The Latin word mos or moris (and its plural
mores) from which the adjective moral is
derived is equivalent to ethos.
ETHICS
- Etymologically, ethics is but a survey
of patterns of behavior that is done
by the human being in general or a
society in particular.
- Ethics, generally speaking is about
matters such as the good thing that
we should pursue and the bad thing
that we should avoid; the right ways
in w/c we could or should act and
the wrong ways of acting. It is about
what is acceptable and
unacceptable in human behavior. It
may involve obligations that we are.
Ethics as a subject for us to study is
about determining the grounds for
the values w/ particular and special
significance to human life.
This discussion of ethics and morals would
include cognates such as ethical, unethical,
immoral, amoral, morality, and so on. As we
proceed, we should be careful particularly
on the use of the word “not” when applied to
the words “moral” or “ethical” as this can be
ambiguous. One might say that cooking is
not ethical, that is, the act of cooking does
not belong to a discussion of ethics; on the
other hand, one might say that lying is not
ethical, but the meaning here is that the act
of lying would be an unethical act.
Let us consider those two words
further. The term “morals” may be used to
refer to specific beliefs or attitudes that
people have or to describe acts that people
perform. Thus, it is sometimes said that an
individual’s personal conduct is referred to
as his morals, and if he falls short of
behaving properly, this can be described as
immoral. However, we also have terms such
as “moral judgment” or “moral
reasoning”, w/c suggest a more rational
aspect. The term “ethics” can be spoken of
as the discipline of studying and
understanding ideal human behavior and
ideal ways of thinking. Thus, ethics is
acknowledge as an intellectual discipline
belonging to philosophy. However,
acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are
also generally described as ethical and
unethical, respectively. In addition, with
regard to the acceptable and unacceptable
ways of behaving in a given field, we have
the term “professional ethics”
Therefore, various thinkers and writers posit
a distinction between the terms “moral” and
“ethics” and they may have good reasons
for doing so, but there is no consensus as to
how to make that distinction. Ordinary
conversation present as much less rigid
distinction between these terms, and in this
book, we will lean in that direction as we do
not need to occupy ourselves here with the
question how different thinkers and writers
construe that distinction. So, in this course,
we will be using the terms “ethical” and
“moral” (likewise, “ethics” and “morality”)
interchangeably
TYPES OF ETHICS
Normative Ethics - The largest branch, it
deals with how individuals can figure out the
correct moral action that they should take.
Philosophers such as Socrates and John
Stuart Mill are included in this branch of
ethics.

Meta-Ethics - This branch seeks to
understand the nature of ethical properties
and judgments such as if truth values can
be found and the theory behind moral
principals.
Applied Ethics - This is the study of
applying theories from philosophers
regarding ethics in everyday life. For
example, this area of ethics asks questions
such as "Is it right to have an abortion?" and
"Should you turn in your friend at your
workplace for taking home office supplies?"
Moral Ethics - This branch questions how
individuals develop their morality, why
certain aspects of morality differ between
cultures and why certain aspects of morality
are generally universal.
Descriptive Ethics - This branch is more
scientific in its approach and focuses on
how juman beings actually operate in the
real world, rather than attempt to theorize
about how they should operate.
Knowing how to best resolve difficult moral
and ethical dilemmas is never easy
especially when any choice violates the
societal and ethical standards by which we
have been taught to govern our lives.
LAW - It is supposed the law is one’s guide
to ethical behavior. In the Philippines,
Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of
the land as stated in country’s criminal and
civil codes. The term positive law refers to
the different rules and regulations that are
posited or put forward by an authority figure
that require compliance
CULTURE
Cultural Relativism holds that the norms
of a culture reign supreme within the
bounds of the culture itself.
How is culture defined?
Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, objects,
and other characteristics shared by
groups of people.
Culture could be based on shared
ethnicity, gender, customs, values, or
even objects. Can you think of any cultural
objects? Some cultures place significant
value in things such as ceremonial artifacts,
jewelry, or even clothing. For example,
Christmas trees can be considered
ceremonial or cultural objects. They are
representative in both Western religious and
commercial holiday culture.
Culture can also demonstrate the way a
group thinks, their practices, or
behavioral patterns, or their views of the
world.
Norms that you are used to are neither right
nor wrong, just different. Picture walking into
a nearly empty movie theater when visiting
another country, and not sitting next to the
only person in the theater. Another person
walks up and tells you off for being rude.
You, not used to these norms, feel
confused, and anxious. This disorientation
you feel is an example of culture shock.
What is cultural relativism?
Ethnocentrism - means you use your
own culture as the center and evaluate
other cultures based on it. You are
judging, or making assumptions based
on your own norms, values, or beliefs.

Is ethnocentrism bad or good? On the one
hand, ethnocentrism can lead to negative
judgments of the behaviors of groups or
societies. It can also lead to
discrimination against people who are
different.
But on the other hand, ethnocentrism can
create loyalty among the same social
group or people in the same society.
To avoid judging the cultural practices of
groups that are different to yours, we
can use the cultural relativism approach.
Cultural relativism refers to not judging a
culture to our own standards of what is
right or wrong, strange or normal.
Instead, we should try to understand
cultural practices of other groups in its
own cultural context.
Anthropologists say that when we think
about different cultures and societies, we
should think about their customs in a way
that helps us make sense of how their
cultural practices fits with their overall
cultural context. For example, having
several wives perhaps makes economic
sense among herders who move around
frequently. Through such an understanding,
polygamy makes cultural sense.
SUBJECTIVISM - The starting point of
subjectivism is the recognition that the
individual thinking person (the subject) is at
the heart of all moral valuations. She is the
one who is confronted with the situation and
is burdened with the need to make a
decision or judgment. From this point,
subjectivism leaps to the more radical claim
that the individual is the sole determinant of
what is morally good or bad, right or wrong.
ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM
The basic thought of Ethical
Subjectivism is the idea that our moral
opinions are based on our feelings and
nothing more. On this view, there is no
such thing as “objective” right and wrong.
Subjectivism teaches that there are no
objective moral truths out there.
There are no objective moral facts.
Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be
objectively true
Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further
and teach that moral statements describe
how the speaker feels about a particular
ethical issue.
Moral statements are just factual
statements about the attitude the
speaker holds on a particular issue
So if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is
telling you that I disapprove of telling lies
Some forms of subjectivism generalise this
idea to come up with:
Moral statements are just factual statements
about the attitude normal human beings
hold on a particular issue and this may
ultimately lead us to this conclusion about
moral truths:
Moral judgements are dependent on the
feelings and attitudes of the persons
who think about such things
Good points of subjectivism
Reflects the subjective elements of
morality
it reflects the close relationship between
morality and people's feelings and opinions
- indeed it can cope with the contradictory
moral views we often find ourselves
wrestling with
Reflects the evaluative elements of moral
statements
moral statements in everyday life make
judgements ("lying is wrong"), factual
statements ("cats have fur") don't
Shows that moral judgements
communicate dis/approval
it reflects the communication of approval
and disapproval that seems to go along with
the everyday making of moral statements
May clarify what people are arguing
about
subjectivism may enable people disagreeing
over the rightness or wrongness of some
issue to see that the real dispute is not
about objective truth but about their own
preferences
Reflects the persuasive intentions
behind ethical discussions
subjectivism may also enable people
engaging in moral argument to realise that
they are not arguing about objective truths
but trying to persuade their opponent to
adopt their point of view
I disapprove: but surely ethics is about more
than feelings.
Bad points of subjectivism
The problem with subjectivism is that it
seems to imply that moral statements are
less significant than most people think they
are - this may of course be true without
rendering moral statements insignificant.
"If I approve of something, it must be
good"
- Subjectivism seems to tell us that
moral statements give information
only about what we feel about moral
issues.
- If the simplest form of subjectivism is
true then when a person who
genuinely approves of telling lies
says "telling lies is good" that moral
statement is unarguably true. It
would only be untrue if the speaker
didn't approve of telling lies.
- So under this theory it seems that all
the speaker has to do to prove that
lying is good is to show lots of
evidence that they do indeed
approve of lying - perhaps that they
tell lots of lies and feel good about it,
indeed are surprised if anyone
criticizes them for being a liar, and
that they often praise other people
for telling lies.
- Most people would find this way of
approaching ethics somewhat
unhelpful, and wouldn't think it
reflected the way in which most
people talk about ethical issues.
Moral statements seem more than
statements about feelings
- By and large if a person says
something is wrong we usually get
the message that they disapprove of
that something, but most of us
probably think that the other person
is doing more than just telling us
about their feelings.
How can we blame people if moral truths
are always subjective?
- If moral statements have no
objective truth, then how can we
blame people for behaving in a way
that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder is
wrong" has no objective truth, then
how can we justify punishing people
for murder?
- One answer is that we can justify
punishment for murder on the basis
of the objective truth that most
normal people in society disapprove
of murder. If we do this, we should
not pretend that our justification is
based on anything other than the
majority view.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM - “Human
beings are naturally self-centered, so all our
action are always already motivated by
self-interest.” This theory that describes the
underlying dynamic behind all human
actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not
direct one to act in any particular way.
Instead, it points out that there is already an
underlying basis for how one acts. The ego
or self has its desires and interest, and all
our actions are geared toward satisfying
these interests.
Ethical egoism
Ethical egoism differs from
psychological egoism in that it does not
suppose all our actions are already
inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical
egoism prescribes that we should make
our own ends, our own interest, as the
single overriding concern. We may act in
a way that is beneficial to others, but we
should do that only if it ultimately
benefits us.
Ethical egoism is the view that people
ought to pursue their own self-interest, and
no one has any obligation to promote
anyone else’s interests. It is thus a
normative or prescriptive theory: it is
concerned with how people ought to
behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is
quite different from psychological egoism,
the theory that all our actions are ultimately
self-interested. Psychological egoism is a
purely descriptive theory that purports to
describe a basic fact about human nature.
More Objections to Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral
philosophy. This is because it goes against
certain basic assumptions that most
people have regarding what ethics
involves. Two objections seem especially
powerful.
Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer
when a problem arises involving
conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues
are of this sort. For example, a company
wants to empty waste into a river; the
people living downstream object. Ethical
egoism advises that both parties actively
pursue what they want. It doesn’t suggest
any sort of resolution or commonsense
compromise.
Ethical egoism goes against the
principle of impartiality. A basic
assumption made by many moral
philosophers—and many other people, for
that matter—is that we should not
discriminate against people on arbitrary
grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual
orientation or ethnic origin. But ethical
egoism holds that we should not even try to
be impartial. Rather, we should distinguish
between ourselves and everyone else, and
give ourselves preferential treatment.
To many, this seems to contradict the very
essence of morality. The golden
rule—versions of which appear in
Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam—says we should
treat others as we would like to be treated.
One of the greatest moral philosophers of
modern times, ​Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804), argued that the fundamental
principle of morality (the “categorical
imperative,” in his jargon) is that we
should not make exceptions of
ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t
perform an action if we cannot honestly
wish that everyone would behave in a
similar way in the same circumstances.
Model for Ethical Decision Making
1. GATHER THE FACTS - Frequently
ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by
clarifying the facts of the case in question.
In those cases that prove to be more
difficult, gathering the facts is the essential
first step prior to any ethical analysis and
reflection on the case. In analyzing a case,
we want to know the available facts at hand
as well as any facts currently not known but
that need to be ascertained. Thus one is
asking not only “What do we know?” but
also “ What do we need to know?” in order
to make an intelligent ethical decision.
2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES
The ethical issues are stated in terms of
competing interests or goods. It’s these
conflicting interests that actually make for
an ethical dilemma. The issues should be
presented ia a ______versus _________
format in order to reflect the interests that
are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma.
For example, in business ethics there is
often a conflict between the right of a firm to
make profit and its obligation to the
community. In this case, the obligation
pertains to the environment
3. WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A
BEARING ON THE CASE
In any ethical dilemma, there are certain
moral values or principles that are central to
the conflicting positions being taken. It is
critical to identify these principles, and in
some cases, to determine whether some
principles are to be weighted more heavily
than others. Clearly, biblical principles will
be weighted the most heavily. There may be
other principles that speak to the case that
come from other sources. There may be
constitutional principles or principles drawn
from natural law that supplement the biblical
principles that come into play here. The
principles that come out of your mission and
calling are also important to consider.
4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES
Part of the creative thinking involved in
resolving an ethical dilemma involves
coming up with various alternative courses
of action. Although there will be some
alternatives that you will rule out without
much thought, in general the more
alternatives that are listed, the better the
chance that your list will include some
high-quality ones. In addition, you may
come up with some very creative alternative
that you had not considered before.
5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH
THE PRINCIPLES
At this point, the task is one of eliminating
alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case.
In many instances, the case will be resolved
at this point, since the principles will
eliminate all alternatives except one. In fact,
the purpose of this comparison is to see if
there is a clear decision that can be made
without further deliberations. If a clear
decision is not forthcoming, then the next
part is the model that must be considered.
At the least, some of the alternatives may
be eliminated by this step of comparison.
6. WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES
If the principles do not yield a clear decision,
then a consideration of the consequences of
the remaining available alternatives is in
order. Both positive and negative
consequences are to be considered. They
should be informally weighed, since some
positive consequences are more detrimental
than others.
7. MAKE A DECISION
Deliberations cannot go on forever. At some
point, a decision must be made. Realize
that one common element in ethical
dilemmas is that there are no easy and
painless solutions to them. Frequently the
decision that is made is one that involves
the least number of problems or negative
consequences, not one that is devoid of
them.
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral
Development.
Psychologist’s theories of moral
development provide an insight into how
moral disagreement developed and even
how they untangle it.
Lawrence Kohlberg, a professor of
psychology in Harvard University is a
prominent moral development theorist, but
his thinking grew out of Jean Piaget’s
writing on children’s intellectual
development. His theory is descriptive,
rather than, proven facts.
Kohlberg presumes that there are six stages
of moral development that people go
through in much the same way as infants
learned first to role over, to sit, to crawl, to
stand and finally to walk. Kohlberg clearly
emphasized the following system of his
theory:
Everyone goes through each stage in the
same order, but not everyone goes through
all the stages and a person at one stage
can understand the reasoning of any stage
below him but cannot understand more than
one stage above.
These correlates, especially the latter one,
are important when it comes to assessing
the nature of disagreement about ethical
judgment. Perhaps the easiest way is to
remember them is by differing kinds of
justification involved in each stage. There
are three levels in his theory and each level
is divided into stages. The schema will show
the stages of moral development:
Pre-conventional level
(pre-conventional because individuals do
not yet speak as members of society,
instead they see morality as something
external to themselves)
Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience
The first stage is characterized by a view
that right action is to behave according
to social acceptable norms imposed by
some authority figure (e.g., parent,
teacher) in order to avoid punishment.
Right is a literal obedience to rules and
authority, avoiding punishment, and not
doing physical harm. What is right is to
avoid breaking rules, to obey for
obedience’s sake and to avoid physical
damage to people and authority. Thus follow
and obey because of the consequence of
punishment and due to superior power of
authorities.
This stage takes an egocentric point of view,
a person at this stage does not consider the
interests of others and does not relate two
points of view. Actions were justified in
terms of physical consequence rather in
terms psychological interests of others.
Authority’s perspective is confused with
one’s own.
Stage 2: Individual and instrumental
exchange
Is characterized by a view that right
behavior means acting in one’s own best
interests.
What is right is following rules when it is to
someone’s immediate interest. Right is
acting to meet one’s interests and needs
and letting others do the same. Right is
also what is fair, that is, what is an equal
exchange, a deal, am agreement. The
reason for doing what is right is to serve
one’s own needs/interests in a world where
one must recognize that other people have
their interests as well.
This stage takes a concrete individualistic
perspective. A person at this stage
separates his own interests and points of
view from those of authorities and others.
The person integrates or relates conflicting
individual interests to one another through
instrumental exchange of service, need for
others and other’s goodwill. Perhaps
through fairness giving each person the
same amount.
Conventional Level
(it speaks on isolated individuals rather than
as members of the society. It sees individual
exchanging favors, but there is still no
identification with the values of the
family/community)
Stage 3: Mutual and interpersonal
conformity
Characterized by an attitude which one
seeks to do that will gain the approval of
others.
It sees what is right is living up according to
the expectations by people that are close to
them, like the family, community. Being
good and having good behavior means
having good motives and interpersonal
feelings such as empathy, love, trust,
concern.
This stage takes the perspective of the
individual in relationship to other individuals.
Thus, a person in this stage is aware of the
shared feelings, agreement and
expectations that take primacy over the
individual interests.
Stage 4: Law and Order

Is characterized by abiding the law and
respecting authority and performing
one’s duty so that social order is
maintained.
What is right is fulfilling one’s own duty to
which one had agreed. The reasons for
doing what is right are to keep the
institutions going as a whole.
This stage differentiates societal point of
view from interpersonal agreement or
motives. A person at this stage takes the
viewpoint of the system, which defines roles
and rules, individual relations in terms of
one’s own place in the system.
Post-conventional level
(moral decisions are generated from the
rights, values or principles that are or that
could be agreeable to all individuals
composing or creating a society designed to
have fair and beneficial practices)
Stage 5: Social contract and Individual
rights
Is characterized by thinking about a
society in a very theoretical way,
stepping back from their own
established society and considering the
rights and values of the society ought to
uphold.
What is right is the awareness of the fact
that people hold a variety of values and
opinion that most values and rules are
relative to one’s group. The reason for doing
what is right, is in general, feeling obligated
to obey the law, because one has made a
social contract to make and abide by laws
for the good of all and to protect their own
rights and the rights of others. Like, family,
friend. One is concerned that laws and
duties be based from a rational calculation
of the overall ‘utility’. ‘The greatest good for
the greatest number’
This stage takes a ‘prior-to-society’
perspective. It means that individuals are
aware of the values and rights prior to social
attachment and contract. The person
integrates perspective by formal mechanism
of agreement, contract, objective impartiality
and due process.
Stage 6: Universal ethical principles
Is characterized by an attitude of respect
for universal principle and the demands
of individual conscience.
The right action on this stage is guided by
universal ethical principles, particularly law,
social agreement are usually valid because
it is anchored to principles. When law
perhaps violates the universal principle one
is often acts in accordance with the
principle. The principle of equality, justice,
respect and others. These are not only
values but regarded as principle that is of
used in order to generate decisions.
This stage takes the perspective that a
person takes a stand in view of moral
principle from which social agreement are
derived on which they are grounded.
ETHICAL DILEMMA also known as a
moral dilemmas, are situations in which
there is a choice to be made between two
options, neither of which resolves the
situation in an ethically acceptable fashion.
In such cases, societal and personal ethical
guidelines can provide no satisfactory
outcome for the chooser.

Ethical dilemmas assume that the chooser

will abide by societal norms, such as codes
of law or religious teachings, in order to
make the choice ethically impossible.