CHAPTER ONE ETHICS: Its Meaning,
Nature and Scope *Ethics should be taken not just as an academic study,
OBJECTIVES
1. Define and explain the nature and scope of ethics
as a philosophical discipline;
2. Articulate the importance of studying ethics;
3. Discuss and distinguish the different norms or
standards pertaining to right and wrong/good or
bad;
4. Describe the moral dimension of human
existence; and
5. Identify the various characteristics of moral
principles.
Ethics
 Greek word = “ethos” Meaning Customary
behavior
 Ethics = word/Theory
 Ethics outlines theories of right and wrong and
good or bad actions
 Ethics is the systematic study of the rightness
and wrongness of human actions
 The science of “morals”
Morality
 Latin Word = “mos” or “mores”Meaning
customary behavior
 Morality = flesh/action
 Morality is the doing or practice of ethics
 Morality is the rightness or wrongness of
human actions
 Morality is the practice of ethics
ETHICS : A PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION
*It does not necessarily follow that knowledge leads or
results to practical action.
*The learning of ethics does not actually guarantee
morality on the person’s concrete and practical conduct
and behavior.
* ethics and morality truly need and complement each
other
ETHICS : A PRACTICAL DISCIPLINE
but as fundamentally, a “way of life.”
*Ethics “should be shown as a discipline which has an
intimate connection with the daily lives of man….
*Knowing what is right without actually changing the
way we behave morally is nothing but useless
knowledge
ETHICS : IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING ETHICS
*It is said, “without moral perception, man is only an
animal. Without morality, man as a rational [and free]
being is a failure” (Agapay 1991:3).
*If one does have a sense of morality , of what is right
and wrong in relation to their conduct and behavior,
people and society in general would naturally and
expectedly deteriorate and collapsed.
* Every corporations and organizations there is always
that code of ethics.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHICS AND LAW
*Legality is not identical with morality. What is legal is
not always moral and also, what is moral is not always
legal.
* laws are only concerned with “public” actions
*Ethics goes beyond the concern and parameters of
law, for it includes private actions and the human
motivations and intentions of its actions
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHICS AND LAW
*Laws, more often than not, are decided by a majority
vote.
*Morality is not all about how many people say that
something is good or bad, right or wrong. It is much
deeper than that.
What is right is right even though no one is doing it.
Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it.
*Ethics serves as the very foundation of our laws.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ETHICS AND RELIGION
*Ethics as a philosophical discipline, as mentioned,
solely relies on natural reason, logic and experience,
especially in the justification and validation of certain
theories and principles concerning good and bad.
*Religion, on the other hand, relies primarily and mainly
on supernatural reason, that is divine revelation or
divine authority.
SO, WHAT IS ETHICS?
*Philosophically, Ethics is defined as the practical
science of the morality of human act or conduct and of
the good life.
* As a science, Ethics is a body of knowledge
systematically arranged and presented in such manner
that it arrives at its conclusions coherently and logically.
MATERIAL AND FORMAL OBJECTS OF ETHICS
*the material object of ethics is human conduct or the
human act
- Human conduct refers to the act that is done by a
human person which he/she is conscious of, which
proceeds from one’s deliberation and freewill, and thus,
for which one is held morally responsible.
*FORMAL OBJECT OF ETHICS is the morality or the
moral rectitude of human act or human conduct.
- Ethics deals with the human person’s right conduct,
whether his/her actions conform to right reason which
is the immediate norm of morality.
NORM
*A norm is here understood as a rule, standard, or
measure. Specifically, it is something by which an act or
conduct is measured as good or bad, right or wrong,
moral or immoral.
*Richard Gula defines norm as “the criteria of judgment
about the sorts of person we ought to be and the sorts
of actions we ought to perform” (as cited in Agapay
2008:77).
*by norm of morality, we mean the standard of right
and wrong in human actions.
TYPES OF NORMS
1. Technical Norm – “This refers mainly to man’s needs
which come from his bodily space-time limitations. This
norm has to do with survival, health and well- being.
It is concerned with problems of effecting change, of
transforming the natural world, the problems of coping
with natural forces….
This norm is concerned with the techniques of [how
certain things pertaining to survival, among others,
should be done or not done]
every community prescribes certain proper ways of
working and doing things. For example, there are the
‘right’ way of preparing the field for planting rice, the
‘correct’ way of constructing the roof of a house, house
hold chores, how to assemble things etc.
2. Societal Norm – “This norm has something to do with
the need for group cohesion and for strengthening the
bonds that keep the community together.
example, certain manners or attire, certain ways of
speaking or of conducting oneself, certain rituals and
ceremonies are considered ‘proper’ and ‘fitting,’
‘appropriate’ or ‘recommended,’ because they maintain
and strengthen the bonds that keep the community
together.
Other ways of behavior are prescribed or frowned upon
because they are unmindful of or destructive of social
relations.”
3. Aesthetic Norm – “This refers to typical perceptual
forms regarding color, shape, space, movement, sound,
feeling and emotion, touch and texture, taste, scent and
odor…which are considered by the community as
‘ennobling,’ ‘cathartic,’ ‘heightening man’s existence,’
or ‘beautiful,’ because they represent a certain free play
and celebration of the human spirit.”
examples: “relegious music is good,” “the latest corona
virus movie is bad,” “the food of foodpanda is terrible,”
“Leonardo da Vinci’s painting is admirable,” “the color
of my ethics teacher’s hair is disgraceful,” “my female
students’ styles of dressing are obnoxious,” “Vice
Ganda’s fashion sense is simply outrageous,” “President
Duterte’s manner of speaking is utterly disgusting.”
4. Ethical or Moral Norm – “The moral or ethical norm
refers to some ideal vision of [a human person], an ideal
stage or perfection of [his/her being], which serves as
the ultimate goal and norm.
In This norm, the human person and its actions are
judged to be right or wrong, good or bad Because of this
ideal vision of what a human person should be,
a community has what is sometimes called the ‘non-
negotiables,’ those things which the community
cherishes and considers of ultimate worth, which give
ultimate sense and direction to human existence.
Therefore, all the other norms technical, societal,
aesthetic are to be subordinated to this moral or ethical
norm.”
it is important to be able to identify and differentiate
the various types of norms from one another. We can
now pin point, with a certain degree of accuracy and
consistency, as to what particular kind of valuation we
are making in a given context. In this way, we would be
able to render meaningful, relevant, and most
importantly, critical assessment on certain moral issues
and actions that we encounter.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL PRICIPLE
1.Reasonability – moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons or arguments.
something is right if it is “reasonable.” If it does not
appeal to reason and common sense/experience, then
it has to be viewed with suspicion and reservation.
2. Impartiality - This means that an ethical or moral rule
should be neutral when it comes to the question as to
who are its recipients.
Moral standards are supposed to apply to everyone
regardless of one’s status and situation in life.
To be impartial is to treat everyone alike, no one gets
special treatment or favoritism.
3. Prescriptivity This refers to the practical, or action-
guiding nature of morality. This is also the commanding
aspect of morality.
Moral principles are generally put forth as some kind of
commands or imperatives.
Examples of this are : “Do not kill,” “Do no harm to your
fellowmen,” “Love your neighbor,” “Do not steal,” “Tell
the truth,”
4. Overridingness Moral standards must have
hegemony. This means that they should reign supreme
over all the other standards or norms of valuation,
whatever they maybe. They have predominant
authority and override other kinds of principles.
whenever there is a conflict between the moral norm
and any other norm, the moral must prevail.
morality over legality; morality over technicality; people
over dogma.
5.Autonomous from Arbitrary Authority Moral
standards should stand on their own logic independent
of the arbitrariness of the majority.
We can always challenge on logical grounds the tyranny
of numbers and the tide of public opinion on matters of
right and wrong.
Something is right or wrong regardless of what the
majority decides or says. Moral rules only bow down
before the throne of “right reason” even if there are
undue pressures coming from the mob and public
opinion.
What is right is right even though no one is doing it.
Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it.
6. Publicity - This means that moral rules and principles
must be made public if they are to serve as clear
guidelines to our actions.
The obvious reason for this is that principles are made
and promulgated to render advice as well as assign
praise or blame to certain behaviors.
It would be self-defeating to just keep them from public
knowledge. For one cannot be made morally
accountable for something which one truly does not
know.
If moral principles are indeed impartial and of
primordial value, then by all means, they have to be
made public.
Keeping them in secret defeats the very purpose why
they are created. You do not hide something that you
really think is genuinely good and noble.
7. Practicability - Moral rules should not be impossible
to achieve or else they are not for men but for angels.
They must be “workable,” and not “too idealistic.”
Ethical standards must not be over what an ordinary
human being is capable of doing.
8. Universalizability – A moral rule or principle must be
applicable to everyone, without exception, provided of
course that all people are in a relevantly similar
situation or context.
“If I judge that an act is right or wrong for a certain
person, then the act is right or wrong for any other
relevantly similar person.
the Golden Rule: “Do unto others what you want others
to do unto to you,
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
AND MORAL ACOUNTABILITY
DEFINITION OF HUMAN ACTS AND ACTS OF MAN
Human acts (actus humani) are those actions done by a
person in a certain situation which are essentially the
result of his/her conscious knowledge, freedom and
voluntariness.
Acts of man - are actions which happen in the person
“naturally”, even without his/her awareness of
himself/herself while doing them. These actions are
done without deliberation, reflection and consent.
“all human acts are acts of man, but not all acts of man
are human acts”
Acts of man, therefore, are those that humans share
with animals
These things are performed without deliberation and
free will.
The person here is neither morally responsible nor
accountable for these kinds of actions.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF HUMAN ACTS
1.) The act must be deliberate. It must be performed by
a conscious agent who is very much aware of what
he/she is doing and of its consequences good or evil.
2.) The act must be performed in freedom. It must be
done by an agent who is acting freely, with his/her own
volition and powers.
3.) The act must be done voluntarily.
It must be performed by an agent who decides willfully
to perform the act.
The act, to be truly a voluntary one, must come from
the core of a person’s being.
MAJOR DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF
HUMAN ACT
1.The Act Itself or the Object of the Act
*The action that is done or performed by an agent
*It is WHAT the person does.
*This is “the substance of the moral act”
2.The Motive or the Intention
*The motive is the purpose or intention of which
something is done.
*It is the reason behind our acting.
*It answers the question “WHY the person does what
he does?”
*One normally performs an act as a means to achieve
an end or goal,
THE FOUR PRINCIPLES OF MOTIVES OR INTENTION
1. An indifferent act can become morally good or
morally evil depending upon the intention of the person
doing the act.
- Speaking/Talking is good or bad…. depending on the
intention of your talking/speaking ‘….to voice your idea
or you destroy someone’s reputation
2. An objectively good act becomes morally evil due to a
wrong or bad motive.
- Helping or praying is good but it will become evil
depending on the intention (election or curse)
3. An intrinsically (objectively) morally good act can
receive added goodness, if done with an equally noble
intention or motive.
-Helping or praying is better when you pray for peace,
give thanks to the Lord for the graces you received, or
glorify HIM.
4. An intrinsically evil act can never become morally
good even if it is done with a good motive or intention.
- Robinhood is stealing to help the poor
-Cheating to pass the board exam
-Killing the drug Lord
THE END SHOULD ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEAN…. THE
MEAN SHOULD ALWAYS JUSTIFY END..
THE CIRCUMSTANCES
The moral goodness or badness of an act is determined
not only by the object or act itself, plus the motive or
intention of the moral agent, but also on the
circumstances or situation surrounding the
performance of the action.
Circumstances refer to the various conditions outside of
the act. They are not, strictly speaking, part and parcel
of the act itself.
Circumstances are conditions that influence, to a lesser
or greater degree, the moral quality of the human act.
FOUR TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES
1.Mitigating or extenuating circumstances
It diminish the degree of moral good or evil in an act.
To kill an innocent person is homicide or murder.
circumstances lessen the severity of the act and its
punishment.
2. Aggravating circumstances
it increases the degree of moral good or evil
The same act of murder can be made worse if it is
carried out at night and with the use of superior arms
by a known recidivist.
3.Justifying circumstances
It shows adequate reason for some acts done.
A person charged with murder can vindicate
himself/herself if he/she can prove that he/she killed a
superior aggressor and that he/she did so in defense of
his/her own life. (Hold up, robbery)
4. Specifying circumstances
It gives a new and distinct species of moral good or evil
of the act.
The moral quality of the act of murder changes if the
murderer is wife of the victim, or if the murderer and
the victim are one and the same. the circumstances
which served as a reason for it, render it worthy of
approval or condemnation.
SEVEN KINDS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
These circumstances will affect the morality of human
action
1. Who - the person who does or receives the action.
* Status, Position, Education, Age, Illiterate, Out of
school Youth, Gangster
2. WHERE – is the setting of an action. Every act is done
in a particular place.
* Is the act done inside the house, street, way going
home, etc
3. BY WHAT MEANS – Intentional or accident?
Is there any use of force, compulsion, threats, coercion,
intimidation, embarrassing words, lewd remarks, vulgar
statements, insensitive comments?
4. WHY – is the intention or the motive that moves the
agent to an action. (#2 determinants of the morality of
human act)
It answers the question “WHY the person does what he
does?”
5. HOW – (By what means) This circumstance also
involves different conditions or modalities such as
voluntariness, consent, violence, fear, ignorance.
It also includes the particular
weapon/equipment/tools/gadgets/etc. that the person
used or employed in the performance of the act.
Was the action performed in “cold blood,” “in a painful
manner,” “in a very brutal way (as in torture),”
“maliciously,” etc.?
6. WHEN –Every act is done at a particular and specific
time. The element of time is also important and even
vital as to the moral assessment and judgment of the
human act.
Was the act performed in broad daylight or was it done
during nighttime? Was it committed when the victim
was in the act of praying or while asleep and unaware?
7. TO WHOM—refers to the recipient of the action, or
the person to whom the act is done. (refer to # 1- The
who)
PRINCIPLE GOVERNING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the
wrongfulness of an evil act.
2. Circumstances may either increase or decrease the
merits of a good act.
3. Circumstances may exempt temporarily someone
from doing a required act.
4. Circumstances do not prove the guilt of a person. The
presence of a person when a crime is committed does
not prove he is the criminal when a crime is committed.
MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS
These modifiers, accordingly, “affect human acts in the
essential qualities of knowledge, freedom,
voluntariness, and so make them less perfectly human’
(Glenn 1965: 25).
1.Ignorance is the absence of necessary knowledge
which a person in a given situation, who is performing a
certain act, ought to have. Ignorance therefore is a
negative thing for it is a negation of knowledge.
1.1 Vincible Ignorance can easily be remedied through
ordinary diligence and reasonable efforts on the part of
the person who is in this particular mental state. This
specific type of ignorance is therefore conquerable
since it is correctible.
 Medical practitioner
 Student
1.2 Invincible ignorance is the kind of ignorance which
an individual may have without being aware of it, or,
having knowledge of it, simply lacks the necessary
means to correct and solve it. This type of ignorance is
unconquerable, and thus not correctible
 Restaurant – waiter and chef
 School – student and parent
1.3 Affected vincible ignorance This is the kind of
ignorance which an individual keeps by positive efforts
in order to escape blame and accountability.
 Student ignores the text of the class president
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IGNORANCE
A. Invincible ignorance renders an act involuntary. A
person cannot be held morally responsible or
liable if he or she is not aware of the state of his or
her ignorance.
B. Vincible ignorance does not destroy, but lessens
the voluntariness and the corresponding
accountability over the act. A person who
becomes aware and conscious of the state of
ignorance he or she is in the moral obligation to
correct it by employing enough diligence in finding
the information required to make one’s ignorance
disappear. “To act with vincible ignorance is to act
imprudently.”
C. Affected or pretended ignorance does not excuse
a person from his/her bad actions; on the contrary
it actually increases their malice. This specific kind
of ignorance happens when a person really wants
and chooses to be ignorant so that he/she can
eventually escape any accountability arising from
the wrongfulness of the act later on.
MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACTS
2. Passion or Concupiscence
Passion or concupiscence is a strong or powerful feeling
or emotion.
Positive emotions – love, desire, delight, hope and
bravery
Negative emotions - hatred, despair, horror, sadness,
anger, grief and the like.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas,
In themselves passions are indifferent; they are not
evil…inasmuch as they are the movements of the
irrational appetite, have no moral good or evil in
themselves. But if they are subject to the reason and
will, then moral good and evil are in them. God has
endowed the human person with these appetites which
pervade his/her whole sensitive life. They are
instruments and means for self- preservation of the
individual and the human race. Every person needs
them for self-defense, growth, and improvement. The
saints and Christ Himself expressed their passions (as
cited in Salibay 2008: 40).
Passions are either classified as antecedent or 4. VIOLENCE

consequent. refers to any physical force exerted on a person &

1. Antecedent are those that precede an act. It may
happen that a person is emotionally aroused to perform
an act.
2. Consequent – are those that are intentionally
aroused and kept.
Principle governing Antecedent Passions – do not
always destroy voluntariness but they diminish
accountability for the resultant act.
Principle governing Consequent Passion –
Consequent passions do not lessen voluntariness, but
may even increase accountability.
another free agent for the purpose of compelling said
person to act against his will.
* in cases where the victim gives complete resistance,
the violence is classified as perfect violence
* However, if the victim offers insufficient resistance,
the violence classified as Imperfect violence
Principles governing Violence
When a person experiences so much fear in the face of
an unjust aggressor who is armed and extremely
dangerous, he or she is not held morally responsible of
his or her action.

Here, the person concerned who willfully acts following
his/her passion, allows himself/herself to be completely
controlled by it and hence, is considered morally
responsible for it.
3. Fear
Fear is defined as “the disturbance of the mind of a
person who is confronted by an impending danger or
harm to himself or loved ones” (Agapay2008: 36-37
Here, it is treated as a “special kind” of passion, and
hence also treated as another distinct modifier of
human act since it is a kind of a test of one’s mental
character.
Principles governing Fear
1.Acts done “with” fear are voluntary. This is so since
the person acting with fear is acting in spite of his/her
fear, and thus, still very much in control of his/her
conduct. Therefore the person concerned remains
morally responsible of his/her action, whether good or
bad, right or wrong.
Example: Cheating, Stealing
if there is a serious threat to one’s life, a person
confronted by violence can always offer intrinsic
resistance by withholding consent; that is enough to
save one’s moral integrity” (Panizo as cited in Agapay
1991:25).
5. Habit
Habit, is a “constant and easy way of doing things
acquired by the repetition of the same act” (Panizo
1964:37).
Principles governing Habit
*When a person will simply let his/her habit take
control of his/her action without doing anything about
it whatsoever, then we can say that he/she is morally
accountable of his/her action by allowing the habit to
determine his/her conduct.
*When a person decides to fight his habit, and for as
long as the effort towards this purpose continues,
actions resulting from such habit may be regarded as
acts of man and not accountable.

2. Acts done “because of” intense fear or panic are

simply involuntary. A person when acting out of
extreme fear is not morally accountable of his/her
action or conduct.

A good example is a cashier who hands the money to a

robber who is poking a gun on his/her head is acting out
of intense fear and panic, and thus, doing something
involuntarily and without his/her consent.
 NATURAL LAW ETHIC THOMISTIC
ETHICS
 Natural law theory refers to the general view that
moral rules and principles are objective, absolute
and universal truths that can be discovered in the
nature of things and in the structure of life itself
through the use of reasoned reflection.
 Natural Law should not be equated to scientific
concept of Natural Law….which is the Law of
Gravity….
 The Natural Law that we are talking here is to know
and understand what morality demands of what we
ought to do and not do, …..what it demands from us
human beings who are gifted with knowledge and
freewill.
“Morality relies on what can be known from a reflective
investigation and deep scrutiny of human nature by our
mental faculties..” (Mackinnon 1998: 75)
THOMISTIC ETHICS
 REASON IS THE SOURCE OF MORAL LAW; IT
DIRECTS US TOWARDS THE GOOD
 GOOD – ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE PERSON’S
ACTONS
 DISCOVERABLE WITHIN THE PERSON’S NATURE
 DO GOOD AND AVOID EVIL
 AN ACT IS MORALLY RIGHT WHEN IT IS DONE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH MORAL LAW
 REASON IS THE SOURCE OF MORAL LAW
 THE MORAL LAW IS THE DICTATE OF REASON
 FOR ACQUINAS, MORAL LAW COMES FROM
ETERNAL LAW – THE DIVINE LAW
 WHICH IS EXPRESSED IN THE HUMAN NATURE –
WHICH MEANS DO GOOD AND AVOID EVIL.
 AN ACTION IS GOOD WHEN IT IS DONE IN
ACCORDANCE OF CONSCIENCE
 THE INNER VOICE OF THE INTELLECT OR REASON
WHICH IS THE PATHWAY OF THE HUMA PERSON
TO FOLLOW THE MORAL LAW
 DO GOOD AND AVOID EVIL
 CONSCIENCE IS THE GUIDE IN MAKING MORAL
DECISION
 THE ACTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CONSCIENCE WHEN IT SATISFIES THE THREE-FOLD
NATURAL INCLINATION OF THE HUMAN PERSON :
1. SELF-PRESERVATION
2. JUST DEALING WITH OTHERS
3. PROPAGATION OF HUMAN SPECIES
1. SELF-PRESERVATION
NATURAL INCLINATION TO TAKE CARE OF ONE’S
HEALTH OR NOT TO KILL OR PUT ONS’S SELF IN
DANGER
 SELF PRESERVATION IS GOOD
 SUICIDE IS EVIL
But the preservation of life and health is not an absolute
moral duty.
For St. Thomas, God is the ultimate meaning and
purpose of every human life. Human life is only a
temporal reality. If the act of preserving life helps a
person toward God as his or her final end, then there is
a moral obligation to take the necessary means
conducive for the preservation of life.
But if preserving life hinders one’s ultimate union with
the Creator, then it would be an objective sinful act
since it frustrates the ultimate meaning of one’s life.
2. JUST DEALING WITH OTHERS
TREAT OTHERS WITH THE SAME RESPECT THAT WE
ACCORD OURSELVES
FOR ACQUIANAS: ALL FORMS OF INHUMANITY LIKE,
DECEPTION,SEDUCTION, MANIPULATION, CHEATING,
KIDNAPPING, MURDER AND THE LIKE ARE
UNACCEPTABLE AND ABSOUTELY WRONG.
3. PROPAGATION OF HUMAN SPECIES
THE REPRODUCTIVE ORGAN IS BY NATURE DESIGNED
TO REPRODUCE AND PROPAGATE HUMAN SPECIES
ANY INTERVENTION THAT FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE
OF THE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS IS UNNATURAL
MASTURBATION IS IMMORAL
1. SELF-PRESERVATION
2. JUST DEALING WITH OTHERS
3. PROPAGATION OF HUMAN SPECIES
IF ONE OF THESE THREE-FOLD NATURAL
INCLINATION OF THE HUMAN PERSON IS
VIOLATED THEN AN ACT DOES NOT OBEY
CONSCIENCE AND IT IS THEREFORE IMMORAL
FOR AN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED MORAL , IT MUST
BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSCIENCE
IT MUST BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MORAL
LAW.
DOING GOOD AND AVOIDING EVIL
DETERMINANTS OF MORAL ACTION
1. OBJECT OF THE ACT
-THE WILL INTENDS PRIMARILY AND DIRECTLY
-WHAT IS THE PRIMARY AND DIRECT INTENTION OF
YOUR ACTION
2. CIRCUMSTANCE
THE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE MORALITY OF THE
ACTION
3. END – THE PURPOSE OF THE DOER
-THE END IS THE INTEGRAL PART OF EVERY MORAL ACT
THE 3 DETERMINANTS OF MORAL ACTION MUST BE ALL
GOOD OR MORALLY RIGHT
SPECIAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDER NATURAL LAW
THEORY
1. THE FOUR PRINCIPLES OF DOUBLE EFFECT
1. THE ACTION INTENDED MUST BE GOOD IN ITSELF,
OR ATLEAST MORALLY INDIFERRENT; OTHERWISE THE
ACT IS AT THE VERY OUTSET
2.THE GOOD EFFECT MUST FOLLOW THE ACTION AT
LEAST AS IMMEDIATELY AS THE EVIL EFFECT, OR THE
GOOD AND EVIL EFFECTS MUST OCCUR
SIMULTANEOUSLY;
3. THE FORESEEN EVIL EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE
INTENDED OR APPROVED, BUT MERELY PERMITTED TO
OCCUR;
4. THERE MUST BE A PROPORTIONATE AND
SUFFECIENT REASON FOR ALLOWING THE EVIL EFFECT
TO OCCUR WHILE PERFORMING THE ACTION
2. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INVIOLABILITY OF LIFE
- EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS OF INFINITE VALUE AS IT IS A
SACRED AND PRESCIOUS GIFT FROM THE ALMIGHTY
CREATOR.
- THIS ALSO APPLIES TO THE UNBORN FETUS- IT HAS ALL
THE BASIC NATURAL RIGHT TO LIFE THAT MUST BE
PROTECTED FROM ANY HARM
3. PRINCIPLE OF FORFEITURE
- ONE'S LIFE IS MORTALLY THREATHENED BY THE
PRESENCE OF ANOTHER WHO IS AN AGGRESSOR.
-SELF DEFENSE (INNOCENT PERSON VS AN AGGRESSOR)
- AN INNOCENT PERSON IS ONE WHO HAS NOT
WILLFULLY THREATENED ANYONE'S LIFE NOR HAVING
THE INTENTION TO HARM SOMEONE
4. THE PRINCIPLE OF TOTALITY
- THIS REFERS TO THE VIEW THAT A PART OF THE
HUMAN BODY EXISTS FOR GOOD OF THE WHOLE.
- ONE MAY LEGITIMATELY SACRIFICES A PART OF
HIS/HER BODY IF THIS IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AND
MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF THE ENTIRE BODY
5. THE PRINCIPLE OF STEWARDSHIP
- WE HUMANS ARE ONLY GIVEN THE POWER TO TAKE
GOOD CARE OF THE CREATION AND DO NOT HAVE SOLE
AUTHORITY TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT.
- THE EARTH AND EVERYTHING IN NATURE AS A GIFT
FROM GOD, HAS TO BE TAKEN CARED OF AND SHOULD
NOT BE ABUSED IN ANY WAY
UTILITARIANISM
An ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and
developed and popularized by Stuart Mill.
Principle of Utility
"An act is good or morally right if it promotes happiness
and bad or immoral if it tends to produce pain."
KEY PRINCIPLE IS HAPPINESS
In utilitarianism, an act is good or morally right if it
produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of
people; and bad or immoral if it produces more harm or
pain than benefits or happiness to the greatest number
of people.
ASSET = GOOD
LIABILITY = BAD
UTILITARIANISM IS ALSO KNOWN AS
CONSEQUENTIALISM
Utilitarians do not care whether the action is done out
of deception, lie or manipulation as long as it produces
maximum benefits to many people.
CHEATING
KILLING
MURDER
EUTHANASIA
ABORTION
INJUSTICE
INHUMANITY
DIVORCE
Felicific Calculus
the intense (intensity) the pleasure, the better. the
longer (duration) it lasts, the better. the more certain
(certainty) that it will happen, the better. the closer
(propinquity) that it will occur, the better. The greater
the possibility (fecundity) that it will be followed by
another pleasure, the better. the purer (purity) the
pleasure, the better; the greater the number of people
that it benefits (extent), the better.
JEREMY BENTHAM'S MODEL OF UTILITARIANISM
Happiness - Pain = Balance
The Balance is the basis of the morality of an action. In
other words, for Bentham, if the balance is in favor of
happiness, then the act is morally right, and if it is in
favor of pain, then it is morally wrong.
simple mathematical calculation, 12 Pleaures - 6 Pains =
6 pleasures (Balance) Hence, if this is the case, then for
Bentham the action is morally right.
20 Pains - 5 pleasures = 15 pains(Balance) If this is the
case, then for Bentham the act is morally wrong
For John Stuart Mill – UTILITARIANISM We cannot
calculate the amount of pleasure or pain that an act
produces.
The felicific calculus cannot be the basis of morality but
the majority of the people that attains happiness.
"an act is morally right if it produces greatest happiness
to the greatest number of people and it is morally
wrong if it produces more pain than pleasure to the
greatest number of people concerned."
Mill’s utilitarianism is considered qualitative
Intellectual pleasure > Sensual pleasure.
Bentham treats all forms of Happiness as equal
For Mill, Intellectual and Moral pleasures must be
regarded as (higher) pleasures. Must be higher than
sensual pleasures
DEONTOLOGY
Greek root word- “dein” or “deon”, meaning “to be
obligated”, “duty”.
Duty or Obligation as the main motivation or intention
in human actions
For Kant, he claims that what makes an act right/good
and wrong/bad does not depend on its results or
consequences, since all these are simply beyond one’s
control-hence a matter of luck or accident.
Hence, morality should be something of which one
should have total control.
Doing Good of what is right is my Obligation
Telling the TRUTH is ALWAYS RIGTH even if, in doing so
migth produce BAD results
*Lying
*Hacking Mean End
In making Moral Decision, One must consider first which
actions are right or wrong then proceed from there.
RIGHT ACTIONS = I have the moral duty to act on it
WRONG ACTIONS = I have the moral obligation to act
accordingly
THE GOOD WILL of Kant, “nothing can be called good
without qualification except of a good will”
- It facilitates human act.
Good will
-It is good by virtue of its intrinsic value
-Good without qualification; Good without any
condition.
*Courage, wealth, health, freedom and the like can be
used for bad purpose.
GOOD WILL - How it is manifested?
1. When done for the sake of Duty
a. When you help someone and you expect something
in return....then the “Will” is not GOOD without
qualification
b. If one believes that it is his/her DUTY to help without
expecting something in return...then “Will” is GOOD
without qualification
- It is done for the sake of DUTY
There is an autonomy of the WILL
- Self Legislating
- Not influence by outside force/factor
DUTY should be the motive of all moral acts
Inclination or self-interest can never be the motive of
any moral act
ex. The doctor is moved to treat his/her patient/s
because it is his/her duty, as health worker, to treat the
patient/s...and not profiting the patient/s his/herself.
An act has moral worth if is done for the sake of
duty....If it has done out of self-inclination then it has no
moral worth...immoral
ACTIONS THAT ACCORD OF DUTY
- have NO moral worth, but not necessarily immoral
ACTIONS DONE FOR THE SAKE OF
DUTY - have Moral Worth
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
For Kant, Morality means acting in accordance of
Categorical Imperative = which is the supreme principle
of morality “an act is moral if is done in accordance of
categorical imperative
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
-is a command that you must follow, regardless of your
desires
- is a moral obligations which derive from pure reason
*It doesn't matter whether you want to be moral or
not....the moral law is binding on all of us
YOU DON'T NEED RELIGION TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT
LAW IS, BECAUSE WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG IS
TOTALLY KNOWABLE JUST BY USING YOUR INTELLECT
FORMULATIONS OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
1. Principle of Universality “Act only on that maxim
whereby you can, at the same time will, that it should
become a universal law”
*maxim - a moral principle that the agent acts.
*Everyone should act on that maxim in the similar
location/situation.
*If the maxim cannot be universalized then the action
has no moral worth - if you cannot force everyone to
“will” the same, then the maxim is impermissible and
considered morally wrong eg. Stealing, killing etc
*If the maxim can be accepted universally.....If we can
force everyone to do the same, then the action is
morally right. eg. helping in times of need
2. The Principle of Humanity
“So act as to treat humanity whether in your own
person or in that of another never as a means but
always as an end”
*Human beings should be treated as an end not just as
a mean
*If humans are treated as means - they are reduced as a
thing or an animal eg. a mug, a car, a carabao
*Any act that treat humanity as a means is not morally
right eg. cheating someone is absolutely
immoral...cheating is a means to own selfish end
*We are not mere objects that exist to be used by
others. We are our own ends. We are rational and
autonomous. We have the ability to set our own goals
and work toward them eg. coofee mugs/beers for
coffee/beers drinkers, Humans exist for THEMSELVES
Human is an end in him/herself
*Lying and deception are unacceptable
*You treat someone as a mean to acquire your
desires...to attain your goals

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE is a COMMAND

Two Kinds of Command

1. Hypothetical Imperative - Conditional Command - if
you want to become pharmacist...you study hard

2.Categorical Imperative – Absolute command - “Do

not Cheat!”
 VIRTUE OF ETHICS
Aristotle’s Virtue of Ethics
 Can be gleaned from his seminal work titled:
NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
 THE FIRST SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF ETHICS IN
WESTERN CIVILIZATION
 Offers principles of conduct that would guide
humans in attaining the: GOOD LIFE
 CONTRASTING IT WITH PLATO’S TAKE ON
“ETHICS”
BELIEVED THAT: the moral evaluations if daily life
presuppose a: GOOD LIFE
= which is independent of: EXPERIENCE, PERSONALITY,
and CIRCUMSTANCES.
MORAL PRINCIPLES are immanent in our daily activities
and can be discovered only through a careful study of
them
=Aristotle begins his ethical inquiry with an empirical
study of what it is the people fundamentally desire.
 What people fundamentally desire is
HAPPINESS or EUDAIMONIA
 Is the ultimate human good “THE CONCEPT OF
HAPPINESS CONSIDERABLY VARY”
In Plato and Socrate’s ethics is:
WHAT KIND OF LIFE SHOULD ONE LIVE?
Was also concerned about the GOOD LIFE
 HOW should one live
=was more concerned about the nature of the
GOOD LIFE
1. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS?
2. WHAT DOES HAPPINESS CONSIST ON?
About: THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS
NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS=raised the question
concerning
ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE OF ETHICS=THE CONDITIONS OF
ITS ATTAINMENT
=Is ultimately tied to a full understanding of the nature
of happiness as humanity’s ultimate goal as well as the
concept of virtue
 Eventually led Aristotle to the discussion of
VIRTUE
AS A VIRTUE THEORIST
 Is not only about: RIGHT OR WRONG
But with virtues like: COURAGE AND COWARDICE,
WISDOM AND IGNORANCE, AND JUSTICE AND
INJUSTICE
WEAKNESS OF CHARACTER OR STRENGHTOF
CHARACTER
2 MAJOR PRINCIPLE that will guide us in understanding
Aristotle’s virtue ethics
1. EUDAIMONIA
2. VIRTUE
That the following discussion will focus on:
1. How Aristotle develops a concept of
eudaimonia that appeals to a conception of
human nature
2. The way in which Aristotle develops a account
of virtue that can show idea that THE LIFE OF
VIRTUE is a LIFE OF EUDAIMONIA
EUDAIMONIA AND VIRTUE
 VIRTUE= as the major source of happiness
 MORAL VIRTUE= is vital to the “rational of man
his concept of HAPPINESS differs from Socrates
and Plato’s HAPPINESS CONSIST ONLY IN
“VIRTIOUS ACTIVITY”
HAPPINESS=EUDAIMONIA is the ultimate end of human
life
HAPPINESS or THE ULTIMATE END
 Is genuinely desired for its own sake or without
qualification
ACTIONS=which precede this end
 Are the most valuable and cannot be
superseded by any actions driven by ordinary
kinds of ends
ACTIONS= which result in: HONOR, WEALTH, POWER
 Is definitely part of man’s inclination to seek for
HAPPINESS (as “pleasure”) BUT unfortunately,
this could not be the end which offers TRUE
HAPPINESS
EUDAIMONIA= PLEASURE is also good DOES NOT
CONDEMN MAN FOR DESIRING “PLEASURE”
=it is a significant part of human flourishing
THE DESIRE AND ACTIONS THAT LEAD TO: PLEASURE
 Only presuppose limited value since its END is
TEMPORARY
 The satisfaction that one gets from these
actions cannot be truly called: HAPPINESS
 These actions, which only lead humans into the
pit of the two opposing vices(either EXCESS or
DEFICIENCY)= DRIVE THEM AWAY FROM THE
ULTIMATE END
ONLY VIRTIOUS ACTS CAN LEAD TO TRUE HAPPINESS
VIRTUE= a behavior showing a high moral standard or
the general quality of goodness in a person
EXAMPLE: VIRTUE OF PATIENCE OR TRUTHFULNESS
 The encyclopedia of philosophy 2nd edition
define Virtue: AS THE OPPOSITE OF “VICE”
 VICE= should not be literally understood within
the specific context of social vices: DRUG
ADDICTION GAMBLING EXCESSIVE CIGARETTE
SMOKING
VICES= are the two extremes of the spectrum
1. EXCESS
2. DEFICIENCY
“Virtues are the mean or the middle ground between
the excess at the one side and the deficiency at the
other”
FOR INSTANCE:
 If a moral agent maintains PATIENCE or
GOOD TEMPER (“MEAN”) AND rejects IRAS
CIBILITY (“EXCESS”) OR lack of spirit
(“DEFICIENCY”)
 HE IS SAID TO HAVE POSSESSED “VIRTUE”
VIRTUES=serve as the essential elements of man’s
moral behavior
 The moral concept in Aristotle’s virtue ethics is
that: VIRTUE OR “THE MEAN” = is the key to
HAPPINESS
VIRTUE AS “GOOD HABIT”
 The information of moral virtue is essential to=
ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS
 A MORAL AGENT can only attain HAPPINESS BY:
= being consistently living a good life or acting
habitually accordance with the good.
 A GOOD HABIT= is instrumental to the
development of VIRTUE
 It is considered to be the consistent pattern for
doing virtuous actions
“we are adapted by nature to received these virtues
and are made perfect by habit”
VIRTUE is already part of out natural inclination still
needs the habit of doing good for him to become:
VIRTUOUS
 What we must do the is to: CONSTANTLY
“PRACTICE DOING VIRTUOUS ACTS TO
DEVELOP A HABIT”
FOR INSTANCE:
 We acquire THE VIRTUE OF PATIENCE by:
1. Repeatedly integrating it into our
deliberate actions
2. By being constantly patient
 We can obtain THE VIRTUE OF COURAGE by:
maintaining it within the purview of the mean
while avoiding rashness and cowardice
 Our actions can only be morally GOOD and
RIGHT if there is a: HABITUAL PRACTICE OF
VIRTUES
 To eventually maintain these moral actions
which lead us to attain authentic happiness
= the information of GOOD HABITS is a
REQUISITE
THE FORMATION OF VIRTUE OR GOOD HABIT HAS 2
STAGES :
1. The habit of contemplation or the education of
thought for the formation of intellectual virtue
2. The habit of the actual practice of moral virtue
THE HABIT OF CONTEMPLATION  The key question in Aristotle’s virtue ethics is”
WHAT SORT OF LIFE HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD
 Is a matter of constantly acquiring knowledge
LIVE
and using one’s mind in the right way that leads
 PRACTICAL VIRTUES
to the habitual exercise of virtue
=are the characteristics that humans need to
 THE HABIT OF EDUCATION OF THROUGH
develop to attain HAPPINESS
 The state of character is constituted by the
=must be displayed in action for humans to
stable equilibrium of the soul
truly attain HAPPINESS
 THE STATE OF CHARACTER= which shapes
MORAL VIRTUE
 Primarily requires proper mental activity aside
from the actual performance of moral action
 Before we can actually practice virtue: we have
to think about practicing virtue all the time

THE HABITUAL ACTUAL PRACTICE OF VIRTUE

 Presupposes that every human being has

brought out the contemplated understanding of
virtue into action
= WE PUT INTO PRACTICE WHAT THE MIND
THINKS
 The outing into practice of this understanding
should be done CONSISTENTLY
 It would lead to the formation of good habit

VIRTUE= a behavior showing high moral standards

= a good moral quality

=the general quality of goodness in a person

ARISTOTLE: by developing a habit of: DOING GOOD ALL

THE TIME

ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE ETHICS

 Is built around the premise that humans should

aim to achieve excellent character
 HUMANS SHOULD BECOME ETHICAL
INDIVIDUALS
 ETHICAL INDIVIDUALS

= as having virtuous character (ethike arete in

Greek)

 AN EXCELLENT CHARACTER

=is the precondition for attaining HAPPINESS or

EUDAIMONIA is the ultimate goal of Aristotle’s
virtue ethics

BY FOCUSING ON HAPPINESS OR EUDAIMONIA

 The SHAPE OF LIFE as a whole becomes central

to ethical theory