THE SEARCH FOR THE GOOD LIFE: ETHICS AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

(By Edgar O. Taghoy)

Module 3: ETHICS AND ITS GENERAL TRENDS

Criteria and Foundation of a Moral or Ethical Act

The great philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said that “everything has been figured out, except how to live”
(Gaarder, 1998, 380). That is actually the business of philosophy, specially ethics, to help us figure out how to
live when old beliefs no longer hold water. However, in figuring out anything we need to radically go to its
cause or reason for being. Any philosophical study of anything then needs to answer, first of all, the foundation
and criteria of any claim or assertion otherwise it is nothing but unreflected mere opinion. It is on this note
that we need to explore the criteria and foundation of any statement asserting ethical claims.

Towards the end of the lesson, the students must be able to:
1. Distinguish and understand the classical foundations or criteria of the human act.
2. Differentiate the difference between human acts and acts of man.
3. Understand the difference between ethical relativism and ethical absolutism and their implications in
any judgment of actions claiming ethical value.
4. Appreciate the conflicting ethical trends as a reflection of the richness of the ethical experience.

In classical ethical theories, there are four foundations, criteria or requirement for an act to be either
judged moral or immoral. Without these four, any judgment of the morality of an action could be difficult to
establish. The four are the following: Existence of God, Immortality of the Soul, Freedom (or Free Will) and
Knowledge.
Existence of God. Ethical theorists during the scholastic medieval era firmly asserted that without God, any
act could be permitted, that is, if there is no supreme being that warrants supreme value of what is good, any
action could be just judged according to personal standards. To convince people of the importance of this
moral criteria or requirement they created elaborate rational proofs (not merely relying on faith) of God’s
existence notable among them were Thomas Aquinas’ arguments from motion, causality, design, among
others, and Anselm’s Ontological argument.
Immortality of the Soul. According to scholastic ethics, for any judgment of the morality or immorality of
an act, the soul must be immortal to insure that there will be an accounting of all you have done or not done
but should be done when you were on your mortal body. Without the Immortality of the soul, we cannot have
an accounting and therefore if there is no accounting of all your actions there is no meaning at all in why you
do good acts. This is closely related to the first requirement because if there is an accounting of your acts there
should be an accountant (God) that will give a decree of either giving you a reward or a punishment that you
either enjoy or suffer in all eternity.
Freedom. Any act that is not grounded on free will or free choice cannot be judged moral or immoral. The
one who do the act must have done the act according to his or her free choice. Philosophers, however, were in
disagreement as to what freedom is. A short exploration of how philosophers understand freedom would be
helpful here. Let’s just explore the four common ideas of freedom: Jean-Paul Sartre’s Absolute Freedom, BF
Skinner’s Determinist Freedom, Nietzsche’s Freedom as Creative, and Marcel/Levinas idea of Freedom as
Encounter. Despite the differences of these philosophers, all of them, except Skinner who is a psychologist, are
in accord that a free act is grounded on free choice. Freedom is a conscious act of conscious human beings (not
merely dictated by stimulus-response as Skinner would like to point out but later debunked by Viktor Frankl).
Knowledge. An ethical act needs knowledge as a requirement because any person who do something that
he/she is not knowledgeable of cannot be held responsible for the action. A classic example is an insane
person doing something not good in the eyes of the people but actually, we cannot subject the insane person
to legal process and decree to him or her a judicial judgment, the insane person can only be rehabilitated.
However, ethical theorists conceived that there are two forms of lack of knowledge (or ignorance) in so far as
this requirement of a moral act is concerned. We have vincible and invincible ignorance. Vincible ignorance is a
form of ignorance or lack of knowledge in moral judgment where the one who acts can have the chance to
know of the rightness or badness of the act. An example would be if you happened to cheat in the exams
because you were absent during the last meeting but you did not ask your classmates of the updates in the
class, that is vincible ignorance because something could have been done on your side to know the updates in
class but you did not ask. In this case you are held responsible for cheating in the exams, you committed
something morally wrong. Invincible ignorance is a form of ignorance or lack of knowledge where the one who
acts has no way of knowing in the course of the action the rightness or badness of an act. A classic example
would be Hitler’s parents making a choice to give birth to a son only later to become the cause of the murder
of several millions of Jews. Hitler’s parents cannot know of what their son could become so that is invincible
knowledge.

In the course of the development of ethical theories, there are philosophers and thinkers who questioned
the first two requirements because in they asked “Is it not possible to live good moral lives then if you
happened not to believe in God and the Immortality of the Soul? Are they really required for the person to be
morally good? Modern and Contemporary theories of ethics tend to disregard the two because of the two
requirements’ (God and Immortality of the Soul) inclination to adhere to beliefs instead of reason alone. So
most ethical theories now are only grounded on Freedom and Knowledge but there are still a few who
defended the necessity of the four requirements of an ethical act.

Another important distinction that students in ethics should learn is the distinction made between Human
acts and Acts of Man. Human acts are acts that are subject to moral or ethical judgments as these acts proceed
from the person’s free will and full knowledge of the actions whereas acts of man are acts which are dictated
by instincts or acts that don’t require free will and knowledge.

In order to fully account the action of a morally accountable person the following factors must be present
in judging or assessing the rightness or wrongness of a human act (cf. Maboloc, 2010, 2):
a) Motive or intention
b) The circumstances or the situation
c) The nature of the act itself

All the three must be accounted for because an act may appear to be an act of kindness but can become a
form of hypocrisy if the motive is self-promotion (Maboloc, 2010, 2) or selfish gain. On the other hand, an act
might be wrong in our perspective because we are not in the same situation of the person doing the action.
The complexity of the interrelationship between these factors render ethics one of the thorniest and rockiest
road in philosophy because all ethical judgments reflects a value judgment.

The Old Conflict: Ethical Relativism versus Ethical Absolutism

Ethical Relativism is a view that ethical claims and theories are obviously different from each other by
the fact of the differences in socio-cultural and geopolitical realities of people hence there are no universal
moral principles or absolute moral paradigms that is applicable to all human beings. To assert that there is an
absolute, objective, and single norm of what is right and wrong (Ethical Absolutism) is to be disrespectful to
the differences natural to different cultures. Any absolutist perspective not only in ethics but in politics as well
as in religion was proven to be ethnocentric and imperialistic that has devastated so many lives. When you fit-
in all different sizes to a one-size-fits-all model then you will end up destroying those which does not fit to the
model. However, ethical relativism has its critics as well. Those who advocated ethical relativism claims
tolerance of other cultures as a supreme virtue and when this happen you cannot point out something not
good in other cultures in the light of your culture’s standards of goodness. There will be no intervention
possible if one culture for example will murder all of its members. To say that all ethical paradigms are relative
you are also embracing the idea that even this statement “all is relative” is also relative. With relativism the
idea of one truth was diminished and weakened but we are very much aware also of the terrible consequences
of imposing only one truth to all people who are different from each other. This is an on-going conflict even in
our times. After we dismantled the tyranny of one truth we ended up with the tyranny of relativism, the
tyranny of many truths. Everybody claims their own truth and correctness but they ended up seeing each
other wrong.

In the course of the development of ethical perspectives, there are a lot of people who conceived of
different norms to answer the question what is the norm that people should subscribe to in order to live a
good and happy moral lives, to name the major ones, we have: Hedonism, Stoicism and Epicureanism, and
Humanistic Ethics. The early beginnings of Ethics branched out to more complex ethical paradigms such as
Divine Command and Christian Ethics, Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Kantian Categorical Imperative, Ethical
Implications of Spinoza’s Philosophy, Situation Ethics, Objectivist Ethics, Buddhist Ethics, and more.

Hedonism (from Greek hēdonē, meaning pleasure) is an ethical doctrine, which claims that pleasure, is the
norm of morality. By pleasure, the hedonists mean the satisfaction of desires, hence the greater the pleasure,
the better and that means the good the experience becomes. This doctrine is enshrined in your belief in
maximizing pleasure because you only live once (YOLO). Pleasure is the only good according to the hedonists,
“eat and drink today, for tomorrow you’ll die.” If you have this kind of standard, you are a hedonist, pleasure is
your only basis for moral judgment whether that pleasure is physical, sensational, or intellectual. For the
hedonists, this norm of pleasure is connected to their idea of happiness as the absolute good and so it must be
made the ultimate goal of life. Satisfying ones desires according to Hedonism is necessary in order for humans
to live and survive. If we suppress our desires, we suffer and it’s not a good thing to suffer according to this
ethical paradigm (Timbreza, 2008).

Stoicism. As an ethical doctrine, Stoicism considers apathy and indifference to pleasure as the moral norm. The
advocates of this doctrine are called Stoics (from Greek stoa poikile and stoikos, meaning "painted porch"
where the Stoics discussed their ideas). They are known for their exceptional patience, self-sacrifice,
perseverance, and long-suffering attitude. The basis of the moral act for the Stoics is apatheia or a state of
imperturbability (not capable of being upset or agitated; not easily excited; calm), or indifference to pleasure.
Disagreeing with the Hedonists’ claim that lasting happiness derives from pleasure, the Stoics contend that
pleasure as the basis for moral action only leads to an endless cycle of pleasures and pains. To attain lasting
happiness according to the Stoics, we need to attain the highest virtue which is peace of mind and we have to
minimize our desires and passions because they only lead to a chaotic mental life. The Stoics advocated a life
of self-discipline and self-control as the path to inner peace. Only if you are living in this manner can you be
living a morally good life (Timbreza, 2008).

Epicureanism. The name of this school of philosophy is derived from the name Epicurus, the philosopher who
said to have founded the school. Whereas Hedonism teaches an all-out pleasure or no pleasure at all,
Epicureanism professes moderate pleasure as the moral norm. Moderate pleasure, for the Epicureans, is one
that is consistent 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 (as the Liquor advertisement use to say, drink
moderately). What the Epicureans is meant by pleasure is not temporary but permanent pleasure, or ths stae
of deep peace and perfect contentment in which we feel secure against the storms of life. The Epicureans
agree with the Hedonists that pain must be avoided so even the pleasure that leads to pain must be avoided as
well. The Epicureans considered prudence (right judgment) as the highest virtue, which enables all of us to
govern ourselves by the use of reason. As ethical guidelines for moral decisions, the Epicureans teach about
three kinds of desire: 1) natural and necessary, 2) natural but unnecessary, and 3) unnatural and unnecessary.
Natural and necessary refers to our need for food and water, rest and sleep which should be satisfied
moderately. Natural but unnecessary refers to our need for sex and marriage. It is natural but you can live
without it. Unnatural and Unnecessary refers to our need for power (Adler would surely raise his eyebrows
here), wealth, fame, smoking, drinking intoxicating substances and other vices. The third kind of desire most
often leads to physical and spiritual ruin (Timbreza, 2008).

Humanistic Ethics. This doctrine comes in many names, Eudaimonism (Plato), Nichomacheanism (Aristotle).
perfectionism, self-realization, or self-actualization. Humanistic Ethics claims that self-realization (getting out
from the illusions in the cave, reaching your highest potential as a human being, or the attainments of a virtues
life) is the true ultimate standard of morality. Self-realization understood as self-fulfillment of life and full
development of all functions of an individual (Aristotle act and potency, Plato’s attainment of the highest
good). 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 the 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 self-growth is
right, and any conduct that serves to destroy or inhibit human life and self is wrong. Humanistic ethics is life-
affirming and death-denying. All that serves life is good and all that serves death is evil. Evil is that which stops
growth, stifles life, narrows it down, and cuts it into 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 (Timbreza, 2008). Citing a concrete example from the foremost
forerunner of humanistic ethics, for Aristotle, self-realization consists in the fulfillment and actualization of
man’s (and woman’s, of course) threefold nature: the vegetative or instinctive, the sensational or emotional,
and rational. Achieving a fulfillment proper to humans (a life of wisdom and love) is the path to the highest
good, summum bonum, a virtuous, truly happy human life.

References:

Christopher Ryan Maboloc (2010). Ethics and Human Dignity. Manila: Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Florentino Timbreza (2008). “Ethics” from The Philosophical Landscape: A Panoramic Perspective on Philosophy
5th Edition. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.

Jostein Gaarder (1994). Sophie’s World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.

Steven Lukes (2009). Moral Relativism. London: Profile Books, Ltd.