2.

Morality claims our lives. It makes claims upon each of us that are stronger than the claims of law and
takes priority over self-interest. As human beings living in the world, we have basic duties and obliga-
tions. There are certain things we must do and certain things we must not do. The idea that morality has
five purposes, as presented in the essay "On the Nature and Purpose of Morality", can be used as an
argument against relativism. In the essay, Louis Pojman claims that morality has the following five
purposes: "to keep society from falling apart", "to ameliorate human suffering", "to promote human
flourishing", "to resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways", and "to assign praise and blame,
reward the good and punish the guilty" (Pojman, 2000). This paper will regard these five purposes of
morality as conditions that must be satisfied in order for an act to be morally right and these conditions
aim to bring about flourishing communities. Ethical relativism will be defined as stated by John Ladd in
page 160, wherein any act committed by an individual or group is morally right if it is acceptable within
the society to which the individual or group belongs (Ladd, 1973; Pojman, 2000). This shows that an act
cannot be considered right or wrong because there are no universal moral principles that govern an act
committed by an individual. Furthermore, one statement will be considered to be an argument against
another statement if and only if the first statement can provide at least one instance when the second
statement will not hold. In this case, Pojman's claim on the five purposes of morality can be considered
as an argument against ethical relativism if it can show that an act can be considered right if it satisfies
the five conditions stated earlier, or wrong if it does not satisfy the five conditions, thus showing that
ethical relativism cannot be true.

In order to show that Pojman's essay can be used as an argument against ethical relativism, it has
to be shown that the claims made in the essay disprove ethical relativism. Since Pojman's essay argues
that morality has five purposes, all of which aim to "create happy and virtuous people" (Pojman, 2000),
then an act that is committed by an individual or group can be judged to be right or wrong whether or
not the act is acceptable within the community to which the individual or group belongs.

For example, Hitler's persecution of the Jews was acceptable within the society to which he belonged,
the Nazi government. However, Jews were forced to suffer unbearable conditions in concentration
camps during World War II and many were sentenced to die. More recently, the terrorist attacks on the
US were considered just within the terrorist organization itself, even though these attacks resulted in a
great deal of damaged property and death. According to Pojman's arguments, the acts of Hitler and
these terrorists can be considered morally wrong because they also brought about human suffering.

There are also some people who act in the interest of promoting flourishing human communities,
prevent human suffering and prevent the breakdown of society, yet their ideas go against the beliefs
held by the majority of people in the society. Such people are called reformers (Pojman, 2000). Malcolm
X and Martin Luther King opposed the oppression of African-Americans in the United States during the
1960's. Their acts can be considered morally right because they fought for the equality of different
ethnic groups in America, which indeed promotes growth in the community, even if it meant going
against the racist mentality that most of the people held during that time.

This logically implies that ethical relativism is wrong. Thus, an individual's or a number of people's
actions can be judged to be right or wrong regardless of the fact that the act may or may not be
acceptable within the society to which he or she belongs. The only thing that matters in judging

These arguments presented by Pojman, some of which are implied, disprove the theory of ethical
relativism, so the essay "On the Nature and Purpose of Morality" can be used as an argument against
ethical relativism. The essay provided instances when ethical relativism can be wrong. Pojman asserts
that an act indeed has certain conditions that it must satisfy and he further states that morality has goals
that it must meet in order for an act to be considered morally right, more specifically, it must "create
flourishing communities" (Pojman, 2000).

3.

Moral Standards Non-moral

Standards

Moral standards Non-moral

involve the rules standards refer to
people have about rules that are
the kinds of unrelated to moral
actions they or ethical
believe are considerations.
morally right and
wrong, as well as
the values they
place on the kinds
of objects they
believe are
morally good and
morally bad.

Chapter 2

1. The two elements of moral experience are moral agent and moral act.

Moral Agent

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for
his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions.
Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents.
Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme situations, like being held
hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

So, do corporations have moral agency? As artificial intelligence develops, will robots have moral
agency? And what about socially intelligent non-human animals such as dolphins and elephants?

Indeed, future philosophers and legal scholars will need to consider moral agency as it applies to these
situations and others.

What Is A Moral Action?

When can it be said that a particular action is moral? In asking this question, the intention is not to
contrast moral with immoral actions, but to consider many of our everyday actions against which
nothing can be said from the conventional standpoint and which some regard as moral. Most of our
action are probably non-moral; they do not necessarily involve morality. For the most part we act
according to the prevailing on conventions. Such conventional behaviour is often necessary. If no such
rules are observed, anarchy would be the result, and society-social intercourse would come to an end.
Still the mere observance of custom and usage cannot properly be called morality.
A moral act must be our own act; it must spring from our own will. If we act mechanically, there is no
moral content in our act. Such action would be moral, if we think it proper to act like a machine and do
so. For in doing so, we use our discrimination. We should bear in mind the distinction between acting
mechanically and acting intentionally. It may be a moral of a king to pardon a culprit. But the messenger
bearing the order of pardon plays only a mechanical part in the king's moral act. But if the messenger
were to bear the king's order, considering it to be his duty, his action would be a moral one. How can a
man understand morality who does not use his own intelligence and power of thought, but let himself
be swept along like a log of wood by a current? Sometimes a man defies convention and acts on his own
with a view to [doing] absolute good. Such a great hero was Wendell Phillips1. Addressing an assembly
of people, he once said," Till you learn to form your own opinions and express them, I do not care much
what you think of me." Thus when we all care only for what our conscience says, then alone can we be
regarded to have stepped on to the moral road. We shall not reach this stage, as long as we do not
believe-and experience the belief-that God within us, the God of all, is the ever present witness to all
our acts.

It is not enough that an act done by us is in itself good; it should have been done with the moral or
otherwise depends upon the intention of the doer. Two men may have done exactly the same thing; but
the act of one may be moral, and that of the other contrary. Take, for instance, a man who out of great
pity feeds the poor and another who does the same, but with the motive of winning prestige or with
some such selfish end. Though the action is the same, the act of the one is moral and that of the other
non-moral. The reader here ought to remember the distinction between the two words, non-moral and
immoral. It may be that we do not always see good results flowing from a moral act.

While thinking of morality, all that we need to see is that the act is good and is done with a good
intention. The result of an action is not within our control. God alone is the giver of fruit. Historians have
called Emperor Alexander "great". Wherever he went [in the course of his conquests,] he took the Greek
language and Greek culture, arts and manners, and today we enjoy the benefits of Greek civilization. But
the intention of Alexander behind all this was only conquest and renown. Who can therefore say that his
actions were moral? It was all right that he was termed "great", but moral he cannot be called.

These reflection prove that it is not enough for a moral act to have been done with a good intention. The
result of an action is not within our compulsion. There is no morality whatever in my act, if I rise early
out of the fear that, if I am late for my office, I may lose my situation. Similarly there is no morality in my
living a simple and unpretentious life if I have not the means to live otherwise. But plain, simple living
would be moral if, though wealthy, I think of all the want and misery in the world about me -and feel
that I ought to live a plain, simple life and not one of ease and luxury. Likewise it is only selfish, and not
moral, of an employer to sympathize with his employees or to pay them higher wages lest they leave
him. It would be moral if the employer wished well of them and treated them kindly realizing how we
owed his prosperity to them. This means that for an act to be moral it has to be free from fear and
compulsion. When the peasants rose in revolt and with bloodshot eyes went to King Richard II of
England demanding their rights, he granted them the rights under his own seal and signature. But when
the danger was over, he forced them to surrender the letters. It would be a mistake for anyone to say
that King Richard's first act was moral and the second immoral. For his first act was done only out of fear
and had not an iota of morality about it.

Just as a moral action should be free from fear or compulsion so should there be no self-interest behind
it. This is not to say that actions prompted by self-interest are all worthless, but only that to call them
moral would detract from the [dignity of the] moral idea. That honesty cannot long endure which is
practiced in the belief that it is the best policy. As Shakespeare says, love born out of the profit motive is
no love.

2. The phrase "prohibited acts" is defined in both federal and state law and represents a category of
crimes or behaviors a particular jurisdiction has carved out as particularly unacceptable. This is usually
illegal activity that endangers a person's life and well-being and destroys communities. By their very
nature, prohibited acts cannot be habitual and enduring, if they do, they cease to become prohibited
(Skutch, 2007) and thus become a norm. For example, if stealing becomes habitual and enduring, then
no one will produce a merchandize, save money in the bank, or hold on to earned wealth. People will
live a hand to mouth existence like the primitive times. With that, it would be impossible to steal
because there is nothing more to steal. Another, when lying becomes a norm, then telling the truth will
be the odd thing to do. In reality, liars succeed in deceiving us because most people tell the truth than
they lie. Hence, moral codes prohibit acts that in themselves cannot be sustained and maintained

3. Moral foundations theory tries to explain why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows
so many similarities and recurrent themes.

The six foundations

Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and
an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and
nurturance.

Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It

generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting
coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people
feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social
interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate
authority and respect for traditions.

Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It
underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the
widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and
contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel
toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those
of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in
solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

Chapter 3

1. My Moral Dilemma Story

I’ve liked girls my whole life, but I only knew I liked them since I was nineteen. About five years ago now.
At the time I still occasionally caught feelings for men, so I considered myself bisexual.

However, I’ve also had a huge problem where I would frequently fall in love with the idea of a person
before I really got to know them. Eventually, they would reveal their true selves to me and I would
realize how incompatible we really were.

I came out to all the family members who I knew would be supportive. I came out to my friends. I had
revealed my bisexuality to all of them years before, and they weren’t surprised or condescending when I
told them I actually only liked girls.

When I came out as bi again later, after finally admitting to myself that I had a straight crush, the people
in my life were supportive. They didn’t say I was wishy-washy like I had worried they would. They simply
reassured me that these things can be complicated, and I don’t need a label. Labels are powerful to me,
but I totally get where my friends and family were coming from.

I don’t regret having to change who I thought I was to get the chance to be with this man. I only regret
not letting myself be more open to the opportunity to meet this person. Even though the relationship
ultimately didn’t work out, it taught me a lot about myself. And, as I’ve written before, no relationship is
a waste of time if you learned something about the world or yourself.

And I certainly did. I learned that I’m really bisexual, and definitely not a lesbian. And that is something I
really needed to learn.

2.

A. For me it was at systemic level because it not just concern myself but also how people in the society
see me as a person.

B. It was based on moral reasoning because I think first of it many times before coming to an ultimate
decision.

Chapter 4

1.Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely
determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will
because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. The theory holds that the universe is
utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of
its future is also possible. Soft determinism suggests that some behaviors are more constrained than
others and that there is an element of free will in all behavior. However, a problem with determinism is
that it is inconsistent with society's ideas of responsibility and self control that form the basis of our
moral and legal obligations. Determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility because
determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise. Since determinism is a thesis about what
must happen in the future given the actual past, determinism is consistent with the future being
different given a different past.

2. Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three
necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own
actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative
courses of action.

Chapter 5

A.

C - Communication about the culture that bring people together

U - Understanding other peoples cultures and accepting them

L - Lifes culture and religion is part of a

way of life

T - Trusting cultures with things (your

culture etc)

U - Underrated cultures that not many

people know about, but still are
important

R - Religions can be part of culture

E - Equality that all cultures should be fair

B.

1 culture

2 symbols

3 shared

4 transmitted

5 realm

6 holistic

7 evolutionary

8 predictable

9 subject

10 static

C.

It is wrong to declare that we don't have a culture of our own. It is just covered or submerged with many
foreign influences. The effect: It is now difficult for us to understand who we really are. To know our
Filipino citizenship, we must take off lots of things in our mind and habit. It's like peeling an onion. In the
process of peeling it you can't prevent that you will cry because there are so many painful changes.

Because of the influence of the foreigners, many of us were influenced: reverse ethnocentrism. We
measure ourselves in a form of the foreigner's judgement. That's why in our view, we are always missing
something. We always lose because we cannot top the western standards. Our view of ourselves were
crushed. We looked to our culture so low compared to the others.

In our view, we looked like woe. Instead of loving our own, we instead dreamed of becoming and giving
more importance to the foreign cultures. We sing songs every December the "Santa Claus is coming to
town" and "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" even though we don't have snow or chimneys in our
houses.

The sales of glutathione increases because many wants to become white. But they don't know, that it's
easy to get skin cancers if you're removing the skin coloring of melanin that fights ultraviolet rays. From
clips of the clothesline until to the plastic nose lifters, everyone rushed to looked like they have pointed
noses.

Others even whiten their faces to look like their favorite Korean boy band. Others even put contact
lenses so that they look like anime characters. But you can't figure your genes, a snub is a snub, that's
what it is. Being a Filipino is not just a talk outside but it's inside you, everything we do to our body just
results to everything in our will.

Chapter 6

A.

The three things that i realized in this lesson are 1. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs,
values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged
against the criteria of another. 2. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture to our own standards
of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we should try to understand cultural practices of
other groups in its own cultural context. For example, instead of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting!
3. Cultural relativism is defined as the view that. a. something is good if and only if it is socially approved
in a given culture.

The two things that challenged me are 1. Understanding the concept and 2. Citing examples

One thing that I want to ask is Is cultural relativism good?

B.

Advantage Disadvantage

It is a system It creates a system

which promotes that is fueled by
cooperation. personal bias.

For the most part, Every society has a

humanity is strong certain natural
because of the bias to it because
differences we all of how humanity
have. Every operates. People
individual has a tend to prefer to
different be with others
perspective that is who have similar
based on their thoughts and
upbringing, feelings, so they
experiences, and segregate
personal thoughts. themselves into
By embracing the neighborhoods,
many differences communities, and
we have, the social groups that
cooperation share specific
creates the perspectives.
potential for a When people are
stronger society. given the power to
Each individual define their own
definition of moral code, then
success allows us they will do so
to pursue stronger based on their
bonds with one own personal bias.
another and There is no longer
potentially achieve a group
more because perspective.
there are no People follow their
limitations from a own code at the
group level and expense of others.
what can or
cannot be
accomplished.

It creates a It would create

society where chaos.
equality is
People who can
possible.
follow their own
In any society, moral code
people rise by because there is
climbing on top of no “wrong” or
other people. It is “right” would be
a socially allowed to pursue
acceptable way of any life they
creating preferred under
discrimination. We the theory of
see this today in cultural relativism.
the wage gap that If you’re upset
women face, the with your
educational neighbor, then
opportunities that you can kill that
minority groups person without
face, and the consequence if
violence we see your moral code
because of allows for murder.
political Instead of
oppression. purchasing
Cultural relativism something, you
allows the could steal it if you
individual to see stealing as
define their moral “right” to do.
code without There is no real
defining the moral way to protect
code of others. people in such a
Each person is society, so each
separate in such a person becomes
society. That responsible to
separation creates protect
equality because themselves. It
each person can creates a system
set their own that is Darwinian
definition of in practicality,
success. where only the
strongest can
survive.

People can pursue It is an idea that is

a genuine interest. based on the
perfection of
In the modern humanity.
society, people are
funneled toward Many people
certain career strive to do good
options because of every day. Most
their want to see
circumstances. If everyone have the
you can’t afford to chance to pursue
go to college, then happiness in some
you pursue a way. That is why
vocational career the idea of cultural
or some sort of relativism often
entrepreneurship seems to be
instead of a career inviting. The only
that requires a problem is that
graduate degree. people are not
If you can’t afford perfect. We can be
to buy a house, forgetful. We can
you go rent an lie. We can
apartment. In become aggressive
cultural relativism, when a driver cuts
you get to pursue you off while
your own interests driving and puts
without your family at risk.
restriction. You set Without a group
the definitions of moral code in
what you can have place to govern
and what you decisions,
cannot have. anything could
When happen when we
implemented experience these
successfully, each moments of
person would get imperfection.
to focus on their
strengths instead
of their
weaknesses.

Respect is It could promote a

encouraged in a lack of diversity.
system of cultural
Cultural relativism
relativism.
promotes an
People come from individualistic
different cultures. point of view, so
They have although it seems
different ideas. to promote
They pursue diversity, it
different actually removes it
definitions of from a society.
success. Because Cultural relativism
such a system would allow
promotes the slavery to return
individual’s to the US South. It
definition instead would allow men
of a group to exclude women
definition, a from voting once
society can evolve again. It would
because there is a stop employers
natural level of from paying
respect built into someone a fair
the process. Each wage – or even
person is naturally paying them a
given the right to wage at all. The
pursue life only standards
through their own that are in place
specific are those which
perspective and are set by the
then learn from individual
their experiences involved, which
in a way that means everyone is
works best for pursuing their own
them. position of
strength. We
cannot create
diversity when the
emphasis of a
society is
individualistic gain
that can come at
the expense of
others.

It preserves It draws people

human cultures. away from one
another.
Humanity is a very
diverse set of Although cultural
thoughts, relativism can
traditions, ideas, promote people
and practices. coming together
Many times, the to share their
traditions of strengths, it can
humanity are set also encourage
aside so that a people to draw
group set of apart from one
standards can be another. C.S.
appeased. Native Lewis, in his
and First Nations description of Hell
tribes in North from The
America did this Screwtape Letters,
by signing treaties envisions a place
which would help where people are
them to preserve constantly going
some lands, but away from each
limit their rights by other to avoid the
being subject to a demons that each
new governmental person has.
authority. They Because each
were forced to person is
trade some of uncertain of what
their culture. codes and
Under the theory standards another
of cultural is following, the
relativism, such a natural inclination
trade would not for self-
be necessary. It preservation
wouldn’t even be causes people to
a consideration. draw away. You
might develop a
close-knit
community at
first, but as Lewis
describes, each
demon causes
people to back
away from one
another instead of
coming closer.

C.

Sometimes it is easy to become consumed with our own beliefs and habits. We can find it challenging to
accept other ways of life. However, close mindedness and intolerance are not constructive for anyone,
especially when there is so much we can learn about other cultures. Learning to accept and respect
other cultures is an important step to having new experiences and learning about the world.

One of the most important ways to learn to become respectful of other cultures is to spend some time
reflecting on your own beliefs and biases. Each of us has what is known as a "filter". The filter impacts
how we see other cultures.

In order to respect other cultures, it is important to understand something about them. You can expand
your knowledge by doing some research. Start by reading about the culture you are interested in.

Religion is an important part of many cultures. Learning more about a different religion can help you
understand cultures other than your own. Take some steps to learn more about religion.

Chapter 7
1.Ako ay Pilipino.” Yes, I am. I may not always talk or think like someone might expect a Filipino ought
to, but I would never identify as any other nationality. I mean, sure, there might be significant economic
benefits to becoming a citizen of another country, but what would it benefit me to gain the world and
lose my soul.

Ang dugo’y maharlika, yes, but really only in the metaphorical sense. What I do have, just like every
Filipino—and in equal measure—is the natural dignity that comes from being human. I am neither better
nor inferior to anyone.

Looking at it from a different perspective, I can comfortably say that this natural equality with my fellow
humans means we all are free to ignore anyone else’s claims to being better than me simply because of
who they are or who their ancestors claimed to be.

Likas sa aking puso, adhikaing kay ganda. Well, I certainly like to think so, despite being subject to the
frailties of humanity. I struggle to overcome these faults—envy, fear of the other, greed, glee at having
power—just like everyone else, knowing that being a good person doesn’t mean the absence of these
things, but having both the presence of mind to recognize them as flaws, and the determination to be
better than I am.

Sa Pilipinas na aking bayan, lantay na Perlas ng Silanganan, wari’y natipon ang kayamanan ng Maykapal.
Can’t argue with that, but that sentiment does sound melancholic; while it celebrates the beauty and
natural wealth of the Philippines, it does make me want to ask if it’s being said to convince oneself,
more than anyone else—the way a person might stand in front of a mirror and whispering over and over
again “you got this.” The Philippines is a beautiful and bountiful country, but the truth of the matter is,
we haven’t been the best stewards of it, have we?

Bigay sa ’king talion, sa mabuti lang laan; sa aki’y katutubo, ang maging mapagmahal. Again, yes, I would
like to think so. Still, I fall short of the mark on occasion, but that still doesn’t change the fact: ako ay
Pilipino, isang bansa isang diwa ang minimithi ko. I have every faith that I am not alone in that.

Sa Bayan ko’t Bandila, laan buhay ko’t diwa. That, in a nutshell, is why I do the work I do—even when it
can sometimes be truly challenging. To my mind, giving up on the nation out of fear and despair is the
least patriotic thing any Filipino can do. It’s not something that a Pilipinong totoo, ought to joke about,
even light-heartedly.

Let’s face facts. It’s not an altruistically friendly world beyond our seas. It’s a world motivated almost
exclusively by competing national interests. No one is going to give us a hand up just out of the
goodness of their hearts, and even the handouts are often tangled up in strings we can’t even see. And
certainly no one is going to give us a free lunch. The only way we don’t lose our footing—and more
besides—in a world like that is to periodically remind ourselves that, as imperfect as we are, we are a
race of people who fought and bled and died when fighting, bleeding, and dying were necessary to
stand up for who we were; that we, with intellect and savoir-faire, demanded and gained the respect of
powers greater than ourselves; and that throughout our tumultuous history, we have survived our trials
with our heads held high. Taas noo kahit kanino.
2.To historian Fr. Horacio de la Costa, SJ, these are the jewels the Filipino people have: music and Faith.
"We are sundered one from another by eighty-seven dialects; we are one people when we sing," the
Jesuit priest--actually, the first Filipino to head the Jesuits in the Philippines--said. He further noted, "The
kundimans of Bulacan awaken an answering chord in the lutes of Leyte. Somewhere in the rugged north,
a peasant woman croons her child to sleep; and the Visayan listening remembers the cane fields of his
childhood, and his mother singing the selfsame song."

The historian also pondered, "We are again one people when we pray. This is our other treasure: our
Faith. It gives, somehow, to our little uneventful days a kind of splendor: as though they had been
touched by a King. And did you ever notice how they are always mingling, our religion and our music? All
the basic rites of human life--the harvest and the seed-time, the wedding, birth and death are among us
drenched with the fragrance of incense and the coolness of music."

He closed his musings with this conclusion: "These are the bonds that bind us together; these are the
soul that makes us one. And as long as there remains in these islands one mother to sing Nena's Lullaby,
one boat to put out to sea with the immemorial rowing song, one priest to stand at the altar and offer
God to God, this nation may be conquered, trampled upon, enslaved, but it cannot perish. Like the sun
that dies every evening, it will rise again from the dead."

3.

I AM A FILIPINO

I am a Filipino, in blood and spirit

born from immortal seeds of heroes

Whose heart were willing to commit

their lives to fight any kind of foes

even those that has the power to spit

the nation of my birth with volcanoes

of fire and balls of cannon that can split

thy land unto tiny dusts to unseen echoes.

I am a Filipino, proud of my humble roots

of a gentle loving and valiant Malayan spirit

land been conquered but never surrendered

the culture of its birth and ancestor's merit

of great love for country that can't be toppled

even by nation with powers that can delete

this land out of the face of this great world

as all thy children vow to die with all valor

to defend the pride and honor of the Filipinos.

Chapter 8

1. “Love in Speech is Truth;

Love in Action is Right Action;

Love in Thought is Peace;

Love in Understanding is Non-Violence.”

2. Love and Pain

Love

Spicy, afrodisiac,

Giving, embracing, indulging,

Passion, flames, Devil, burn

Aching, stinging, throbbing,

Hurt, broken,

Pain

3.

Basic Human How the value is Personal

Values applied today commitment

Happiness Happiness is a By maintaining

state, not a trait; positivity in life
in other words, it and having to wha
isn’t a long-lasting, is happening
permanent around.
feature or
personality trait,
but a more
 fleeting,
changeable state.

Peace Peace has always By doing

been among something that is
humanity's highest not harmful to
values--for some, others and can
supreme. create a peace of
Consider: "Peace mind for
at any price."1 everyone.
"The most
disadvantageous
peace is better
than the most just
war."2 "Peace is
more important
than all justice."3
"I prefer the most
unjust peace to
the justest war
that was ever
waged."4 "There
never was a good
war or a bad
peace."5

Yet, we agree little

on what is peace.
Perhaps the most
popular (Western)
view is as an
absence of
dissension,
violence, or war, a
meaning found in
the New
Testament and
possibly an
original meaning
of the Greek word
for peace, Irene.
Pacifists have
 adopted this
interpretation, for
to them all
violence is bad.
This meaning is
widely accepted
among
irenologists6 and
students of
international
relations. It is the
primary dictionary
definition.

Love Real love is a By loving

choice. It's an act unconditionally,
of the will. It never expecting
enables us to any return.
accept our
differences within
relationships and
to choose to love
the person when
we want to lash
out or withdraw
instead.

Freedom Freedom, By being true to

generally, is myself without
having the ability hurting other
to act or change people.
without
constraint.
Something is
"free" if it can
change easily and
is not constrained
in its present
state.

Safety Safety is the state By only doing

of being "safe" things that is not
 (from French harmful to other
sauf), the people.
condition of being
protected from
harm or other
non-desirable
outcomes. Safety
can also refer to
the control of
recognized
hazards in order to
achieve an
acceptable level of
risk.

Intelligence Intelligence has By studying well,

been defined in with
many ways: the understanding,
capacity for logic, the the essential
understanding, knowledge in life.
self-awareness,
learning,
emotional
knowledge,
reasoning,
planning,
creativity, critical
thinking, and
problem-solving.

Respect It is a concept that By knowing the

refers to the rights of others
ability to value and respecting
and honor another that rights.
person, both his or
her words and
actions, even if we
do not approve or
share everything
he or she does. It
is accepting the
other person and
 not trying to
change them.
Respecting
another person is
not judging them
by their attitudes,
behaviors or
thoughts. It is not
expecting for
someone to be
otherwise.

Equality Equality is about By treating

ensuring that everyone with
every individual equality and
has an equal fairness in every
opportunity to situation.
make the most of
their lives and
talents. Equality
recognises that
historically certain
groups of people
with protected
characteristics
such as race,
disability, sex and
sexual orientation
have experienced
discrimination.

Justice Justice could be By being true and

described as the not be provoked
moral obligation by what is wrong.
to act on the basis
of fair adjudication
between
competing claims.
As such, it is linked
to fairness,
entitlement and
equality.
Nature Nature is essential By doing things
to our lives – from that is not harmful
the food on our to nature and
plates to the avoiding things
clothes we wear, that can destroy
from medicines to nature and
mental health environment.
benefits.

Health Health can be By doing things

considered in that is not harmful
terms of a and doing things
person's body that can develop
structure and our overall health
function and the as an individual.
presence or
absence of disease
or signs (health
status); their
symptoms and
what they can and
cannot do i.e. the
extent to which
the condition
affects the
person's normal
life (quality of life).
Chapter 9

1.

2.
Universal values can be uncovered by different means, including scientific investigation, historical
research, or public debate and deliberation. The claim for universal values can be understood in two
different ways. First, it could be that something has a universal value when everybody finds it valuable.
This was Isaiah Berlin's understanding of the term. According to Berlin, "...universal values....are values
that a great many human beings in the vast majority of places and situations, at almost all times, do in
fact hold in common, whether consciously and explicitly or as expressed in their behaviour..."Second,
something could have universal value when all people have reason to believe it has value. Amartya Sen
interprets the term in this way, pointing out that when Mahatma Gandhi argued that non-violence is a
universal value, he was arguing that all people have reason to value non-violence, not that all people
currently value non-violence. Many different things have been claimed to be of universal value, for
example, fertility, pleasure, and democracy. The issue of whether anything is of universal value, and, if
so, what that thing or those things are, is relevant to psychology, political science, and philosophy,
among other fields.

3. Our universal values require us to recognise the human characteristics, both good and bad, that we
have in common with all our fellow human beings, and to show the same respect for human dignity and
sensitivity in people of other communities that we expect them to show for ours.

That means we should always be prepared to let other people define their own identity, and not insist
on classifying them, however well-meaningly, by our own criteria. If we believe sincerely in individual
rights, we must recognise that an individual’s sense of identity is almost always bound up with the sense
of belonging to one or more groups –- sometimes concentric, sometimes intersecting.

Therefore the rights of an individual include the right to empathize, and to express solidarity, with
others who share this or that aspect of that individual’s identity.
And that in turn should affect the way we define the obligations of citizenship, in each of our national
communities. We should not oblige people to dissociate themselves from the fate of their co-
religionists, or ethnic kin, who are citizens of other States.

Muslims, for example, should not be reviled or persecuted because they identify with Palestinians or
Iraqis or Chechens, whatever one thinks of the national claims and grievances of those peoples, or the
methods used in their name. And no matter how strongly some of us may feel about the actions of the
state of Israel, we should always show respect for the right of Israeli Jews to live in safety within the
borders of their own State, and for the right of Jews everywhere to cherish that State as an expression
of their national identity and survival.

But if it is wrong to condemn a particular faith or set of values because of the actions or statements of
some of its adherents, it must also be wrong to abandon the idea that certain values are universal just
because some human beings do not appear to accept them. Indeed, I would argue that it is precisely
the existence of such aberrations that obliges us to assert and uphold common values. We need to be
able to say that certain actions and beliefs are not just contrary to our own particular morality, but
should be rejected by all humanity.

Of course having such common values does not solve all problems, or eliminate the scope for different
societies to solve them in different ways.

We may all be sincerely committed to non-violence and respect for life, and yet disagree about whether
it is legitimate to take the lives of those who have themselves taken life, or to use violence to defend the
innocent when violence is being used against them.

We may all be genuinely committed to solidarity with our fellow human beings and a just economic
order, and yet not agree which policies will be most effective in bringing about that order.

We may all be deeply attached to tolerance and truthfulness, and yet not agree how tolerant we should
be of States or systems that seem to us intolerant and untruthful.

And we may all be genuinely committed to equal rights and partnership between men and women,
without agreeing on how far the social roles of men and women should be differentiated, or whether it
is the responsibility of society to enforce the sanctity of the marriage bond.

On all such issues we must expect differences to continue for a long time -– between societies and
within them. The function of universal values is not to eliminate all such differences, but rather to help
us manage them with mutual respect, and without resorting to mutual destruction.

Tolerance and dialogue are essential, because without them there is no peaceful exchange of ideas, and
no way to arrive at agreed solutions allowing different societies to evolve in their own way.

Those societies that consider themselves modern need to recognise that modernity does not
automatically generate tolerance. Even sincere liberals and democrats can sometimes be remarkably
intolerant of other views. One should always be on one’s guard against such temptations.
On their side, societies that put a high premium on tradition need to recognise that traditions survive
best, not when they are rigid and immutable, but when they are living and open to new ideas, from
within and from without.

It may also be true that, in the long run, tolerance and dialogue within a society are best guaranteed
through particular institutional arrangements, such as multi-party elections, or the separation of powers
between legislature, executive and judiciary.

But these arrangements are means to an end, not the end in itself. No society should consider that,
because it has found them useful, it has an absolute right or obligation to impose them on others. Each
society should be given the space, not to distort or undermine universal values, but to express them in a
way that reflects its own traditions and culture.

Values are not there to serve philosophers or theologians, but to help people live their lives and
organize their societies. So, at the international level, we need mechanisms of cooperation strong
enough to insist on universal values, but flexible enough to help people realize those values in ways that
they can actually apply in their specific circumstances.

In the end history will judge us, not by what we say but by what we do. Those who preach certain
values loudest –- such as the values of freedom, the rule of law, and equality before the law –- have a
special obligation to live by those values in their own lives and their own societies, and to apply them to
those they consider their enemies as well as their friends.

You don’t need to be tolerant of those who share your opinions, or whose behaviour you approve. It is
when we are angry that we most need to apply our proclaimed principles of humility and mutual
respect.

Nor should we ever be satisfied with things as they are. The state of the world does not allow that.

Our values inform our thoughts, words and actions. Our values are important because they help us to
grow and develop. The decisions we make are a reflection of our values and beliefs, and they are always
directed towards a specific purpose.

Chapter 10

1b

2a

3b

4b

5a

6c
7b

8b

9c

10 b

Chapter 11

1. Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, a comprehensive stage theory of moral

development based on Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment for children (1932) and developed by
Lawrence Kohlberg in 1958. Cognitive in nature, Kohlberg’s theory focuses on the thinking process that
occurs when one decides whether a behaviour is right or wrong. Thus, the theoretical emphasis is on
how one decides to respond to a moral dilemma, not what one decides or what one actually does.

At the lowest stage, referred to as “amoral”, an organization’s concern for profits far outweighs its
concern for ethics.

Organizations demonstrate an increasing concern for ethics at the cost of profit as they progress
through the “legalistic”, “responsive” and “emerging ethical” stages of moral development.

Once organizations have fully balanced their concern for ethics and profits, they have reached the last
stage or moral development and are considered to be “ethical” organizations.

The model argues that an organization’s culture (the shared values and believes of its members, or ”the
way we do things here”), which is heavily influenced by leadership role-modelling, is the foundation on
which organizational morality develops. The model was inspired by theories of personal moral
development.

Stage 1 – Amoral organizations

The lowest level of organizational development occurs in Amoral organizations. At this level the only
concern the organization has is for profit and it will break any ethical or moral rules in the pursuit of that
profit. Organizations like this typically don’t last long.

Stage 2 – Legalistic organizations

The lowest level of sustainable moral development for organizations occurs in Legalistic organizations.
Organizations at this stage understand the rules and adhere to existing legal and regulatory frameworks.
They’re often willing to stay just on the right side of the law in their pursuit of profits. These
organizations adhere to laws not through any form of ethics or morality, but simply because doing so is
their only route to sustainable profit.

Stage 3 – Responsive organizations

The middle level of organizational morality sees the emergence of Responsive Organizations. While
these organizations are still highly focused on profit, there’s an increasing awareness of morality and a
desire to “do the right thing” where possible. At this stage, organizations are responsive in their morality
and not yet proactive and seeking to be moral and ethical leaders.

Stage 4 – Emerging ethical organizations

The penultimate stage of moral development results in Emerging Ethical Organizations. At this stage
organizations nearly balance their concern for morality and profit. These organizations increasingly and
proactively consider morality and ethics in their strategic and operational decisions. They usually look to
undertake their business ethically as a matter of principle and these behaviors start to permeate their
wider organizational culture.

Stage 5 – Ethical organizations

The ultimate stages of moral development that organizations can achieve is reflected by Ethical
Organizations. At this stage an organizations concern for ethics is perfectly balanced with their concern
for profits. Decisions about the organization’s direction and operations are all made with concern for
their ethical impact, and the leadership demonstrate and role-model high levels of morality. These
organizations are moral leaders within their industries and their internal cultures are highly moral.

2. I think I am on the Stage 2 of Moral development. As I think about how i lived my life today, i realized
that I am on stage 2 of moral development because I have a huge respect on societies rules and
regulations that enables people to be in harmony. This made me realize the importance of having a
harmonious relationship with others by following what is right or wrong. Maybe I'm starting to develop
to stage 3, who knows.

Chapter 12

1.

1.1 Fair - generally means in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. Fairness is concerned
with actions, processes, and consequences, that are morally right honorable, and equitable. In essence,
the virtue of fairness establishes moral standards for decisions that affect others. Fair decisions are
made in an appropriate manner based on appropriate criteria.

1.2 Equitable - possessing or exhibiting equity; according to natural right or natural justice; marked by a
due consideration for what is fair, unbiased, or impartial; just; as an equitable decision; an equitable
distribution of an estate; equitable men
1.3 Unprejudiced - not having or showing a dislike or distrust based on fixed or preconceived ideas. It is
not having or showing unfair bias or prejudice.

1.4 Unbiased - having no bias or prejudice; fair or impartial. statistics. (of a sample) not affected by any
extraneous factors, conflated variables, or selectivity which influence its distribution; random. (of an
estimator) having an expected value equal to the parameter being estimated; having zero bias. It means
free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair an unbiased opinion.

2. Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that

decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring
the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. Impartiality is defined as fair, equitable,
unprejudiced, unbiased and objective. To be impartial is to act free of favor for either party. In medical
interpretation, the concept of impartiality helps ensure that communication remain solely between the
patient and provider, free of judgement by way of the interpreter. Impartiality is a more complex
concept than is generally recognized. Judging a person to be impartial is not as straightforward as
judging a person to have some moral virtue such as kindness or trustworthiness. People do not even
understand what it means to claim that one is impartial unless they know both the group toward which
that person is impartial and the respect in which one is impartial with regard to that group. The
impartiality required by morality also requires a specification of the group toward which morality
requires impartiality and the respect in which it requires impartiality with regard to that group. The most
common characterization of general impartiality is that it requires that like cases be treated alike.
Almost all philosophers take this characterization as trivially true, but it is mistaken. Consider a baseball
umpire who is upset because he believes that umpires are not appreciated. While staying within the
accepted interpretations of the rule, he changes the strike zone every three innings; he starts with a
widest zone, goes to the narrowest one, and then returns to a widest one. If he changes without regard
to which team benefits or is harmed by this change, then he is impartial with regard to the two teams in
calling balls and strikes. Because he does not treat like cases alike—that is, he calls balls and strikes
differently in the first and fifth innings—he is a bad umpire, but he is still completely impartial with
regard to the two teams with respect to calling balls and strikes. He is inconsistent, but inconsistency
should not be confused with impartiality. A good umpire must be consistent as well as impartial. An
inconsistent umpire will be suspected of not being impartial, but when the disgruntled umpire is not
influenced at all by who is benefited or harmed, he remains impartial with respect to calling balls and
strikes with regard to the two teams. A person is impartial with regard to a group in a specified respect
insofar as that person acts impartially in that respect with regard to that group. Some contemporary
consequentialists claim that morality requires impartiality whenever any sentient being's interests are
involved. However, not only is there disagreement about whether all sentient beings are included in the
group toward which morality requires impartiality, it is generally recognized that even with agreement
about the group, morality does not require impartiality with respect to all actions affecting people's
interests. It is generally agreed that morality does not even require impartiality when following moral
ideals—for example, relieving or preventing pain, or helping the needy. Unless one does not act on
these ideals at all, it is impossible to act on them impartially even with regard to all moral agents; no one
can relieve or prevent pain impartially with regard to all moral agents. The only respect in which
morality requires impartiality is with respect to violating moral rules—for example, those rules
prohibiting killing, causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. It is only with regard to these kinds of
moral rules—those that can be formulated as prohibitions—that it is humanly possible to act impartially
with regard to a group large enough to be an appropriate group.Because the concept of impartiality
presupposes that there be some group with regard to which one is impartial, it does not make sense to
claim that there is an impartial method for picking the group with regard to which morality requires
impartiality. Recognizing that rational persons can differ about the composition of the group with regard
to which morality requires them to be impartial helps explain the moral disputes concerning abortion
and the treatment of animals. Morality limits the freedom of moral agents, so that the larger the group
with regard toward which morality requires impartiality with respect to violating a moral rule, the
greater the limitation on the freedom of moral agents. A rational person can rank this freedom of moral
agents higher than the welfare of nonmoral agents or vice versa. The former is more likely to hold that
morality does not require impartiality with regard to nonmoral agents, whereas the latter may hold that
it does.

3. Whenever people are charged with responsibility for the planning, imlplementation and supervision
of elections, the question of impartiality and objectivity arise. The dictionary defines impartial as not
being biased and as unprejudiced. It defines objective as uninfluenced by emotional, surmise, or
personal prejudice; based on observable phenomena; presented factually. The challenge is that our view
of objectivity or impartiality is framed by, or some might say clouded by, our personal perspective and
experience. Therefore, one person's view of what is objective or impartial behavior may be different
from another's. It is important for the board to discuss and clearly establish baseline expectations for
behavior from members which are grounded in the goal of creating an environment where candidates
and students believe that they have been treated with concern, understanding, fairness, and objectivity.

The democratic process at its best can be messy and at times chaotic. Yet, it is the foundation for our
elections and something that our studets respect and prize. The democratic process is built upon the
principles that all people are equal and that each is to be respected as a contributing citizen to the
success of their respective community. With this in mind, you are stewards of the process by which we
make decisions in a democratic society. No greater responsibility exists then to insure that people feel
like their rights are protected and that they are respected.