I.

Name Plate

Baao Community College

San Juan, Baao Camarines Sur

College of Education

Name/s:

Baracina, Joshue L.

Boncayao, Ryan T.

Doros, Karen Angela C.

Prestado, Kareen T.

Motil, Ma. Zaraly B.

Tud, Abanie

S/T/R/D:

MC VED 7 Moral Issues and Concerns in

Contemporary World

Sun 7:30 am – 10:30 am

Topics:

Setting Up a Moral System

Basic Principles Towards the Formation

of any Ethical System

Instructor:

Mr. Raph Anthony Ramos

II. Objectives

At the end of this lesson, the learners should acquire the following:

1. Understand the different principles in attaining Moral Systems in the Society.

2. Evaluate his/her thought regarding the different Principles of Life, such as
Goodness and Rightness, Justice and Fairness, Truth and Honesty and
Freedom.
3. Show the connection between Goodness and Rightness, Justice and Fairness,
Truth and Honesty, Individual Freedom, and Universal Freedom.

III. Definition of Terms

For better comprehension of the concepts or terms connected in this study, the
following terms are highlighted conceptually and operationally.

 Collective Freedom – It is also known as collective rights, are rights held by a

group rather than individually by its members.
 External Freedom – This refers to the normal and common freedoms
expected in daily life, it implies immunity from undue interference by
authority, especially the government.
 Fairness – This refers to the quality of treating people equally or in a way that
is right or reasonable.
 Freedom – This refers to the power or rights of human to act, speak or think
as ones want without hindrances or restraint
 Goodness – This refers to the right action in which whatever is good is also
right. It is good if and only if we ought to do it.
 Honesty – This refers to the practice of speaking truth throughout life. It is a
facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as
integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness, including straightforwardness of
conduct, along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc.
  Internal Freedom – This refers to the limited and confined to an individual,
and results in the ability to act as what one would like to act inside the effects
of outside influences
 Justice – This refers to giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more
traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. It is the equitable
distribution of benefits and burdens to individuals in social institutions, and
how the rights of various individuals are realized.
 Libertarianism – This refers to philosophical positions related to the
problems of free will and determinism which are part of the larger domain of
metaphysics. Libertarianism is an incompatibilism position which argues that
free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe.
 Political Freedom – This refers to the ability of a nation's citizens to
participate freely in the political process.
 Rightness – This refers to the state of being morally or legally correct.
 Spiritual Freedom – This refers to a state where a person is socially and
spiritually free, allowing him to prosper both materially and spiritually.
 Truth – This refers to the property of being in accord with fact or reality,
typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise
correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences. Truth
is usually held to be the opposite of falsehood.

IV. Summary of the Report

Human has a different Principles that should be lived on throughout

their life as their guide to be ethical and suitable to live in the society. These
principles guide humans to be morally aware, knowledgeable, and civilized
person in the society. There are various principles in accordance to achieve
ethical system in society and a foundation of human values. It affects the way
people make decisions and live their lives. Ethics deals with what is good for
individuals and society and is also defined as moral philosophy. 

Life has no specific value to us, other than as the way we can have
experiences, and these experiences are what we find to be valuable. Humans
do not put the value of life into the physical state of mere aliveness, but give it
value through its ability to allow for experiences. Life, as a set of experiences
that are good, is what has value, and our capacity to have them is the intrinsic
value of life. (Burnham)
The ability to experience gives life its inherent meaning, which is not
reducible to the physical, yet the physical has the possibility for these
experiences. Because the options here are unlimited, it would be incorrect and
discriminatory to try to confine physical capability as any criterion, or even
anticipate how experiences can flow from it. When the physical sense is linked
to the concept of life quality, it disregards what has been discovered to be
useful in experience. 
When we value our life, it guides our core values in life such our
behavior, attitude, goals and even your aspirations in life. Doing so, it also
appears that we must weigh our decision in life if it will result in goodness or
rightness. Humans tends to be very impulsive and when they decide they did
not think first if it will bring goodness to someone, or if it is inclined to
rightness. Rightness follows from goodness. One person's pleasure is not good
as another. An action is morally right when it brings us happiness and when it
has certain good effects to us. Right actions are right when we achieve
something that is good. Kant says that the virtues evenness of temper, patience
can be turned evil if they are used for evil.
Most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of
talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that
are created when goods and services are scarce, and people differ over who
should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles
of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for
determining what people deserve. How do we determine what people
deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what
is due to this or that person? The most fundamental principle of justice—one
that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than
two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated
equally and unequally.” In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes
expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they
differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved.”
 Truth and honesty are a basic human value that human can provide to
someone, in this world we always seek for validation if it is the truth because
when something is factual and has an integrity, people can go along with you
easily without any hidden agenda. Human can be untruthful and dishonest, but
it is a matter of choice because honesty is the foundation of having trust in a
relationship without which there might be a lot of arguments, and when there
is honesty in a specific relationship the truth will follow to function and thrive.
It is very simple, when you are honest with someone, they can trust you
because you are committed, and you are upholding your values.
Freedom is also a basic human right; we all have freedom but with
limitations under the law, it should not be taken for granted that it ignores its
fragility. Humans has a variety of freedom, this includes the religious freedom,
political freedom, external freedom, internal freedom, collective freedom, and
many others. Freedom allows us to exercise our thoughts and opinion in the
society. Remember that there is no Absolute freedom, all freedom requires
compromise between the rights of the individual and the goals and obligations
of the state. As a result, there are many laws, regulations, and judicial
pronouncements regarding the ideals of freedom and the details of how it is to
be practiced.

V. Review of Related Literature

According to the Respect for Life Principle all living things have a
moral status and on account of that should not be killed or harmed without
good reason. But, of course, human moral agents kill and harm other living
beings all the time. Should we feel guilty about this? What constitutes a "good
reason" for killing, or harming, or otherwise failing to protect something that
is alive?
For Warren, the Respect for Life Principle, "imputes no wrongdoing
to those who harm living things when there are morally sound reasons for
doing so," but the principle alone "does not explain what counts as a
sufficiently good reason for harming a living thing". But what counts as "good
reason" is a function, at least in part, of that thing's moral status. It is also a
function of the moral status of the things that are doing the harming and their
reasons for acting as they do.
According to William Meacham (2011) a way to determine which one
(Goodness or Rightness) is right. To do that we have to determine the rules by
which to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. But there is
profound disagreement among philosophers and across cultures about what the
rules are. Moral rules are not publicly observable, and there is no easy way to
come to agreement about them. Observe what makes us healthy and what
makes us sick, what makes us happy and what makes us unhappy, and what
leads to be flourishing.

Charles Larmore (2022) Stated that Right’ and ‘Good’ are the two
basic terms of moral evaluation. In general, something is ‘right’ if it is morally
obligatory, whereas it is morally ‘good’ if it is worth having or doing and
enhances the life of those who possess it. Acts are often held to be morally
right or wrong in respect of the action performed, but morally good or bad in
virtue of their motive: it is right to help a person in distress, but good to do so
from a sense of duty or sympathy, since no one can supposedly be obliged to
do something (such as acting with a certain motive) which cannot be done at
will.

Consequentialist Ethical Theory claims that Rightness or goodness of

an action is based on its potential consequences. The most ethically
praiseworthy, according to Derenzo & Moss (2006) this theory are those that
maximize the good for the greatest number. Its core idea is that whether
actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically,
the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that
they produce.

The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social

stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has
pointed out, the stability of a society—or any group, for that matter—depends
upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being
treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are
subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest,
disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend
on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that
their institutions are just. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be
overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's
welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of
each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live
together in an interdependent community, we must treat each other as equals.

According to Sanney et.al 2020, Few principles influence success as

fundamentally as truth. Truthfulness is the foundation upon which human
relationship are built. Truth is the antecedent to trust, and trust is the
antecedent to cooperation without truth, sustainable success is impossible in
human dealings. Hence the importance of tru6 has been the subject of
theological and scholarly Pursuit for centuries Since the latter part of the
twentieth century.

According to Locke, we are born into perfect freedom.  We are

naturally free.  We are free to do what we want, when we want, how we want,
within the bounds of the “law of nature.”

 Freedom, according to Hobbes, signifies “the absence of opposition”

or “external impediments” to motion. Such freedom applies not only to
rational agents but also to “irrational and inanimate creatures.

Ethically, according to Epicurus, freedom is not ‘fulfilling all desires’,

but instead, being free from vain, unnecessary, or addictive desires. The addict
is enslaved even when he obtains his drug; but the virtuous person is free
because she doesn’t even desire the drug. Freedom is when the anger, anxiety,
greed, hatred, and unnecessary desires drop away in the presence of what’s
beloved or sacred. This means that the greatest freedom is ‘freedom from’
something, not ‘freedom to’ do something. (These two types of freedoms
correspond to Isaiah Berlin’s famous distinction between ‘negative’ and
‘positive’ types of freedom.)

The concept of freedom has played a central role in the history of

politics and political theory, motivating wars, revolutions, rebellions, and
guiding the formation of governments, states, and nations. It is one of the key
ideals of political theory, what Bernard Gallie (1955) called “an essentially
contested concept.” Thus, defining freedom throughout the history of political
thought requires grappling with such contestation over not only what freedom
means, but what sorts of questions one needs to ask to determine that meaning.
Theorists define freedom within different framework assumptions about the
nature of human existence and character, with different kinds of society and
government, and in response to different historical events, as well as to
different political, practical, and philosophical questions they seek to answer.
Indeed, Hannah Pitkin (1988), following Hannah Arendt (1965), goes so far as
to differentiate “freedom” from “liberty,” though that distinction is not
endorsed by the majority of freedom theorists. Yet certain elements persist
throughout the history of the concept within the field of political theory.
Despite common assertions that freedom is a uniquely modern concern,
struggles over the meaning of freedom date to ancient times. The differences
between various epochs, however, are as interesting for the continuities that
cross between them as the contrasts that distinguish them. The meaning of
freedom in all eras relates to the conception of a person that operates in a
culture and period, and the person's relationship to society. Differing
understandings of society and of the members of those societies are pivotal in
determining differences among conceptions of freedom.

According to Mustafa Burak SENER (2018), announced on the 10th of

December, was adopted by the UN General Assembly with the approval of 48
countries. The declaration called the Magna Carta of all humanity by Eleanor
Roosevelt, has gone through many difficulties from the day it was signed to
the present day. Eventually, the declaration was made important contributions
towards the universal acceptance, development, and protection of human
rights at present, the declaration continues to maintain its universality and
importance in the same way. However, it is a matter of debate in what
direction the existence of this declaration affects human rights. In this respect,
this study examined why many people are suffering despite the presence of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 VI. Educational Caricature

Source: Dreamstime.com
and
cartoonistsatish.blogspot.com

These pictures portray how humans acquired with different pathways to have a
moral philosophy and a foundation of ethical system in the society. The variety of principles
is one way of leading a person to have a quality of life and moral standards. Why do we need
ethics in the society? Mainly, because ethics is our guidelines, it is our character that truly
define who we are. Our values correspond to our personality and to society. That is why
being truthful, righteousness, and honest is our greatest virtue or values. These are norms of
behavior that everyone should follow. Our society might fall into chaos if we accept that each
of us could pick and choose what the right thing to do is. Some people may lie; others may
not do what they say they will do; still others act irresponsibly and engage in harmful
behavior. There is nothing wrong with pursuing one’s own interests. However, an ethical
person must be willing – at least sometimes – to place the interests of others ahead of self-
interest, because of our responsibility to a civil society. This is the moral point of view. We
could all achieve freedom, our desire but with limitation, because if we use our rights that
destroyed someone’s life it is not freedom, it is already an abused freedom.
VII. Conclusion
 Human’s has a diverse principles to live on in order to live in a society
morally.
VIII. Recommendation


IX. Bibliography
 Meacham, 2011, Ph. D. The Good and The Right,
https://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/GoodAndRight.html
 Larmore, 2022, Right and Good, Informa UK Limited, an Informa Group
Company, Routle Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/right-and-good/v-1
 DeRenzo, E.G. & Moss, J. (2006). Pg.20, Writing Clinical Research Protocols:
Ethical Considerations. New York: Academic Press.
https://books.google.com.na/books?id=9X-
YPkWvwokC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 Barnett, R., 1998, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.–, 2004, “The Moral Foundations of Modern
Libertarianism,” in P. Berkowitz (ed.), Varieties of Conservatism in America,
Stanford: Hoover Press, pp. 51–74.
 Locke, J., 1690 [1988], Two Treatises of Government, P. Laslett (ed.),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Brennan, J., 2012, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.–––, 2016, Against Democracy, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
 ŞENER, M. B. (2021). A Review of the Meaning and Importance of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 15-
25.
 Keown, J. (2018). The Value of Human Life. In Euthanasia, Ethics and Public
Policy: An Argument against Legalisation (Cambridge Bioethics and Law, pp. 37-
49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.