ETHICS

By: Dr. Florentino Timbreza

Of all the vertebrates, human being alone, being gifted with the power of reason, has a sense of
right and wrong. Man has a sense of propriety which an animal does not have. Only man is aware of moral
oughtness; hence, morality makes a human being act as a human being and its absence makes an animal act
as an animal. It is in this context that morality is both a blessing and a curse to man; a blessing, insofar as
man alone is a moral and so he ought to act morally; a curse, because if he fails to act morally, man becomes
less human and even worse than a beast that has no morality.

This truism might have prompted John Stuart Mill to say that “it is better to be human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” The point here is
that human being has a sense of propriety which a pig does not have. A fool enjoys being foolish and asinine
while a Socrates exalts a decent life that is worth living. The big difference makes a person rational and
moral. Filipinos aptly put it thus: Madali ang maging tao, pero mahirap ang magpakatao (It is easy to be
born a man but it’s hard enough to become human). For to be truly human is to be moral.

Being the only moral creatures, humans have survived the law of the evolutionary process, namely,
survival of the fittest. Without morality they would have destroyed and exterminated themselves into
extinction. It thus becomes increasingly clear that morality plays a very significant role not only in
maintaining a meaningful existence with others but, most of all, for human survival as well. In fact the
immeasurable value of morality finds itself in human relationships. This is so because the human being is
a social individual who lives with other individuals. Hence, without morality no social unit or human
relationship can survive.

In a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, for instance, the boy as a male relates with the girl as a
female; in the family an individual member lives, eats, plays and sleeps with the other members; in the
school, an individual is a student who plays, studies, and makes friends with other students. In the state, an
individual is a citizen who exists, works, and associates with fellow citizens. These basic human situations
bring with them certain rights and obligations which are necessary not only to maintain peaceful and well-
ordered relations among the sweethearts, the family members, the students, and the citizens themselves but
also for their own survival.

Such rights and obligations, be they written or unwritten, constitute morality, a group’s or
community’s code of behavior or, in some ways, its system of values by which the members are supposed
or ought to treat themselves and relate to one another. This sytem of values is sometimes referred to as
group morality or ethics, without which the group as such will perish.

Let us analyze the aforesaid human relation. The boyfriend ought to respect his girlfriend’s rights
and the latter should likewise regard her boyfriend’s rights not only as human beings with dignity and
freedom but also as sweethearts. Any infraction of one’s duty to respect the other’s rights in the context of
the relationship will definitely destroy the love affair itself; hence, it will just die a natural death, so to
speak.

In the family, the father-daughter relationship is likewise characterized by the duty-right correlates.
It is the father’s moral duty to respect and protect his daughter’s rights not only as a human being, but most
of all as a daughter, the flesh of his flesh and the bone of his bone. In the same vein, the daughter is also
morally obliged to respect her father’s rights as a father. A violation of this mutual duty to respect one’s
own rights between them gives rise to the much-talked about heinous crime of the times, namely, incestuous
rape or sexual aggression.
 The same holds true for a husband-wife relationship in which both have the mutual obligation to
respect each other’s rights in order to maintain a happy, orderly, and lasting family life. The breach or
violation of one’s duty to the other in this relationship will cause the loss of one’s respect for each other,
thereby resulting in a broken home or a shattered family. It goes without saying then that morality can either
make or unmake an individual; it can either foster or destroy any human relationship.

It is here where we are faced with one of humankind’s most persistent problems throughout the
ages; How can we determine whether an act is good or bad, whether we are acting rightly or wrongly?
Answers to these questions have been abundance and they constitute the various ethical schools of thought
formulate by man over the years. These ethical theories are usually classified as general ethics which refer
to all the diverse ethical formulation of general and universal concepts and principles which serve as the
foundation of morality.

General ethics raises the problem of moral norms and attempts to formulate and defend a system
of fundamental ethical perceptions that settle which acts are good and which ones are evil. For every moral
theory these ethical principles are presumed to be valid (hence to be followed) by everyone. This makes
ethical study interesting and challenging; for just as there are so many cultures, so are there so many moral
norms.

When social relations have become so intricate and complicated due to the development of new
roles and specific functions that an individual should play or carry out in a given workplace, there is a need
for the general moral principles of ethical theories to be applied to specific and particular situations in life
in which they are found to be legitimate. In other words, in an attempt to resolve specific moral problems,
general ethical precepts are applied, and thus are now called special or applied ethics. Professional ethics
is an applied type of ethics insofar as it deals with certain moral precepts or rules by which persons should
behave and act in the exercise of their calling or profession.

This explains why there is legal ethics for lawyers in the practice of law, a teacher’s code of ethics
for educators, and nursing ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, among so many others. True to our thesis,
ethics grows out of many kind of human relationships, be it teacher-student, physician-patient, employer-
employee, or labor-management relations.

WHAT IS ETHICS?
For our purpose here, ethics may be defined as a practical and normative science, based on reason,
which studies human acts and provides norms for their goodness and badness. It is otherwise known as
moral philosophy, insofar as it deals with morality, moral rectitude, or the rightness and wrongness of
human acts. As a practical science, ethics deals with systematized body of knowledge that can be applied
to human actions; as normative science, ethics establishes norms or standards for the regulation and
direction of human actions. Ethical studies are based on reason, insofar as all proofs of ethical science must
find their source in the native power of reason alone. Ethics investigates facts, analyze them, and draws
from them practical applications to particular actions.

Ethics does not subscribe to the so-called ‘divine revelation’ for the final answers or resolutions of
certain moral issues. This makes ethics different from religion, for the latter relies on “revealed truths.”
Here lies the disparity of two claims: The religionist contends that there can be no morality without God,
whereas the ethician maintains that morality remains possible even without God. One can determine the
goodness or badness of one’s behavior even if one does not believe in God. A nonbeliever also possesses a
sense of right and wrong insofar as he likewise perceives the oughtness of his moral decisions.
 Ethics deals only with human acts insofar as they are performed with intellectual deliberations and
freedom. Personal responsibility presupposes knowledge and volition.

This explains why the acts of irrational beings (e.g., cats, dogs, etc.) and insane people are devoid
of moral significance, they are amoral beings performing nonmoral acts. Let us pursue this point further:
Will a person be held morally responsible for all his or her acts? For human acts, yes; but not for acts of
man. The former are those which are done with knowledge and full consent of the will. One knows what
he is doing and one does it freely and willingly. The latter refers to those which are performed in the absence
of either or both of the two elements of human act.

In a rape case, for example, the rapist who thinks and behaves as a normal individual performs a
human act. The rapist knows what he is doing and does it with volition. The quality of the act, however,
changes if and when the rapist is an idiot or a morally-deranged individual. On the other hand, the rape
victims suffers from the act of man, unless she/he has predisposed herself/himself in a sexually provocative
manner, in which case the act becomes voluntary in cause. Thus, the rapist is held morally responsible for
the sexual assault, whereas the rape victim is not.

Related to this matter is the problem of ignorance: Should a person be held morally responsible for
an act performed in ignorance? Ignorance is the absence of knowledge in an individual who is supposed to
know it. It may be either vincible or invincible ignorance. The former is one which can be overcome by
exerting some effort, unlike the latter which can hardly be removed even if one were to exert extra effort to
overcome it. A student, for instance, does not know about a test to be given in class tomorrow. This student
was absent during the previous meeting, but knows the e-mail addresses or cell phone numbers of some of
the people in that class. If one does not care to inquire from them, even if one knows that they can furnish
the necessary information, this becomes a case of vincible ignorance, for which the student is held morally
responsible. One can overcome one’s ignorance in such a situation if one wants, but prefers not to.

It is a case of knowing that one does not know about something but prefers not to know it, so that
one’s ignorance is given as excuse of not knowing what one is supposed to know. One is not intellectually
honest in this case. Ignorance is used as a means to excuse oneself from a particular responsibility. However,
if a student in question exerts all efforts to verify the test, and yet cannot obtaine the necessary information
(cellphone of other persons in that class bogged down for one reason or another), it would be a case of
invincible ignorance. This student exhausted all possibilities to overcome his/her ignorance but this was to
no avail. At least this student was being honest.

ETHICAL THEORIES
Several major ethical theories have not only raised the problem of moral norms but have also
attempted to formulate and defend a system of fundamental ethical perceptions that determine which acts
are good and which ones are evil. Every moral theory has its own strengths and weaknesses depending upon
one’s own moral convictions. This explains why no single ethical doctrine, perhaps, can satisfactorily
resolve one’s moral predicaments. The diversity of moral theories is an explicit acknowledgment of the
complexities of life, and of the gray areas of morality. We should, therefore, take the competition, or even
the conflict and the opposition, among the ethical schools of thought not only as challenges for further
reflection and discernment; thus, honing the critical mind to continue searching for new horizons of human
meanings and values.
Ethical Relativism
Also known as moral relativism, this ethical doctrine claims that there are no universal or absolute
moral principles. Standards as of right and wrong are always relative to a particular culture or society. The
moral opinion of one individual is as good as any other, for there is no objective basis for saying that a
particular action is right or wrong apart from a specific social group. Every culture has its own norm of
moral actions. Some societies consider as right several kinds of actions or practices that other societies
consider to be wrong. To a relativist, one would be considered too ambitious, if not arrogant, in claiming
that one knows absolute and objective ethical principles that are true, valid, and binding on all peoples.

To illustrate the relativity of moral principles, the Arctic snow and Eskimos’ practice of abandoning
old folks in the snow and allowing them to die of starvation and exposure is morally legitimate. Likewise,
among some Eskimos, lending or allowing one’s wife to sleep with one’s special guest overnight is an
expression of hospitality and respect. This is also true of the olog or trial marriage among some Igorots and
live in practices in Americans, which are done in order to test marital compatibility. In some cultures, a
man has an obligation to marry his brother’s widow, whereas in other cultures, the burning of widows is a
common practice as an expression of the widow’s until-death-do-us-part fidelity to her husband.

All these varying traditional practices attest to the moral claims of ethical relativism. Whether an
action is regarded as right or wrong depends upon the society judging it. Of equal value are the different
sets of moral principles, and when an individual legitimizes one set over another, it is simply an outcome
of having been raised in a particular culture. One happens to be a Muslim so polygamy is morally
acceptable, or one happens to be a Christian so monogamy is the legitimate and licit type of marriage. In
addition, in one culture only boys are supposed to be circumcised, but in another, clitoral circumcision
among girls is a rightful practice. Thus, every moral norm is relative insofar as it varies from one culture to
another.

Hedonism

Hedonism is an ethical doctrine which claims that pleasure is the norm of morality. By pleasure, in
this context, is meant the satisfaction of desire; hence the greater the pleasure, the better. Pleasure is the one
and only good; hence, it must be the basis for moral judgment. Desire may be either intellectual, aesthetic,
or physical (sensuous or sexual).

The experience of intellectual pleasure derives from one’s discovery of truth, the formulation of
certain theory, or the final resolution of a particular problem that involves intellectual deliberation. Aesthetic
pleasure refers to one’s disinterested feeling of beholding a beautiful thing or scenery, an appreciating a
work of art; whereas physical pleasure means the satisfaction of sensuous or sexual desire.

Aesthetic pleasure is so unique in itself that it is characterized by the feeling of awe and
disinterestedness, as opposed to sensuous pleasure which is coupled with the wish or urge to own or possess
the source of pleasure itself, like sexual object or palatable food. Pleasure, being the moral norm whenever
an act is pleasant and/or pleasurable, is good and must be done under all circumstance; whenever an act is
unpleasant and/or painful, it is bad and must be avoided as much as possible. In other words, whatever act
that gives pleasure is morally right; whereas an act that gives pain is morally wrong. Every person, therefore,
seeks his/her own pleasure and avoids pain.

To appreciate the pleasure principle, one must understand the hedonist’s philosophy of life. For a
hedonist, happiness is the highest good. And so it must be made the ultimate goal of life. To realize and
attain the highest good, first and foremost, we have to satisfy our desires in order to live and survive. By
the time an individual ceases to desire, he ceases to live as well and will ultimately perish. Now, as we
satisfy our desire, we experience pleasure and the feeling of pleasure makes us happy. Happiness, therefore,
is attainable through pleasure; and the latter can be gained by satisfying our desires.

If we are going to suppress our desires, we will experience pain, insofar as the suppression of desire
is painful. Thus, suppression of desire is the cause of suffering. Suffering is the opposite of happiness, for
no one can be happy if one suffers. To avoid pain which causes suffering, we have to follow the pleasure
principle: satisfy your desire, experience pleasure, and then attain happiness. The hedonist’s formula for a
happy life is: “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.”

Stoicism
As an ethical doctrine, stoicism considers apathy or indifference to pleasure as the moral norm. Its
advocates are called “stoics,” who are known for their exemplary patience, self-sacrifice, perseverance,
forbearance, and long-suffering attitude. Their highest virtues or ideals are mental tranquility, temperance,
contentment, serenity, and composure. Of all of these, the greatest is peace of mind. It is for this reason that
the basis for moral action for them is apatheia or a state of imperturbability which is attainable through
apathy or indifference to pleasure.

Disputing the hedonist’s claim that lasting happiness derives from pleasure, the stoics contend that
pleasure, the stoics contend that pleasure as the basis for moral action leads to an endless cycle of pleasure
and pains. While it is true that the satisfaction of desire gives us pleasure and the latter makes us happy,
this happiness lasts only for a while and so we desire again and go through the same cycle endlessly. Thus,
the more we satisfy our desire, the more we suffer, insofar as one desires more for further satisfaction which
is only momentary.

To attain lasting happiness, we have to minimize our desires and passions, if we cannot suppress
them altogether. Our firm resolution to suppress our passions (or at least to minimize them) will enable us
to develop the virtues of self-discipline, self-conquest, and self-mastery which, for the stoics, are very
significant in the moral development of an individual. The most difficult individual to discipline is oneself,
so the stoics say, but once a person learns to discipline himself, then he can discipline all that are supposed
to be disciplined. Accordingly, a person who can control himself can control all that are supposed to be
controlled; and one who can conquer himself can conquer all that are supposed to be conquered.

For the stoics, the value of self-control or self-discipline enables an individual to attain apatheia,
or the state of mental peace or imperturbability, in which one has complete control of his mind and body so
that nothing else can even annoy him. Authentic and lasting happiness can only come from mental
tranquility. An individual, then, who is at peace with himself and with others attains mental serenity and is
thus happy. This is the goal of stoicism as an ethical doctrine.

Epicureanism

Whereas hedonism teaches an all-out pleasure or no pleasure at all, Epicureanism professes

moderate pleasure as the moral norm. Moderate pleasure, for the Epicureanism, is one that is consonant
with reason, which is neither too much nor too little. Anything that is taken in excess is bad, so we should
avoid the extremes and live moderately. What the Epicureans mean pleasure is not fleeting but permanent,
or that state of deep peace and perfect contentment in which we feel secure against the storms of life.

The Epicureans agree with the hedonist that pain must be avoided, so that even the pleasure which
leads to pain must be evaded. There are three causes of pain: the excessive use, abuse, and the nonuse of
bodily organs. Too much sex (i.e., overuse or misuse) as well as no sex at all (nonuse of sex organs) cause
pain; and abusing one’s self in whatever way (e.g., smoking, intoxication, and drug addiction) is both
painful and dangerous to one’s health. To avoid these extremes (which may cause pain and suffering), one
should observe moderation in all undertakings (i.e., moderate or slight use of bodily organs).

The Epicureans consider prudence as the highest virtue which enables an individual to govern
himself by the use of reason. Intelligent choice and practical wisdom are needed to measure pleasure against
pain, “accepting pains that lead to greater pleasures and rejecting pleasures that lead to greater pains.” Of
great interest and significance are the Epicurean’s two kinds of pleasure, namely, dynamic and passive.
Dynamic pleasures are those which are accompanied by pain, like sexual love, gluttony, fame, and drinking
(we may now add drug addiction). For instance, sexual pleasure is accompanied by fatigue, remorse, and
depression. Exhaustion dampens the peas of orgasmic ecstasy, whereas sexual inadequacy and weakening
would cause a remorseful and depressing mood.

Overeating is also characterized by pain which may cause a person to vomit or to have indigestion.
Fame has been the cause of many personal frustrations and family breakdowns. And alcoholic drinking
leads to headaches and terminal ailments. It is in this light the Epicureans dispute the hedonist’s dictum
“Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die.” It would be alright, they say, if an individual, after eating,
drinking and merrying in all abandon today, would really die tomorrow. But more often than not, one
miserably suffers today for what he/she has eaten, drunk, and sexually enjoyed yesterday (e.g. STD patients,
terminal patients of lung cancer due to heavy smoking and drinking, etc.). Passive pleasures, the second
type, are those that are not accompanied by pain, like friendship, philosophical conversation, playing with
kids. These kinds of pleasure ought to be cultivated, for the good life consists in acquiring pleasures of this
sort.

As ethical guidelines for moral decisions, the Epicureans teach about the three kinds of desire:
natural and necessary, natural but unnecessary, and unnatural and unnecessary desires. Natural and
necessary desires refers to our need for food and water, rest, and sleep, which should be satisfied
moderately. Natural and unnecessary desire refers to man’s need for sex and marriage. Sexual desire is
natural but an individua; can still survive without it. It is optional for everyone. The third type, unnatural
and unnecessary desire refers to man’s need for power, wealth, fame, smoking, drinking and other vices.
For the Epicureans, aside from being not natural and not necessary, these needs are dangerous and
detrimental to an individual. Power and fame are common causes of a person’s spiritual ruin and physical
destruction; the same is true with smoking, drinking, and drug addiction.

Utilitarianism
The ethical doctrine states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by the goodness
and badness of their consequences. There is one and only moral principle, namely, the principly of utility:
“Actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to promote unhappiness.”
We should consider the possible effects of each action or moral decision. We ought to choose the action
(among many other possible ones) that produces the most benefits (comfort or happiness) at the least cost
of pain and unhappiness. Some unhappiness may possibly result from the action we take, but what matters
is the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for all individuals affected.

For a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, for instance, she may justify to discontinue
her pregnancy according to the utility principle. She is a teen-aged high school student and still too young
assume responsibility of parenthood. And aside from the sexual aggression she suffered at the hands of the
rapist, the fetus in her womb is terribly deformed and her poor parents can hardly afford the burden of
bringing up a gravely malformed baby. Hence, the decision to discontinue her pregnancy will definitely
bring about well-being and comfort for the whole family.

Bent on getting rid of any strain of alleged individualism and subjectivism in their moral theory,
utilitarianism gives an alternative formulation of the utility principle; namely the principle of the greatest
happiness: “An action is good (right) insofar if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number
of people; bad (wrong) insofar as it produces more harm than benefit for the greatest number of individuals.”
Hence, faced with a moral decision, one should not just consider one’s happiness or benefit, or the happiness
of a particular person or a group of persons, but he overall balance of the greatest benefit for the greatest
number of people. Equal benefits or happiness for the greatest number of individuals must be taken into
consideration.

Everyone’s well-being must be considered, for each individual is to count just as much as the next.
Hence, the more people who profit from a particular moral decision, the better. This can be carried out by
the remaining impartial and as disinterested as possible. One must personally detached and disengaged.
Utilitarianism describes this point of attitude of a “benevolent spectator” who kindly watches over the
welfare or happiness of all concerned, without taking a self-serving, active part in the process. One must
intend to please all. At least the greatest number of individuals must be benefited by moral act or decision.

Situationism
This ethical theory states that the moral norm depends upon a given situation, but whatever the
situation maybe, one must always act in the name of Christian love. A situation in this context refers to
human condition or any state of moral affairs and issues that demands judgment or action. To abort or not
to abort a fetus in pregnancy in a pregnancy caused by rape exemplifies a given situation. To inject a lethal
drug into a terminally ill patient at his own request in order to relieve him completely from a terrible pain
and suffering is another. One must decide on any of these situations in the name of Christian love.

What is Christian love? The situationist cites three types of love, namely: eros, philia, and agape.
Erotic love means sexual love, which normally relates a man to a woman, but it may also exist between a
tomboy and another woman or between a gay and another male. Filial love refers to the affection that binds
a parent to his/her child, a brother to his sister, s brother to his brother, or a sister to her sister. It turns out
to be erotic in such cases when a father falls in love with his own daughter, or a brother with his own sister.
Both eros and philia are ambivalent. Either one becomes or deflects to the other vice-versa.

The third type is agapeic love which refers to one’s care, concern and kindness towards others.
Christian live, according to the situationist, best exemplifies agape. Love for one’s neighbor (in biblical
sense), just as Christ himself exemplified, is a love which concerned for the well-being of another,
regardless of his station in life. It is characterized by charity, respect, and responsibility to and for the other.
This is the kind of love by which an individual should act and settle what is right and wrong, just and unjust,
in any complicated situation.

Why not eros or philia? These two are biased and partial; they have preferences and inclinations.
They are usually motivated by selfish interests and ulterior motives. One, for example, may perform and
extend medical attention to another person with the end in view of some sexual favor that one may derive
from the other. A surgeon may decide on slowly and painlessly ending the life of his/her own grandmother,
under the pretext of peaceful death while, in fact, the surgeon is simply in hurry to get his/her inheritance
from her.
 In view of the foregoing, the most reliable norm by which to settle moral issues is agapeic love,
according to the situationist. Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely agapeic love: nothing else. If we
base our moral decisions on it, we cannot be wrong. This kind of love goes beyond racism and regionalism,
sexism, and ethnocentrism. Christian love is literally benevolence; it is a matter of loving the unlovable,
the unlovable, the uncongenial, the unresponsive; it wills the neighbor’s good whether we like him or not.
Agape transcends the person’s outward feature or traits, and reaches out to the core of his being, a subject,
an I, a fellow human being.

For the situationist, an evil means does not always nullify a good end; for only the end justifies the
means: nothing else; it all depends upon the situation. Circumstances do alter cases. An act which is right
in some circumstances may be wrong in others, that is, we may do what would be evil in some situation, if,
in this one, agape gains the balance: “the relative weight of ends and means and consequences all taken
together, as weighed by agapeic love.” To illustrate the point, if by lying I can save the life of another
person, then by all means I have to lie. If and when the emotional and spiritual well-being of the parents
and children in a particular family, under a given situation and circumstance, can best be served by divorce,
then so be it, as love requires it. In both instances, agapeic love gains the balance.

Mightism
Otherwise known as power ethics, mightism claims that might is right. Might in this context is
taken as force, strength, and capacity to rule. It also means power, influence, control, and domination. As
an ethical doctrine, it professes what whenever an act enhances one’s strength or capacity to rule or control
others, it is good or morally legitimate; whereas if it causes one’s ineffectiveness, weakness, and feebleness,
it is regarded as wrong. Hence, mightism legitimizes the exercise of power, the use of force and violence,
if necessary, insofar as these promote one’s capacity to control or influence others. By way of implication,
mightism takes on the Darwinian principle of nature, “survival of the fittest.” Only those who are brave
enough to chart destiny by fair or foul means are fit to survive.

For the mightist, rulers and the strong ones dictate what is just and unjust, what is right or wrong.
Whenever an act promotes the interest of the stronger, it is just and right; and any that weakens him/her is
wrong and unjust. The ruler’s authority is absolute and does not compromise or bargain. The weak ones or
the subordinates have no choice but to obey and/or follow. Regarded as morally wrong are acts of
disobedience, resistance, revolt, and disloyalty to the ruler. All actions or policies that will foster the ruler’s
authority are morally licit, highly commendable, and laudable.

For the individual person, any act that will enhance his strength or power is god, whereas any act
that will retard or hinder its growth is evil and, thus must be avoided. All that proceeds from power is good
and all that springs from weakness is bad. Goodness is nothing the expression of individual’s will to power
and all other motives are not morally sound. Reason is an instrument of the will, and the will is narrowed
down to a single purpose: the will to power which is the safe guide of all moral actions. It is for this reason
that mightism professes what is known as master of morality, i.e., the morality of the strong, the virile, and
the strong-willed. This type of morality values courage, self-reliance, high-mindedness, candor, and
creative leadership; it scorns cowardice, humility, sympathy, and weakness. Exploitation is a consequence
of the intrinsic will to power, which is precisely the will to life or survival; passive submission is the
opposite of this will to life.

On mightistic principles, any ruler or person in authority, if he wants to maintain a strong

government, may use every means necessary, fair or foul, to implement government policies or laws. The
ruler should resort to both law and force to govern the people. If law proves ineffectual, then force is called
for, if only to maintain peace and order. In this case, the end justifies the means, even though that end is for
the benefit of the tyrant. If necessary, one must do evil as the only alternative to succeed in governance. In
short, once may use evil means in order to attain good end. Mightism underlies the ideology of the terrorist
and the rebels, coup plotters, revolutionist, and warmongers.

Deontologism

Also known as duty ethics, deontologism stresses duty as the norm of moral actions. The
deontologist is interested in these questions: What makes an act moral as distinguished from a nonmoral
one? What is the difference between a person who acts morally and one who does not? Immanuel Kant, the
prominent advocate of this ethical doctrine, teaches that one acts morally (i.e., performs a moral act) if and
only if one does whatever one is obliged to do. But what is that act which an individual is obliged to do? It
is one that is performed or done from a sense of duty or obligation. Thus, what makes an act moral is its
being done out of duty or obligation, as distinguished from acts done for other reasons. Anyone, for
example, who does something merely because one feels like doing it (say, out of inclination) is not acting
morally, is not a moral person, or is not performing a moral act.

A security guard who performs his job out of the mere desire to do so, or inclines towards it rather
than something else, is not acting morally or doing a moral act. It is only when a security guard recognizes
the duty to watch over in his job that he is genuinely a moral person, acting morally, and doing a
distinctively moral act. Duty in this context, is that which an individual ought to do, despite the inclination
to do otherwise. Hence, doing one’s duty is doing what one is obliged to do. This leads to the distinction
between an act done in accord with duty and an act done from a sense of duty. A doctor, for example, who
performs his medical functions merely out of the desire to do so or out of fear of being accused of negligence
is acting in accord with duty. Hence, such acts are nonmoral, i.e., without any moral significance. Doctors
act from a sense of duty if they recognize that there is a special obligation to their patients because of their
relationship with them.

Physicians who understand the nature of such obligation and act upon it accordingly are indeed
moral persons or ethical individuals; otherwise, they are not. Thus, for the deontologist, the essence of
morality is to be found in the motive from which an act is done. The rightness or wrongness of an action is
determined by the motive from which it is being carried out, regardless of the consequences which doing
so or not doing so will produce. The motive here refers to the duty that one ought to perform; it is what
makes an act morally good. A person who does such an act is a person of good will. A good person is a
moral one who acts from a respect for duty, and one who acts from a sense of duty is a person of good will.

How can one know one’s duty in a given situation, so that one may act accordingly? Is there a test
for determining what one’s duty will be under a particular set of circumstances? The duty ethician, Kant,
says that to be able to determine whether or not one acts from a sense of duty in a particular situation, one
must judge his action in the light of how it will appear if it was to become a universal precept or code of
behavior. One must test the act’s universalizability by means of the categorical imperative: “Act only on
that maxim which you can take at the same time will to become a universal law.”

An illustration will be helpful. Let the situation be the moral issue of abortion. How do I know
whether it is my duty to practice or not to practice abortion? I have to test its universalizability: “Every
pregnant woman, without, exception, whether she be my sister, mother, or daughter, who is in a similar
situation to mine, should abort her defective fetus.” If I want this precept to become a universal norm
binding everyone, then I know it is my duty to abort my malformed fetus. But if I don’t want it to become
true to all and give certain exceptions and rationalizations for other causes, then I know it is my duty not to
expel my unborn baby, deformed though it may be. This, for the deontologist, is how we can determine our
duty in a particular situation so that we may act accordingly.
Humanistic Ethics

Known under various names such as eudaemonism, Nichomacheanism, perfectionism, self-

realization or self-actualization, humanistic ethics claims that self-realization is the true ultimate standard
of morality. Self-realization is understood as self-fulfillment of life, and full development of all functions
of an individual. And inasmuch as the aim of self-realization ethics is the development of the entire self,
the greatest good then is the full realization of an individual. Any act that promotes self-realization is good;
whereas all acts that hinder it are evil. Whatever behavior is conducive to self-actualization, or the fullness
of personality of growth is right, and any conduct that serves to destroy or stunt human life and personality
is wrong.

Humanistic ethics is life-affirming and death-denying. All that serves life is good and all that serves
death is evil. That is to say, the good is reverence for life, all that enhances life, growth, and the unfolding
of self. Evil is all that retards growth, stifles life, narrows it down, and cuts it to pieces. Hence, the joy that
derives from self-fulfillment is virtuous, whereas the sadness that follows from a failure to attain it is sinful.
In this regard, one must seek self-fulfilling acts and avoid self-destroying ones. For example, all acts or
vices that are detrimental to health must be shunned, such as smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse, too much
intake of fatty and sweet foods, risky games, and experimentation.

Insofar as man is a social being and personality is a social product, humanistic ethics is not only
individual but also social in its emphasis and outlook. No man is an island, so to speak. Man is being-with-
others in the world, hence he cannot live the good life from others. No person can fully develop himself
independently of his fellowmen. I need others, for instance, in order for me to realize myself as others need
me so that they can realize themselves. I need their need for me as they need my need for them. Self-
realization has a dimension of reciprocity, for the meaning of our lives is related to the presence of others.

The true self, therefore, is the social self, insofar as personal well-being is bound up with social
well-being. Personal development involves social development, for self-enrichment is tied up with social
enhancement. In this context, cooperation, unity, solidarity, harmony, mutual helpfulness, brotherhood,
peace, and universalism are among the virtues of humanistic ethics. All acts or activities that promote these
virtues are good in themselves, as they provide the social condition wherein personal self-fulfillment is
realized. On the contrary, all acts that stifle and obstruct the establishment of peace and order, harmony and
fraternity, growth and prosperity, solidarity and globalism are deemed bad and inhuman.

For Aristotle, the foremost proponent of humanistic ethics, self-realization consists in the
fulfillment and actualization of man’s threefold nature: vegetative, sentient, and rational. Each must be
fulfilled as the realization of each is accompanied by the state of pleasure and happiness. The physical body
represents the vegetative aspect which must be cultivated by wholesome food and proper exercise, e.g., one
must eat, drink, work (or any form of bodily activity is the essence of life), and rest in order to survive and
keep one physically fit. Any act, therefore, that pertains to the development of one’s vegetative nature is
good and must be done; whereas, any act that stifles its actualization is bad and must be avoided. For
example, to starve oneself to death is bad enough, but to injure or hurt oneself so as to threaten one’s life is
even worse. Likewise, vices are detrimental to one’s health and bodily well-being, such as smoking,
alcoholism, and drug abuse. These would jeopardize the actualization of one’s vegetative nature.

As a sentient being, man’s sensual feelings and emotions, too, must be fully developed through
appropriate sex activity within the limits of social conventions. The suppression of the full development of
one’s sentient nature will create some sort of disequilibrium in a person’s nature, and any form of imbalance
in this respect would be painful. The full realization of their vegetative and sentient nature keeps them for
longing for more lasting satisfaction. Food and shelter and sex are insufficient to quench their thirst for self-
realization. If food, shelter, and sex would be enough requisites for self-fulfillment, then wealth, power,
bank accounts, flashy cars, mansions, beach resorts, kingdoms, and sex exploits could make an individual
self-fulfilled and happy.
Aristotle, however, thought otherwise. An individual must also develop and actualize his/her
rational nature. One develops his/her rational nature in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, philosophical
truth, political activity, religious commitment, and creative, artistic endeavour. The highest, richest, and
supernal form of self-realization, then, stems from the full cultivation of man’s highest nature, namely,
rational. Man’s rationality is his most God-like nature, in Aristotle’s view, and once it is actualized and
realized, then he is blessed with a sense of sheer joy, euphoria, and happiness, a well-being which man
alone can experience. For man, then, the life according to reason is the best and most pleasant, since reason,
more than anything else, is man.

Natural Law Ethics

This ethical doctrine teaches that there exists a natural moral law which is manifested by the natural
light of human reason, demanding the preservation of the natural order and forbidding its violation. For the
natural law ethician, the source of the moral law is reason itself, which directs us towards the good as the
goal of our action, and that good is discoverable within our nature. In its operation, reason recognizes the
basic principle “do good, and evil,” which is otherwise known as the voice of reason or voice conscience.
This is the moral norm, insofar as an individual’s natural capacity to determine what is right from wrong is
no less than the manifestation of the moral law.

Accordingly, we know we are acting rightly if we heed the voice of reason; we know we are acting
wrongly if we act against it. I know I am doing the right thing if and when I follow the voice of conscience;
otherwise, I feel a sense of guilt, self-reproach, or remorse. This explains why natural law ethicians saw we
cannot run away from conscience, as Judas Iscariot allegedly tried but failed when he betrayed Jesus.

The good for the natural ethician is that which is suitable to and proper for human nature. Thus,
whenever an act is suitable to human nature as such (as being endowed with reason and free will), then it
is good and must be done; whenever it is not proper for human nature, it is bad and must be avoided. How
does one know that a particular act is or is not suitable to human nature as such? By means of whether or
not one is following and obeying the voice of reason (conscience) or acting contrary to it. It is for this reason
that some natural law ethicists consider human nature as the proximate norm of morality.

First, according to the natural law ethician, the good is built into human nature, and it is that to
which we are directed by our natural inclinations as both physical and rational creatures. We have three
natural inclinations: self-preservation, just dealings with others, and propagation of our species. We are
naturally inclined to preserve our life. Self-destruction, first of all, is unnatural as far as the natural law
moralist is concerned. This natural inclination urges us to care for our health, not to kill ourselves or put
ourselves in danger. Thus, any act that violates this basic inclination is wrong; it contradicts human nature
as the Creator intends it to be. Suicide, self-immolation, and putting oneself in unnecessary jeopardy are by
nature evil; whereas act that promotes health, vim, vigor, and vitality (physical exercise, walking), is by
nature good. Even smoking and habitual drinking, which are detrimental to one’s health, are not suitable to
human nature; hence, they are evil.

Second, reason by nature leads us to treat others with the same dignity and respect that we accord
ourselves. This is the basis of justice which arises out of human relations. Any act of injustice, such as
subjecting others to indignities, degradations, and inhumanities, is against nature. Moreover, all form of
man’s inhumanity to man, such as exploitation or sexploitation, oppression, seduction, abduction,
deception, swindling, cheating, kidnapping for ransom, murder, rape, harassment, and intimidation are by
nature evil.

Third, we are naturally inclined to perpetuate our species which is viewed as a natural good. We
are obliged not to pervert or thwart this natural inclination. Each member of the human organism serves a
purpose intended by nature. The reproductive organs are by their very nature designed to reproduce and to
perpetuate the human species. Any act of intervention, therefore, that will frustrate and stifle the very
purpose for which the human reproductive organs have been designed by nature is unnatural and, hence,
evil. Accordingly, any form of contraceptive would defeat the purpose for reproduction and it use is against
the natural moral law, for it could destroy the reproductive organ’s reason for being.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism is more of a theory of knowledge than of morality. Moral interests and moral language,
however, appear in almost every important passage of the pragmatist’s writing on the subject (particularly
William James). It will be interesting to attempt an ethical slant of the pragmatist’s conception of truth and
good and see how it could be applied to the moral realm, especially with regard to making decisions and
moral reasoning. As an epistemological view, pragmatism holds that the true and valid form of knowledge
is one which is practical, workable, beneficial, and useful. Being practical is that which we can practice and
produce results; being workable is that which we can put up to work, can be worked out, and works. Being
beneficial, it benefits people; and being useful, it can be used to attain good results. And how can one
determine whether or not an idea or knowledge is practical, beneficial, useful, and workable? By means of
its consequences or results, otherwise, it is consequential and meaningless. For example, the effectivity or
the ineffectivity of a student’s study method is determined by his final grades.

Our point of departure here is the pragmatist’s view that “truth happens to an idea; it becomes true
and is made true by events. Its verity is, in fact, an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying
itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation.” Truth is not a quality or property of ideas;
truth is made true by events and happenings. How can we know, for instance, whether or not the idea that
“Sprite tastes good” is true? By tasting it, of course. So the tasting process is the happening or event that
makes the idea true. This way of viewing truth bears a startling significance in the medical context, e.g.,
drug testing. To test the effectiveness or toxicity of a particular drug, it must be tested on consenting
patients. It is the process of testing (the event of happening) that attest to its toxicity or right dosage, as the
case may be.

The pragmatist’s consideration of the practicality, usefulness, workability, and beneficence of the
true and valid nature of knowledge can render a disparately needed service to applied ethics by providing
a means for settling moral disputes. In regard to the use of placebos in drug testing, for example, or the
practice of humans in medical experimentation, one may arrive at a decision by raising such questions as:
Is it useful and beneficial to the patients involved in the process, as well as to others who will benefit from
the knowledge to be gained? Is it workable and practical? It becomes increasingly clear that pragmatism,
though primarily a theory of truth and knowledge, may prove to be an effective method of justifying one’s
moral decisions.

In the medical context, for instance, one can gauge whether a particular act or moral judgment is
right or wrong, legitimate or not, by considering its practical usefulness, and beneficence to a patient:
Should the patient be told about the nature of his/her serious illness? Would it be more practical to withhold
the information for the patient’s own good? Should lying be the more practical thing to do if by doing so I
can save the life of another? Would it rather be more humane and beneficial to a grossly deformed fetus to
be aborted now than to let it see the light of day only to suffer and live a life of unbearable misery?
 On the divorce issue: Would it be more workable and beneficial for both husband and wife to
dissolve their marriage for the sake of their own children, who have been greatly affected psychologically
by their horrendous and violent quarrels? How would one determine whether or not one and one’s
prospective life partner are physically, psychologically, and sexually compatible? Of course, by living
together on a trial basis. It must be obvious by now why pragmatism has been called “experimentalism.”
To determine whether an idea is true or false, it must be tried and tested by experiment. Truly enough,
pragmatism has permeated the American way of life, its morality, and culture.

POSTSCRIPT

Our reflection on the various schools of thought has shown that each has its own strengths and
legitimacy as well as weaknesses and flaws. This is an explicit acknowledgement of the perplexities and
apparent incomprehensibility of human nature. That an ethical theory is open to objections, however, is not
necessarily a sufficient ground for dismissing it or for giving up the attempt to assimilate and discern its
good points and establish a more acceptable view. The conflicting teachings of these theories should serve
as grounds for further reflection and discernment, thus participating in the rigorous search for new moral
perspectives and paradigms.

Every individual, or another person in his/her behalf, must make moral decisions for one reason or
another, be it in sickness or in health, in love or in strife, in poverty or in wealth, in the prime of life or in
the brink of death. Moral decision-making does not discriminate; it knows no gender, color or, creed; it
knows no profession, social status, or age. Making moral decisions id the high price we have to pay for
enjoying freedom of action. The first man to set foot on the moon made a fearless decision. The first Filipino
physician to perform a heart transplant likewise made a bold decision. The same may be said of the Filipino
health care professionals who conducted the first kidney and marrow transplants. And the Filipino couple
who practice a certain method of family planning also makes a crucial decision. They are all brave
individuals “who dare while others shy.” We can do no less in our own way, in our own life situations, and
in our own world of circulation.

Not only is human life a series of situations which every individual has to surmount in order to
continue living; it is likewise a series of moral decisions which every person has to make in order to survive.
Everyone will thus become the totality of his/her decisions and choices. For as one decides, so does one
reap the outcomes of such decisions; and as one chooses, so does one create oneself. You shape your own
destiny, your own world, through your moral decisions. You are, indeed, made by the decision you make.

Moral predicaments scourge and rend us but decide we must; for it is we who will ultimately bear
the burden and consequences of our moral decisions. Individuals who hesitate to decide by and for
themselves will become contented with mere prescriptions, proscriptions, and routines. But those who dare
to confront their moral problems will grow in self-awareness and freedom. This is the paramount and
overriding message of ethics.