ETHICS/ ETIKA (SET 2)

Name: Jenerose G. Sanchez BSBA FM-1

STUDY QUESTIONS:
Activity 1.

1. Are all pleasures commensurable? Can they be evaluated on a single scale? Can some goods like
friendship, be balanced against other goods like money?
Answer: No, because the way we discovered pleasures within ourselves was
totally different and pleasures are not commensurable. But for me when we talk
about friendship and money, it's not balanced. I appreciated and valued the
pleasures I got from my friends more than money. Yeah, sometimes when we
have something we desire, money will give us pleasures, and once we are hard-
working, we can quickly find money, but a genuine friendship is hard to find.
As long as you have friends who love you, if you have no money, they will be
part of your quest to making money.
2. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing for “higher” pleasures. Which pleasures are higher?
Answer: The pleasures that are more valuable than lower ones. For example,
the pleasures of learning things and of helping others are more valuable than
the pleasures of eating and drinking. A higher pleasure is also if people would
choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if
they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure.
3. Mill proposes that higher pleasures are those preferred by the majority of people. Do you agree
that this is a good way of distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures? Can a well-
informed majority prefer higher pleasures?
Answer: I don’t agree because some of those majority are inconsiderate and very
wrong. What if this majority preferred drugs as their pleasures? Or drinking
and smoking even sex? We all know that using these products and doing those
things are prohibited in minorities. We can’t really tell that majority of people is a
good way to distinguish a higher or lower pleasure. For me, pleasures can't
distinguish between higher or lower in majority. But we can distinguish it by
ourselves. Pleasures are infinite and we have different pleasures in life based on
our goals, wants, and status in life. Pleasures are different in every individual.
Besides those pleasures there is also pain, suffering, struggling, and sacrifice in
life. I think that majority is just the summation of all the answers but behind
those majority there is no considerations at all.
4. Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What if violating the civil rights of a minority
increases the sum total of pleasure of the majority?
Answer; Utilitarianism does not consider it a right if it affects the majority.
For instance, if you had an incurable, deadly, and highly contagious disease,
do you have the right to live how you choose any more? Utilitarianism says
that for the good of humanity, you get locked up, despite having done
nothing wrong. A strict utilitarian would argue that if it hurts the whole, it is
not a right.
5.Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all actions are
directed towards pleasure?
Answer: No, because happiness is everyone needed. we will just feel the happiness if
we are contented for everything that we have. Remember, you will never be happy if
you just run from your pain or if you chase the happiness. It's always your choice .
6.Are all pleasures comparable, even objectionable pleasures? What if the majority derives pleasure from
being sexist?
Answer: No, because not all pleasures are good especially when it is excessive
pleasure. Even objectionable pleasures are not similar since we are capable of
searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures. What is a pleasure for us today
may not be a pleasure tomorrow because of a desire for attaining more? Sexist means
a person believing their gender is superior to the other, despite that majority derives
pleasure from being sexist it is not a good pleasure since prejudice and discrimination
have no place in utilitarian because each individual counts the same when calculating
the pleasure produced by our actions. 
7.Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans than to build a hospital
because there are fewer sick people?
Answer: We should consider how much happiness sports fans would get if we were to
build a new stadium, and how much happiness of a few sick people would be if we
were to build a new hospital. So it is not justifiable to build a basketball court just
because their many basketball fans, instead it is more justifiable to build more
hospitals even with few seek people because the pleasure of the few that would relieve
from new and advance built hospital it qualitatively greater than the pleasure gets by
basketball fans. After the basketball game, the pleasure would just go but the
duration or length of the experience of pleasure relieved of the patient is way greater,
maximizing the balance of happiness and pain. The interests of a few sick people who
need a hospital outrank the interests of thousands of sports fans. It is also way better
to build more hospitals in case of an epidemic like dengue and etc. since a basketball
court can`t cure them. Not building a basketball court would not cause pain to
basketball fans because they would still be able to watch from television.

5. n is it justifiable to torture
suspected criminals?
6 . Depending on the


detainee, because they are

forced to kill or confess what
they
7. have caught even without
proof, because there are
policemen who just want to
8. increase their rank, so even
if they suspect they will be
arrested or killed
9. n is it justifiable to torture
suspected criminals?
1 0 .  Depending on
the detainee, because they are
forced to kill or confess what
they
11. have caught even without
proof, because there are
policemen who just want to
 12. increase their rank, so even
if they suspect they will be
arrested or killed
13. n is it justifiable to torture
suspected criminals?
1 4 . Depending on 

the detainee, because they are

forced to kill or confess what
they
15. have caught even without
proof, because there are
policemen who just want to
16. increase their rank, so even
if they suspect they will be
arrested or killed
8.When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?
 Answer: Depending in the detainee, because they are forced to kill or confess what
they have caught even without proof, because there are policemen who just want to
increase their rank, so even if they suspect they will be arrested or killed.

ACTIVITY 2:

1. Go online and look for an

instance where animal rights
and welfare can be considered
an
issue. What is the issue that you
have identified? Detail your
findings and opinion below.
Check on the arguments
presented by Peter Singer, Joel
Feinberg, and Steve Sapontzis.
 Farm animal welfare: our
work:At World Animal
Protection, we help companies
and
farmers to adopt farming
methods without close
confinement of animals, as
these cause
pain and distress. And we
help to create conditions
where animals are more able
to
express their natural behaviours,
and move freely, which reduces
the need for painful
practices like tail docking
(which is used to stop crowded
pigs attacking each other in
intensive f
1.Go online and look for an instances where animal rights and welfare can be considered and issue. What
is the issue that you have identified? Detail your findings and opinion below. Check on the arguments
presented by Peter Singer, Joel Feinberg and Steve Sapontzis.
Answer: The relationship of animals and humans has been the subject of
differing philosophical views for thousands of years. The controversy continues today
in many aspects of contemporary life. Some people believe that a vegan lifestyle is the
only moral choice. Others believe that humans should treat animals "humanely," but
can use animals and animal products at will, including for biomedical or other
scientific research. Others believe that humans have no moral responsibilities for
animals and are free to treat animals as they want. Advocates of animal rights believe
that animals have legal rights and are members of the moral community. As such,
animals should not be used by humans for any purpose. Advocates of animal welfare
believe that non-human animals should be treated humanely and without
unnecessary suffering, but otherwise are available for humans to use for food,
clothing, research, and entertainment.

2. In view of Bentham’s and Mill’s assertion of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, do you
think that animal rights and welfare should even be a concern in the Philippines where millions of
Filipinos below the poverty threshold are struggling to have a decent life? Is the concern for animal rights
and welfare a first world problem?
Answer: Yes, it can also be considered as a concern in our country. Aside from poverty,
environmental destruction is already a major issue in the Philippines. Animal rights
and welfare teach us that certain things are wrong, it means no hunting, no breeding
and killing animals for food or clothes or medicine. In this way, we will have a one-step
in resolving environmental issues in the Philippines like the extinction of different
species, loss of coral reef due to dynamite fishing and etc. that would imbalance our
environment that results to stronger typhoons and severe drought, consumption and
using of animals has a direct attack to us, humans, because we belong to one chain.
Also, by considering animal welfare means fewer meats, less area is needed to use and
the harvest would wholly go to the people and not to livestock animals. Overall,
concern in animal right and welfare have the same intensity as poverty as it can help
us have a sustainable life.

3. Consider other topics within the realm of animal rights and welfare. Select one and give an initial
presentation of the significance of discussing this topic. Consider too if trees and other elements of nature
should also be given rights; check the paper of Christopher Stone entitled “Should Trees Have Standing?
Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects.”
Answer: Utilitarianism recognizes that animals do feel physical and emotional pain.
When causing animal pain to obtain greater happiness to the majority of humans then
doing so to living creatures can be morally permissible. In a situation that elephants
are captivated to use as entertainment and income generation to people. Obviously, for
people that the only living is in the zoo, this can be permitted because it has a great
benefit to the people who own the zoo or for the entertainment of children and other
members of the family, who would not enjoy seeing elephants closely. But zoos are not
the natural habitat of elephants even to say that they are kept in zoos for conservation
still numbers point that it is ineffective to keep an elephant in the zoo since it belongs
to wild and more elephants died because of loneliness, unable to exercise inside a zoo.
Yes, tress and other natural objects have a stand on their rights especially when this
is endangered species of trees, it must be legally protected.

NATURAL LAW
STUDY QUESTIONS:

1. Are there other ways that the word "natural" is used to justify a particular way of
behaving? How do these approaches compare to the theory of Aquinas?
Answer: Well that all depends, if you take the word natural, what does it mean, it means
the original nature of things who made the original nature of things. God did, God
decided who or what went with who or what. Aquinas lived thousands of years after God
made the natural order of things, so if you want to use the word to means something else,
you can do, it changes nothing, the natural order still remains, a bird does not mate with a
fish. So Aquinas was fudging to make his theories sound better, and remember, they are
theories, not fact.

2. Can you think of human laws that are proper extensions of the natural law? Explain how this is
so. Can you think of other human laws that violate the natural law? Explain how this is so.
Answer: The laws of nature are supported by laws that require us to care about each other, so I
suppose traffic laws and those against murder and theft would apply. Laws that violate nature’s
laws are abundant in our culture. All sorts of laws that benefit the very wealthy and harm others,
that allow us to harm nature, that, in general, exploit rather than support the common good.
3. Are there other forms of harm- short of killing another person - that may be taken as a violation
of the natural inclination to preserve one’s being? Justify your answer.
Answer: Words, the words we utter to our neighbor hurt more. Like bullying, we know that many
are bullied because its either the person being bullied is not able to fight most them end up in
depression. Many of us just want to keep quiet because no one will defend.
4. Are there current scientific developments, for example, biology, that challenge the understanding
of nature presented by Aquinas?
Answer: Current scientific developments are the cumulative result of 700 years of expanding
human knowledge since the time of Aquinas. Furthermore, his understanding of nature was
 drawn primarily from the 900-year-old ideas of Aristotle. As a scientist, Aquinas must be
understood as a product of his time and of the knowledge of his time. It is unfair to take this
brilliant man’s work and expect it to have relevance to our understanding of science when current
scientists have the advantage of tens of generations of scientific thought and advancement.
5. It is possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine source? Why
or why not?
Answer: If you are a fish. Natural Law Theory is man’s creation. It is a rational, logical reasoning
of existence. A divine source is neither rational or logical. That would imply some kind of
accountability. The God of the Bible is a warlord, to be feared. Man’s betrayal of God created a
rift reconciled in the New Testament… but I digress… a divine source is indifferent. It isn’t
accountable to the theories discovered by man. Only man’s arrogance claims there’s no God or
creator… that’s man’s obsession with being God doing talking. It’s all noise.

DEONTOLOGY
STUDY QUESTIONS:

1. In what way doe a rational will distinguish a human being from an animal insofar as the animal is
only sentient?
Answer: Humans possess many cognitive abilities not seen in other animals, such as a full-blown
language capacity as well as reasoning and planning abilities. ... Humans possess many cognitive
abilities not seen in other animals, such as a full-blown language capacity as well as reasoning
and planning abilities.
2. What is the difference between autonomy and heteronomy? What does autonomy have to do with
free will in contrast to animal impulse?
Answer: Autonomy is the ability to know what morality requires of us, and functions not as
freedom to pursue our ends, but as the power of an agent to act on objective and universally valid
rules of conduct, certified by reason alone. Heteronomy is the condition of acting on desires,
which are not legislated by reason. Autonomy is related to freewill in such a manner it uses the
person's ability to be rational. On the other hand, animal impulse is a natural impulse of animals
without the ability to decide. It is innate and has nothing to do with intellect.
3. How does the method called Universalizability work what are the steps to test of an action is
rationally permissible?
Answer: The principle of universalizability is a form of a moral test that invites one to imagine a
world in which any proposed action is also adopted by everyone else. In this way, the principle
of universalizability works as a litmus test to determine the morality of a proposed action.
4. What is meant by enlightenment morality opposed to paternalism? Why is deontology a kind of
enlightenment morality? 
Answer: Enlightenment morality is your duty as you are creation, not someone placed into
creation as someone separate from it. We don’t threaten those in power, instead, we allow them
to stay in these positions and continue this horrible acts of corruption on the masses they are
working for.
3rd Set
STUDY QUESTIONS:

1. What is moral virtue and intellectual virtue ?

Answer: Moral virtues are exemplified by courage, temperance, and liberality; the
key intellectual virtues are wisdom, which governs ethical behavior, and understanding,
which is expressed in scientific endeavor and contemplation.
2. What is the difference between moral and intellectual virtue ?
Answer: Intellectual virtues are habits used to learn and better understand the world to
achieve stated goals. Moral virtues are habits learned from the wise or trial and error to
make better decision in order to do the right thing most beneficial to society.

3. Identify some Filipino traits and categories each as virtue ( middle) or vices ( excess or
deficiency) . Place them in a table.
Answer:

EXCESS MEAN DEFICIENCY

Fear and Confidence Rashness Courage
Licentiousness/Self-
Pleasure and Pain Temperance
indulgence
Getting and Spending
Prodigality Liberality
(minor)
Getting and Spending
Vulgarity/Tastelessness Magnificence
(major)
Honor and Dishonor
Vanity Magnanimity
(major)
Honor and Dishonor Ambition/empty vanity Proper ambition/pride
 (minor)
Anger Irascibility Patience/Good temper
Self-expression Boastfulness Truthfulness
Conversation Buffoonery Wittiness
Social Conduct Obsequiousness Friendliness
Shame Shyness Modesty
Indignation Envy Righteous indignation

4. How is a person’s character formed according to Aristotle?

Answer: Aristotle claims that character develops over time as one acquires habits from
parents and community, first through reward and punishment. Aristotle claims that one is
partly responsible for one's character, but he thereby raises the question whether one freely
chooses one's character.
5. Who do you think possess a moral character in your community? Explain your answer.
Answer: Everyone has moral character, good or bad, because morals are a subjective,
individualized construct not open to debate. You should be asking about people's ethical
worldview, not their morals.

MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS

STUDY QUESTIONS:

1. How can be a Filipino if you do not follow Filipino customs?

Answer: It is by your heart and your willingness to serve and perform your duties as a Filipino
that make you a genuine citizen of the country. You can be a foreigner and follow our customs
but it does not make you a Filipino unless you are a naturalized citizen of our country.
2. What is the distinction between a religious notion of sin and the philosophical
understanding of immoral or unethical acts?
Answer: The religious notion of sin, on the other hands, revolves around obedience to some
external source who is believed to have dictated what is right and wrong. It has nothing
intrinsically to do with how you actually treat other people or why you treat them in a certain
way, but only what this external source you believe in has supposedly told you. As such, under a
religious notion of sin, it is perfectly OK to own slaves, oppress women, slaughter innocent
children, commit terrorist acts and do all sorts of horrible things to your fellow man as long as
you can claim that “God” told you to do it.
3. How realistic is Kohlberg's ideal of the highest stage of post-conventional morality, that of
universal ethical principles, given that feelings and emotions are inseparable from human
choice ?
Answer: Given your assumptions about feelings and emotions. It is in the overcoming of
emotions and feelings that we begin to become moral agents. Morality is not a thought
 experiment. It only happens where the rubber meets the road, in the face to face interactions
between living beings, usually humans. It is rare to have agreements on the most simple moral
principles, much less on universal ideals.
4. Given that human condition is one of finitude, how well do you know that you are
sufficiently informed when you finally make your moral judgement?
Answer: I think you are sufficiently informed or mature enough to make a moral judgement,
when you are open to multiple possible ideas. When you are not simply judging in base of
appearance, bias and etc. and to research on all answers to each and every question, whether big
or small, to find which is more logical and true.
5. If global ethic is currently emerging, does this mean that the true meaning of morality
changes over time? If global ethic is currently emerging, does this mean that the true
meaning of morality changes over time?
Answer: Morality is about our or your beliefs about what is good behavior or what is wrong
behavior. Each individual have different background, personality, beliefs, religion and
experiences which somehow would affect his beliefs about morality. In which we could say that
their are religion that it is okay for them to marry with different women and some doesn't agree
with it like catholic. In this instance, the perception of morality may differ from individual to
individual but its meaning is still the same. Global ethics are sets of common values and ethical
standards in which individual to individual are different but the meaning of morality will still be
the same the only difference is our beliefs and practices.
6. Is there a difference between one’s ethical responsibility toward fellow humans and toward non-
human nature?
Answer: There is NO and there should be NO difference between one's ethical responsibility
towards fellow human and non-human nature. ... This only means that if you show ethical
responsibility fellow people, you should do the same to the non-human nature, you should also
show ethical responsibility.