics
▪ Situation ethics believed that the demands of love would
always be the basis of morality. (Naniniwala ang situationist ethics na
ang dapat magiging batayan ng moralidad ng kilos, kung ito ay tama o mali,
ay pagmamahal/pag-ibig)
▪ Situationists would have the following mathematical formula in

order to determine what the norm should be: INDICATIVE +
IMPERATIVE = NORMATIVE. (pagkakataon/sitwasyon + nararapat
gawin = aktwal o nararapat na gawin batay sa sitwasyon/pagkakataon)
Situation Ethics
▪ The situationist would agree that one has to look first at the
situation before making any moral decision. In such particular
situation, one has to apply what the duty demands. Such duty
would suggest that one has to make moral decision based on
love. (Sinasabi ng situationist na ang gagawin desisyon ay naayon sa
sitwasyon. Ibig sabhin, tingnan muna ang sitwasyon bago kumilos/gumawa
ng desisyon. Sa ganitong tagpo, ang hinihingi ay gawin ang ating obligasyon
at iyon ay ang GAGAWING DESISYON AY DAPAT NAKAUGAT SA
PAGMAMAHAL/PAG-IBIG.
Situation Ethics
▪ AGAPEIC LOVE must be the normal of making moral decision
because it shows no preferential treatment for either erotic or
filial consideration. It avoids favoritism, friendship,
camaraderie, utang na loob, at pakikisama. (Ang gagawing
desisyon ay nakaayon sa maka-Kristyanong pagmamagal o tintawag na
AGAPEIC LOVE dabhil itoy walang sinisino/kinakampihan/pinapaboran
hindi katulad ng EROTIC LOVE at FILIAL LOVE.)
▪ In such a case, one will be able to give proper and equal

treatment to everybody can also be considered as a good basis
of morality. (Sa AGAPEIC LOVE o maka-KRISTYANONG PAG-
IBIG/PAGMAMAHAL magiging patas at makatarungan ang turing/pagtingin
sa bawat isa.)
Situation Ethics
CRITICISMS
▪ Situation ethics can be considered as the ethical view that does
not uphold any moral principles to be the basis of universal
moral decisions. In other words, because decision depend on
particular situations, the person making any moral decision
must base his decision on particular situation. (Dahil ang sa
pananaw ng situation ethics, ang gagawin desisyon/kilos ay naayos sa
sitwasyon, kaya naman ito ay maaring ituring na walang natatanging batayan
ng magiging desisyon. Ibat iba ang nagiging desisyon kasi itoy batay sa
sitwasyon. Dahil magkakaib ang sitwasyon, magkakaiba din ang magagawang
desisyon.)
Situation Ethics
CRITICISMS
▪ Although situationism would consider the agapeic love as the
ultimate norm of making a decision, it is still difficult to make a
proper decision because every decision is still dependent on
one’s personal interest and ulterior motives under the pretext
of love. (Kahit na ang mabubuong desisyon ay naayon sa AGAPEIC LOVE
or CHRISTIAN LOVE, hindi pa din maiaalis ang posibilidad na sa gagawin
desisyon ay may halong pang-sariling kagustuhan. Pag itoy nangyari, ang
desisyon ay hindi nag-ugat sa AGAPEIC LOVE o CHRISTIAN LOVE.)
▪ Our moral decision cannot always guarantee an objective and

impartial judgment, When one consider situations, one cannot
help but be subjective in making moral decision. (Sa ating
ginagawang desisyon mahirap na masiguarado na itoy walang tapat o walang
kinikilingan. Kung ang desisyon ay batay sa sitwasyon, hindi maaiwasan na
mahaluan ang desisyon ng mga makasariling kagustuhan.)
Situation Ethics
CRITICISMS
(dagdag)
Sa halimbawa na pinapayagan ang pag-alis sa sinapupunan ng isanginosenteng
bata dahilitoy hindi bunga ng pagmamahal kundi bunga ng
kababuyan/kahalayan, maari itong tingan sa ibang anggulo na maaring itanong
na ang pagpatay ba sa inosenteng bata ay naayon sa AGAPEIC LOVE o
CHRISTIAN LOVE? Saka kung matatandaan, isa sa formulation ng CHRISTIAN
LOVE ay LOVE WILL THE NEIGHBOR’S GOODS, WHETHER WE LIKE THEM OR
NOT. Ito yon mahalin/ibigin kahit yon mga hindi kamahal-mahal o kaibig-ibig.
Ang batang nasa sinapupunan ay maaring hindi kaibig-ibig dahil itoy buinga ng
kababubuyan, dito mai-aapplay ang nabanggit na formulation ng Christian
Love.
Situation Ethics
Thank you

Eth Reviewer Finals

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Eth Reviewer Finals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETHICS

RYAN BALBUENA KATIGBAK

1. What is the etymological origin of the word “PHILOSOPHY”

2. Why is philosophy considered as SCIENTIA SCIENTIARUM?

▪ It asks the simple question like: “Where did the

▪ It is a good tool in understanding the human person.

▪ It is also the means towards the attainment of happiness.

▪ It can help us clarify our thoughts.

▪ It gives us a clear understanding of the

3. When did philosophy begin?

4. Why is it said that Philosophy began in the SEAPORT TOWN of

5. Since Philosophy started in the Seaport of Miletus, why is it t

▪ On the question what was the origin of

▪ Each period has a particular subject of study. It means, philosophers in

6. What particular event in history led to the downfall of religion ?

▪ People believed that philosophy does not have

▪ Philosophical training provides the students to help to think, read, and

▪ If we will be able to apply our knowledge in looking at things, we will be

7. Why do you think God does not need/to engage in Philosophy?

▪ Philosophy is a disinterested search because people believed that it

2. Theodicy (the philosophical study of God).

3. Cosmology (the philosophical study of the universe / environment).

4. Philosophy of Psychology (the philosophical study of man as

5. Social Philosophy (the philosophical study of the society.)

6. Political Philosophy (philosophical study of the state and the social

3. Philosophy of Person (the study about the dignity of man, truth,

▪ Most people considered philosophy to be more

▪ Technological advancement has led people to seek for tangible as

▪ Good life became a problem when man started

▪ Hence, goodness and beauty are always

▪ Goodness becomes causal and material.

▪ Man is an animal and yet not an animal.

▪ Every man will always search for the good.

▪ Man is a being who is always in search for

▪ Conscience became the reason why the human

▪ It is a set of rule of human behavior, which has been

▪ A good action is that which imposes moral obligation or duty.

▪ Man will find meaning in life if he will be doing

▪ Man’s inclination towards earthly goods will oftentimes lead him to

▪ Ethics is the very investigation of the meaning of life.

▪ Applied ethics is further subdivided into professional ethics, legal ethics,

▪ Ethics vs. Psychology

▪ Ethics vs. Economics

▪ Ethics vs. Law

▪ Ethics vs. Politics –

▪ What moral standard will be followed?

In the United States, most cases of anencephaly are

Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her

Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should

“It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other

Is it horrendous? Opinions were divided. These ethicists

▪ However, others would say that it would be uncharitable to

▪ A moral agent should, therefore, have a good standard in

▪ As to the soundness of a moral decision, one’s view would

▪ Sources of values and moral are varied.

▪ Is there a possibility to have a universal moral principle which will

▪ As knowledge is relative to each person, moral judgments are

▪ The different sets of moral principles are of equal worth

2. The moral code of a society determines what is right

3. There is no objective standards that can be used to

5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should

▪ Edsa Revolution (February 25, 1986).

▪ Everyone must take action and do their part in order to

▪ Many Filipinos don’t only condition themselves to NOT act against