ETHICS: PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN MODERN SOCIETY.

INTRODUCTION:
ETHICS - is the branch of philosophy that studies morality or the rightness or
wrongness of human conduct. Morality speaks of a code or system of behaviour in
regards to standards of right or wrong behaviour. The two (2) terms (ethics and
morality), especially their adjective form (ethical and moral), are often times used
interchangeably.
As a branch of philosophy, ethics stands to queries about what there is
reason to do. Dealing with human actions and reasons for action, ethics is also
concerned with character. In fact, the word ethics’ is derived from the Greek word
‘’ETHOS’’ means ‘’character’’, or in plural ‘manners’.
Clearly, ethics and morality necessarily carry the concept of moral standards
or rules with regard to behaviour. So as way of introducing moral rules, let me
discuss why rules are important to social beings.
FREEDOM AND MORAL ACTS
In Kant philosophy, freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in
moral domain, at the question: what should I do?
In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as a free
person. Kantian freedom is closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which means
law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a law that I created myself. It is
therefore, respect its commitment to compliance with oneself. Practical reason
legislates (make laws and requirements) of free being, or more precisely the
causality of free beings.
Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural
causality; each event is the effect of another, and so on to infinity. Unlike the
phenomenon of man, the moral rule is free, ie, it has the power to self-start
condition. Kant ethics is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.
Kant’s Morality and Freedom
To act freely is to act autonomously. To act autonomously is to act
according to a law I give myself. Whenever I act according to the laws of
nature, demands of social convention, when I pursue pleasure and comfort,
I am not acting freely. To act freely is not to simply choose a means to a given
end. To act freely is to choose the end itself, for its own sake.
This is central to Kant’s notion of freedom. For Kant, acting freely
(autonomously) and acting morally are one and the same thing.
The capacity to act autonomously in this manner gives humans that
special dignity that things and animals do not have. Respecting this dignity
requires us to treat others not as means to an end, but as ends in themselves.
To arrive at a proper understanding of Kant’s notion of moral law and
the connection between morality, freedom and reason, let’s examine these
contrasts:
 1. Duty vs. Inclination (morality)- Only the motive of duty, acting
according to the law I give myself confers moral worth to an action. Any other
motive, while possibly commendable, cannot give an action moral worth.
2. Autonomy vs. Heteronomy (freedom)- I am only free when my will
is determined autonomously, governed by the law I give myself. Being part
of nature, I am not exempt from its laws and I’m inclined or compelled to act
according to those laws (act heteronomously/the state or condition of being
ruled). My capacity for reasons opens another possibility that of acting
according to laws other than the laws of nature: The laws I give myself. This
reason, “pure practical reason”, legislates a priori- regardless of all empirical
ends.
3. Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives (reason)- Kant
acknowledges two ways in which reason can command the will, two
imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives uses instrumental reason: If I want x,
I must do Y. ( If I want to stay out of jail, I must be a good citizen and not rob
banks). Hypothetical imperative is always conditional. If the action would be
good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical. If
the action is represented as good in itself, and therefore necessary for a will
which of itself accords with reason, the imperative is categorical.
Categorical Imperative is non-conditional. It is concerned with the
matter of the action and its presumed results, but with its form, and with the
principle from which it follows. And what is essentially good in action consists
in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may.
What is Categorical Imperative?
This question can be answered from the idea that binds us as rational
beings regardless of any particulars ends.
Two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
1. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. Maxim is a rule, a principle that gives reason to
action. This is a universalizing test that checks whether my action puts my interests
and circumstances ahead of everyone else’s. My action will fail the test if it results
in a contradiction.
Example: I want a loan, but I know I won’t have money to repay it. I’m
considering making a promise I know I can’t keep. Can I make this a universal law,
the law that says that every time one needs a loan and has no money to repay it,
one should make a false promise? Imagine everyone then acting according to this
maxim. We quickly realize that this would result in negating the whole institution
of promise-keeping. We arrive at a contradiction.
2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same
time as an end.
 For Kant, human existence has in itself an absolute value-it is an end in itself
and the only ground of a possible categorical imperative.
The Role of Freedom in Morality
The personal aspect of morality-which might more properly be called ethics
is about the cultivation of virtue: the development of character traits so that
choosing the good becomes a matter of habit. But a person in order to be truly
asset, must be free to cultivate the qualities, or not.
There is no virtue in being temperate when you are being forced not to
indulge. There is no virtue in being charitable when someone is forcing you to give
up what is yours. Virtue can be guided by cultural traditions and social institutions,
but it cannot be coerced. A virtuous man must also be a free man.
The interpersonal aspect of morality is more about rule following. These
rules are important because, they prevent us from colliding with each other. They
permit us to live together in harmony, and they also make us recognize, apart from
the mere consequences to ourselves, the rights of others. Here too, liberty is
essential.
1. – The Importance of Rules to Social Beings
Rules – refer to explicit or understood regulations or principles governing
conduct within a specific activity or sphere. Rules tell us what is or is not allowed in
a particular context or situation. In many ways, rules serve as a foundation for any
healthy society. Without rules, society would likely fall into anarchy/disorder.
RULES BENEFIT TO SOCIAL BEINGS IN VARIOUS MANNERS
a. Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior. Rules build boundaries
that place limits on behaviour. Rules are usually coupled with means to
impose consequences on those who violate them. One of the reasons
people follow accepted rules is to avoid negative consequences.
b. Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom. Rules
form frameworks for society. Nations are generally nations of laws and
the governing principles are outlined in what is called constitution.
c. Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings. Rules are needed in
order to keep the strong from dominating the weak, that is, to prevent
exploitation and domination. Without rules, schemes in which those with
the power control the system, would take over.. In effect, rules generate
a stable system that provides justice, in which even the richest and most
powerful have limitations on what they can do.
d. Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules
regulating business, power would centralize around monopolies and
threaten the strength and competitiveness of the system. Rules are
needed to ensure product safety, employee safety, and product quality.
Copyright and patents help protect people’s intellectual property.
In short, society cannot soundly function without rules and regulations.
Rules are necessary to protect the greater good. Even the freest societies
 ought to have rules in order to avoid exploitations and tyranny while
upholding the common welfare.

2. Moral vs. Non-moral Standards

Not all rules are moral rules. That is, not all standards are moral
standards.
Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about
what is right and wrong, or good or evil. Accordingly, moral standards are
those concerned with or relating to human behaviour, especially the
distinction between good and bad ( or right or wrong ) behaviour.
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of
actions they believe are morally right and wrong, as well as the values
they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and
morally bad.

MEANING OF CULTURE
Culture - is so complex that is not easy to define. In one sense, culture is used
to denote that which is related to the arts and humanities. But in a broader sense,
culture denotes the practices, beliefs, and perceptions of a given society.
Culture – refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs,
values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial
relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired
by a group of people in the course of generations through group or individual
striving.

CULTURE’S ROLE IN MORAL BEHAVIOR

A culture is a way of life of a group of people, and this so called ‘way of life’
actually includes moral values and behaviors, along with knowledge, beliefs,
symbols that they accept, ‘’generally without thinking about them, and that are
passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.
Culture is learned as children grow up in a society and discover how their
parents and others around them interpret the world. In our society, we learn to
distinguish objects such as cars, windows, houses, foods, sea, water, dress and the
like; and perform different kinds of acts, and even evaluate what is morally good
and bad and to judge when an unusual action is appropriate or inappropriate.
Social learning is the process by which individuals acquire knowledge from
others in the group to which they belong, a s a normal part of childhood. The
process by which infants and children socially learn the culture, including morality,
of those around them is called enculturation or socialization.

FEELINGS AND MORAL DECISION MAKING

There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings
on morality. They are (1) Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism. But before
discussing and analysing these two theories, let us deal first with the view that
feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.
1.Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas
 Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that
moral judgements at their best should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also
necessary in ethical judgement as they are even deemed by some as instinctive and
trained response to moral dilemmas.
Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. ‘Both abstract
inference and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as a having relative roles in
ethical thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions are said to be judgements
about the accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be
rational in being based at least sometimes on good judgements about how well a
circumstance or agent accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also
visceral or instinctual by providing motivations to act morally.
2.Feelings as Obstacle to Making Right Decisions

Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles or impediments to

becoming ethical. This is the case especially when feelings’ roles in ethics are
misinterpreted or exaggerated. So as a way of proving this, let us discuss the two
famous (but erroneous) feeling-based theories in Ethics.

2.1Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utterly runs contrary to the principle
that there is objectivity in morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethical theory,
Ethical Subjectivism is not about what things are bad. It also does not tell how we
should live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory about
the nature of moral judgements.

Although it admits that moral judgements are ‘truth bearers,’ Ethical

Subjectivism holds that the truth falsity or ethical propositions is dependent on the
feelings, attitudes, or standards of a persons. Contrary to the belief that morality is
about objective facts, this theory states that moral judgements simply describe our
personal feelings.

2.2Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism. Ethical Subjectivism suggests that we are to

identify our moral principles by simply following our feelings. On a positive note.,
it allows us to think for ourselves because it implies that we need not agree with
culture or society. Ethically, it makes sense for a theory not to ultimately base
morality on what society feels or dictates.

But subjectivism has plenty of problems. It indicates, unbelievably, that the

mere fact that we like something would make it good. So just imagine how the
theory would asses acts like taking prohibited drugs, getting intoxicated, and
bullying others if some persons do like them. Moreover, the theory provides a weak
foundation for dealing with topics like slavery, racism, and discrimination. In
subjectivism, these things would be good only if we liked them.

Ethical Subjectivism also has implications that are contrary to what we

believe about the nature of moral judgements. For instance, ethical Subjectivism
also considers it a fact that Jack the Ripper brutally murdered at least five women
in London. But in expressing that his actions were evil, we are said to be not stating
a fact about his actions; rather we are merely saying that we have negative feelings
toward Jack the Ripper’s murderous deeds.

5.3Emotivism. One way to look at emotivism is to view it as an improved version

of Subjectivism. Considered by its proponents as far more subtle and sophisticated
than Subjectivism Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to many objections. This
theory that was developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L.
Stevenson (1909-1979) has been one of the most influential theories of Ethics in
the 20th century.

The theory basically states that moral judgements express positive or

negative feelings “X is immoral” merely means “Hooray X!”- and “X is immoral” just
means “Boo on X!” Since ethical judgments are essentially commands and
exclamations, they are not true or false; so there cannot be truths and moral
knowledge.

2.4Evaluating Emotivism. It is barely sensible to base a moral theory on logical

positivism as his view has been abandoned and rejected by philosophers. For one
thing, logical positivism is self-refuting as the view is not itself verifiable by sense
experience and thus unsurprising that Emotivism, too, is prone to serious criticism.

Emotivism provides morality with insufficient explanations. In denying moral

truths and moral knowledge, it seems to dilute what morality is instead of
elucidating it. It is also unclear how the ethical ‘good’ can be reasonably reducible
to mere exclamation.

In effect, Emotivism suggests that an ethical dispute, we cannot appeal to

reason but only to emotion. Without a doubt, this could bring about anarchy. The
theory could encourage propaganda wars in which all parties involved, not minding
to resort to reason, would simply try to manipulate the feelings or emotions of the
opponents. Emotivism is thus against our basic knowledge that it is favourable if
opposing groups would instead judiciously deliberate about their ethical
differences and resort to reasons to resolve them.

3.Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions

Our discussions on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism should not be

construed, however, as completely removing people’s feeling, taste, emotion,
liking and the like in the sphere of morality. Admittedly, there are situations in
which our feelings and likings are relevant to the

righteousness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a job to

assume, and especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be
really right without at least considering our feeling, taste and preference.

Moreover, ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian

philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is basically a strong liking, desire, or
emotion. Applied religiously, excluding feelings in moral living seems to go against
the biblical decree to worship and serve God with a joyful heart or feeling.
 Four ethical 'isms'
When a person says "murder is bad" what are they doing?

That's the sort of question that only a philosopher would ask, but it's actually
a very useful way of getting a clear idea of what's going on when people talk
about moral issues.

The different 'isms' regard the person uttering the statement as doing
different things.

We can show some of the different things I might be doing when I say
'murder is bad' by rewriting that statement to show what I really mean:

 I might be making a statement about an ethical fact

 "It is wrong to murder"
 This is moral realism
 I might be making a statement about my own feelings
 "I disapprove of murder"
 This is subjectivism
 I might be expressing my feelings
 "Down with murder"
 This is emotivism
 I might be giving an instruction or a prohibition
 "Don't murder people"
 This is prescriptivism
Moral realism
Moral realism is based on the idea that there are real objective moral facts
or truths in the universe. Moral statements provide factual information about
those truths.

Subjectivism
Subjectivism teaches that moral judgments are nothing more than
statements of a person's feelings or attitudes, and that ethical statements do
not contain factual truths about goodness or badness.

In more detail: subjectivists say that moral statements are statements about
the feelings, attitudes and emotions that that particular person or group has
about a particular issue.

If a person says something is good or bad they are telling us about the
positive or negative feelings that they have about that something.

So if someone says 'murder is wrong' they are telling us that they

disapprove of murder.

These statements are true if the person does hold the appropriate attitude or
have the appropriate feelings. They are false if the person doesn't.

Emotivism
Emotivism is the view that moral claims are no more than expressions of
approval or disapproval.
This sounds like subjectivism, but in emotivism a moral statement
doesn't provide information about the speaker's feelings about the topic
but expresses those feelings.

When an emotivist says "murder is wrong" it's like saying "down with
murder" or "murder, yecch!" or just saying "murder" while pulling a horrified
face, or making a thumbs-down gesture at the same time as saying "murder
is wrong".

So when someone makes a moral judgement they show their feelings about
something. Some theorists also suggest that in expressing a feeling the
person gives an instruction to others about how to act towards the subject
matter.

Prescriptivism
Prescriptivists think that ethical statements are instructions or
recommendations.

So if I say something is good, I'm recommending you to do it, and if I say

something is bad, I'm telling you not to do it.

There is almost always a prescriptive element in any real-world ethical

statement: any ethical statement can be reworked (with a bit of effort) into
a statement with an 'ought' in it. For example: "lying is wrong" can be
rewritten as "people ought not to tell lies".

BASIC THEORIES AS FRAMEWORKS IN ETHICS

The term framework can be defined as a basic structure underlying a system

or concept. Contextually in Ethics, it refers to a “set assumptions, concepts, values,
and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality” (Framework,” n.d.). With
this definition, a framework is pretty much like a worldview or held theory.

Personally, held frameworks and principles in Ethics dictate one’s moral

disposition or the way a person resolves moral dilemmas. Hence, it is important to
learn the basic moral theories which are espoused or held by many people. Some
leading theories in ethics will be specially discussed later in this book. In this lesson,
an overview on the fundamental moral principles, concepts, and theories is
provided.

Ethicists today generally divide the study of morality into three general
subject areas: (1) meta-ethics, (2) normative ethics, and (3) applied ethics. Under
these respective areas are various moral theories or frameworks.

1. Meta-Ethics

Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that studies the nature of morality. As

such, it talks about the meaning, reference, and truth values of moral
judgements. It also explains what goodness and wickedness mean and how we
know about them. Studying the methods for choosing ethical principles and
doing normative ethics can be said to be part of this more basic branch of moral
philosophy.
 Because it studies the meaning of ethical language and metaphysics of moral
truths, meta-ethics deals with question like the following: Are the objective
moral truths? What do the words ‘good’, ’bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ mean? Are
moral judgements a matter of subjective personal feeling? If we say “Slavery is
wrong,” are we just making a claim about our customs or are we making an
objective declaration that is true regardless of what anybody may think? How
we can know if something is right or wrong? How may ethical propositions be
supported or defended?

Meta-ethical theories are commonly classified semantically as either

cognitivist or non-cognitivist; substantially as either universalist or relativist; and
epistemologically as empiricist, rationalist, or intuitionist.

1.1Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

a. Cognitivism states that moral judgements convey proposition, that is,
they are ‘truth bearers’ or they are either true or false. Most ethical
theories are cognitivist as they contend that right and wrong are no
matters of fact. The most famous forms of cognitive ethics are the
moral realism and the ethical subjectivism.
Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the
truth (or falsity) of moral judgements are independent of people’s
thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that morality is about objective
facts, that is, not facts about any person or group’s subjective
judgement.
Ethical subjectivism, on the other hand, holds that the truth (or
falsity) of ethical propositions are dependent on the attitudes or
standards of a person or group of persons. Subjectivism is obviously
contrary to moral realism.
b. Non-cognitivism denies that moral judgements are either true or
false. It claims that ethical sentence do not convey authentic
propositions, hence are neither true or false.
Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivism theory.
It submits that moral judgements are mere expressions of our
emotions and said feelings. Like exclamatory sentences, ethical
sentences cannot be said to be either true or false according to the
theory.
1.2Universalism vs. Relativism
a. Moral universalism theorizes that moral facts and principle
apply to everybody in all places.
Also called ‘moral objectivism’, it claims that a universal
ethic exists and that this applies to all similarly situated persons,
regardless or nationality, citizenship, culture, race, gender,
sexual, preference, religion, or any other differentiating factor.
Believing that some behaviors are simply wrong, it also submits
that if something is right for the one, then it is right for another.
Moral universalism is very much compatible with ‘moral
realism’.
 b. Moral relativism, on the other hand, submits that different
moral facts and principles apply to different persons or group of
individuals.

Believing that various cultures have distinct standards of

right and wrong, it also maintains that ethical standards also
change over time even in the same culture. Denying a single,
objective standard for morality, it holds that all moral norms are
equally true and morals are more preferences. Noticeably, it is
very much compatible with ‘ethical subjectivism.’

1.3Empiricism vs. Rational vs. Intuitionism

a. Moral empiricism is a meta ethical stance which states that moral facts
are known through observation and experience.

The theory is an extension of ‘empiricism’ in epistemology which

state that all knowledge of matters of fact is derived from experience and
that our mind is not equipped with pre-experience concepts. Some forms
of moral empiricism hold that moral truths are reducible to matters about
people’s opinions or cultural conventions and thus are recognizable by
observation of their conventions.

b. Moral rationalism contends that moral facts and principles are

knowledgeable a priori, that is, by reason alone without reference to
experience.

As ‘rationalism’ is epistemology claims that knowledge about

reality are gained through non-empirical deductive system, most form of
moral rationalism purport that moral facts are known through rational
inferential process. In general, the theory relies on a reason rather than
intuition in justifying a belief or action.

c. Moral intuitionism submits that moral truths are knowledgeable by

intuition, that is, by immediate instinctive knowledge without references
to any evidence.
The theory claims that we have intuitive awareness of value or
morality and that it defines the basis of our ethical knowledge. It thus
insists that the moral value of actions may be known intuitively, even if
their consequences have not been uncovered.
In its general form, it claims that some moral facts can be known
without interference. Hence, some empiricist and rationalist theories that
promote non-interferential moral knowledge may be compatible with
moral intuitions.
2. Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that studies how man ought to act,
morally speaking. As of the name suggests, it examines ethical norms, that is, those
guidelines about what is right, worthwhile, virtuous, or just.
 This branch evaluate standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions
and determines a moral course of action. Prescriptive in nature, it addresses
specific moral questions about what we should do or believe. We do normative
ethics if we justify norms like “Discrimination is wrong” or “We must always act in
accordance with our duty”. Just for easy distinction, whereas meta-ethics tackles
questions such as “What is goodness?” normative ethics deals with issues like
“What ought one to do?”

Normative ethical theories are generally categorized into three kinds:

deontological, teleological, and virtue ethics.

2.1Deontology is an ethical system that bases morality on independent

moral rules or duties.
The term came from the Greek work ‘deon’, which means ‘duty’,
implying the foundational nature of man’s duties or obligations. This system
equates behaving morally with adherence to duties or moral rules, and
acting immorally with failure to obey them. Also called non-
consequentialism, the system’s principles are submitted as obligatory,
regardless of the consequences that actions might produce.
2.2Teleology – refers to moral system that determines the moral value of
actions by their outcomes or results.
From the Greek word ‘Telos’, which means ‘end’, teleology takes into
account the end result of the action as the exclusive consideration of its
morality.
2.3Virtue ethics, as a moral system, places emphasis on developing good
habits of character, like kindness and generosity, and avoiding bad
character traits, or vices, such as greed or hatred.
Virtue based theories give importance to moral education which molds
individuals to habitually act in a virtuous manner. Focusing on the
character of the agent, virtue ethics describes right actions as those
chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous person.

3. Applied ethics philosophically examines specific, controversial moral issues.

Using philosophical methods, this area of concern in ethics attempts to
determine the ethically correct course of action in specific realms of human
action.
3.1Bioethics is concern with ethical issues pertaining to life, biomedical
researches, medicines, health care, and medical profession. As such, it
deals with controversies like those about surrogate mothering, genetic
manipulation of foetuses, stem cell research, using human embryos in
research, in-vitro fertilization, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, patients
rights, confidentiality of patients records, physician’s responsibilities, and
mandatory medical screening.
3.2Environmental ethics deals with moral issues concerning nature,
ecosystem, and its nonhuman contents. This includes issues such as
animal rights, animal experimentation, endangered species preservation,
pollution control, and sustainable development.
 3.3Business ethics examines moral principles concerning business
environment which involves issues about corporate practices, policies,
business behaviors, and the conducts and relationships of individuals in
the organizations. It investigates ethical controversies such as those
about the social responsibility of businesses, employee rights,
harassment, labor unions, misleading advertising, job discrimination, and
whistle blowing.
3.4Sexual ethics studies moral issues about sexuality and human sexual
behaviour. It examines topics like homosexuality, lesbianism, polygamy,
pre-marital sex, marital fidelity, extra-marital sex, non-marital
procreation, loveless sexual relations, safe sex, and contraceptive use.
3.5Social ethics with what is right for a society to do and how it should act
as a whole. Its focus is on what may be deemed as proper behaviour for
people as a whole. Some of the issues under this are those about racial
discrimination, death penalty, nuclear weapon production, gun control,
drug use for fun and welfare rights.

Lesson II: Virtue Ethics

Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-348 BC), and Aristotle (384-322 BC) are
Greek philosophers in the ancient period who deeply affected Western philosophy.

Though having political ambitions as a young man, Plato eventually became

a student and disciple of Socrates, the most admired and patronized Greek
philosopher at the time. Aristotle (384-322 bc) is a philosopher and natural scientist
who eventually shared the distinction of being the most famous of ancient
philosophers with Socrates and Plato, his (Aristotle’s) teacher.

The contemporary theory in Ethics called Virtue Ethics is said to have started
with these three great philosophers. In the medieval era, the Italian philosopher
and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) revived, enhanced, and
‘Christianized’ the Greek Virtue Ethics. In this lesson, we will discuss these Greek
philosophers and Aquinas’ ethical theories and attempt to philosophically analyse
them.

1. Virtue Ethics Defined

Virtue Ethics is a moral philosophy that teaches that an action is right if it is

an action that a virtuous person would perform in the same situations.
According to the theory, a virtuous person is someone who acts virtuously and
people act virtuously if they possess and live the virtues. A virtue is moral
characteristics that an individual need to live well.

Virtue Ethics out emphasis on developing good habits of character and

avoiding bad character traits or vices. It focuses on the character of the agent
and describes right actions as those chosen and performed by a suitably virtuous
person.
 Virtue ethicist, such as Aristotle, hold that people live their lives trying to
develop their faculties to the fullest extent. We have many faculties to develop
such as intellectual, physical, social, moral, and so on. Developing one’s moral
capacity to the fullest is pursuing ethical excellence, which is displayed by the
virtues (hence “virtue ethics”).

Basically, the virtues are the freely chosen character traits that people praise
in others. People praise them because: (1) they are difficult to develop; (2) they
are corrective of natural deficiencies (for instance, industriousness is corrective
of one’s tendency to be lazy): and (3) they are beneficial both to self and society.

Virtue Ethics defines a moral person as someone who develops the virtues
and unfailingly displays them overtime. The ancient Greeks list four “cardinal
virtuous” namely, wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. The Christian
teaching, on the other hand, recommends faith, hope, charity, and love. Others
suggest virtues which are associated with ‘humanity’ namely grace, mercy,
forgiveness, honor, restraint, reasonableness and solidarity.

2. Socrates and Plato’s Moral Philosophy

Since Plato wrote down and essentially adhered to Socrate’s philosophy, it is

practical for us to treat their ethical theories jointly here.

In dialog Gorgias written by Plato, Socrates indicates that pleasure and pain
fail to provide an objective standard for determining moral from immoral since
they do not exist apart from one another, while good and evil do.

In Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro whether something is good because

the gods love it, or whether the gods love it because it is good. Socrates’ point
is that what is good has a certain independence from the whims of the gods’
determination of the rightness of our actions and mores. Socrates therefore
believed in the existence of objective ethical standards though he admitted that
it is not that easy to specify them.

Central to Plato’s philosophy is his theory of Forms – the objectively existing

immaterial entities that are the proper object of knowledge. Everything in the
material world is what it is by virtue of its resemblance to, or participation in,
this universal Form or Idea. These unchanging independent forms are like ideal
and stable models of the ordinary observable objects.

Circularity and squareness are good examples of what Plato meant by Forms.
A thing in the physical world may be called a circle or a square insofar as it
resembles or participates the Form “circularity” or “squareness”. (Baird, 2009)

Now, since everything in the perceptible realm participates in independent

and perfect forms, there is also a form even for moral predicates, such as justice
and happiness. The highest of all form even for moral predicates, such as justice
and happiness. The highest of all forms is the form of the Good. For Plato, those
who comprehend the Good will always do good actions. Bad actions are
 performed out of not knowing the Good. To know the Good, nonetheless,
requires an austere and intellectually meticulous way of life.

Virtue therefore is regarded as knowledge and can be taught. Knowledge of

the Good is considered as the source of guidance in moral decision making that
to know the good, it is argued, is to do the good.

3. Aristotle’s Ethics

At least two of Aristotle’s works specifically concern morality, the Eudemian

Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics. But since only a few have studied the former, the
Nicomachean Ethics has been regarded as the Ethics of Aristotle since beginning of
the Christian era.

Three general descriptions, which are interrelated, can be used to depict

Aristotle’s ethics. First, his ethical system may be termed “self-realization.” In his
philosophy, when someone acts in line with his nature or end (‘telos’) and thus
realizes his full potential, he does moral and will be happy.

Like Plato’s and most of the other ancient philosopher’s ethical theories,
Aristotle’s view is also of a type known as eudaimonistic. As such, it focuses on
happiness (eudaimonia), or the good for man, and how to obtain it.

Finally, his moral philosophy is aretaic, or virtue-based. Whereas act-oriented

ethics is focused mainly on what we should do, a virtue ethics is interested basically
in what we should be, that is, the character or the sort of person we should struggle
to become.

3.1 Aristotle ‘Telos’. A ‘telos’ is an end or purpose. Aristotle believes that the
essence or essential nature of beings, including humans, lay not at their cause (or
beginning) but at their end (‘telos’).

Aristotle does not agree with Plato’s belief in a separate realm of Forms.
Aristotle, instead, argues that natural beings can discover the ‘essences’ of things
and that a being’s essence is its potential fulfilment or ‘telos’ (as the being’ is
rationally and, thus, a life of an acorn is to become an oak tree). The essence or
‘telos’ of ‘human being’ rationality and, thus, a life of contemplation (a.k.a
Philosophy) is the best kind of life for true human flourishing.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be thus summarized in this manner:

“All humans seek happiness (“well being”), but in different ways. True
happiness is tied to the purpose or end (telos) of human life. The
essence [or ‘telos’] of human beings (that which separates and
distinguishes them as a species) is Reason. Reason employed in
achieving happiness (human ‘telos’) leads to moral virtues [e.g.
courage, temperance, justice and prudence] and intellectual virtues
(e.g., ‘science,’ art, practical wisdom, theoretical wisdom).”
(“Aristotle,” n.d.)
 In terms of his ethics, Aristotle thus believes in the excellence of
philosophical contemplation and virtues actions stemming from virtuous persons.
By virtuous actions, he means those which the person with wisdom would choose
because what is good is obvious to such a person.

3.2 Happiness and Virtues. Aristotle believes that the ultimate human goal is self-
realization. This entails achieving one’s natural purpose by functioning or living
consistently with human nature. Accomplishing it, in turn, produces happiness;
whereas inability to realize it leads to sadness, frustration, and ultimately to poor
life. It therefore, behoves us to act in accordance with our nature so as to be
content and complete. In detail, what does Aristotle mean by human nature?

Aristotle identifies three natures of man: the vegetable or physical, animal

or emotional, and rational or mental. As previously explained, the thing that
distinguishes humans from all other creatures is the natural nature or the ability to
reason. Rational development is thus deemed the most important, as its uniquely
human. Accordingly, living in accordance with the reason is viewed as vital in self-
realization or developing one’s potential.

This self-realization-the awareness of our nature and the development if our

potentials- is the key to human happiness. But what is this happiness in line with
Aristotle’s ethical view?

Ethics, for Aristotle, is the inquiry into the human good. This is to say that
the purpose of studying ethics is to make ourselves good, though Aristotle assumes
that we already want to become good. This human good is eudomonia or
happiness.

Aristotle observed that wise persons seek an end that is self-sufficient, final,
and attainable over one’s life. This end is happiness which all human beings want.
Aristotle also considers happiness as the summum bonum – the greatest good of
all human life. He adds that it is the only intrinsic good, that is, the good that is
pursued for its own sake. While all other things, such as pleasure, wealth, and
honor are merely means to an end, happiness is man’s ultimate goal as it is an end
in itself.

3.3 Virtue as Habit. Aristotle’s idea of happiness should also be understood in the
sense of human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of
moral and intellectual excellences, or ‘virtues’.

Related to self-realization, acting in line with virtues is acting in accordance

with reason. The function of human being, accordingly, consists in activities which
manifest the best states of his rational aspect, that is the virtues.

Aristotle employs the word ‘hexis’ to refer to moral virtue. One denotation
of the term ‘hexis’ is an active state, a condition in which something must actively
hold itself. Virtue, thus, manifests itself in action. More explicitly, an action counts
as virtuous, according to Aristotle, when a person holds oneself in a stable
equilibrium of the soul, in order to select the action knowingly and for its own sake.
This stable equilibrium of the soul is what constitutes character.

3.4 Virtues and the Golden Mean. Virtue refers to an excellence of moral or
intellectual character. As mentioned earlier, Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of
virtue: virtues of intellect and moral virtues. The first corresponds to the fully
rational part of the soul, the intellect; the second pertains to the part of the rational
soul which can ‘obey reason’. Moral virtue is an expression of character, formed by
habits reflecting repeated choices, hence is also called virtue of character.

For Aristotle, moral virtues follow from our nature as rational beings—they
are the traits or characteristics that enable us to act according to the reason. But
what is acting according to reason?

Acting in a reasonable manner is done when we choose to and indeed act in

a way that neither goes to excess nor defect normally indicate a vice. Virtue lies
neither in the vice of deficiency nor in the vice of excess but in the middle ground.
Thus, moral virtue is the golden mean between the two less desirable extremes.

Happiness and its opposite play a role I the determination of the golden
mean, since we tend to do actions that bring delight and avoid actions that bring
agony. The virtuous person is brought up to find enjoyment in virtuous actions and
sorrow in vices.

Aristotle mentions four basic moral virtues: courage, temperance, justice,

and prudence. Courage is the golden mean between cowardice (deficiency) and
tactless rashness (excess). The coward has too little bravery, the reckless individual
has too much, and the courageous shows just the proper amount bravery.

3.5 ‘Phronesis’ and Practice. In using the golden mean to become virtuous, we
must recognize not only that the mean is neither too much nor too little but also it
is ‘relative to us’ as moral agents. What constitutes the right amount of something
may differ from person to another. Aristotle knows that the right amount of food
for a 6-footer basketball player is different from he right amount of food for a 3-
footer, thin 12-year old boy. In learning to avoid excess and defect, we thus have
to find out for ourselves what the right amount is in our perspective unique case
and situation. But what determines what is appropriate for us in a particular
circumstance?

Aristotle teaches about an intellectual virtue that plays a significant role in

Ethics. The phronesis, the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom, is that kind of
moral knowledge which guides us to what is appropriate in conjunction with moral
virtue.
This phronesis or practical wisdom is a grasp of the appropriate way to
respond—to feel and act—in a particular situation. Once we have learned the
proper amount of some kind of action through moral virtue and practical wisdom,
then, we have ‘the right prescription’ (orthos logos). To be virtuous therefore is to
act in accordance with the right prescription.
 But acting appropriate to the right prescription should be understood in
terms of practice, training, or cultivation. To be virtuous one must perform the
actions that habitually bring virtue. A person must practice and develop the virtue
of generosity, for instance, so that acting generously becomes habitual. Moral
education comprises imitation (say, parents and teachers), internalization and
practice until it becomes normal.

Aristotle’s complete picture of a morally virtuous man therefore it is

someone who constantly and habitually acts according to moral virtue and practical
wisdom, ideally exhibiting a lifetime rational living and avoidance of vice, thereby
forming an ethical character, achieving self-realization, and thus realizing
happiness and human good. His comprehensive notion of moral virtue is that it is
a state of character manifested in choice and action, resting in the golden mean,
resolved by the prescription that a wise person would determine.

FOUR CONTROLLERS OF MAN’S PHILOSOPHY

1. BELIEFS – an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Eg. “ His belief in the value of hard work”
2. PRINCIPLES – a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the
foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
Eg. “A list of values set by a group of people”
3.IDEOLOGY – a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis
of economic or political theory and policy.
Eg. “ the ideology of democracy”
4. IDEALS – a person or thing regarded as perfect. It is also a standard of
perfection, beauty or excellence.
Eg. “ you’re my ideal of how a man should be”.