College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus

DEGREE General COURSE NO. GE ETHICS

PROGRAM Education
SPECIALIZATION COURSE TITLE Principles of Ethical Behavior in Modern
Society
YEAR LEVEL All levels TIME FRAME 6 hrs WK NO. 3 IM NO. 2

I. CHAPTER TITLE I: B – MORAL STANDARDS VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS

II. LESSON TITLE:

MORAL STANDARD VS. NON-MORAL ONES

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

III. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our
beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do
have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab.
For sure, in traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act
that women have to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the
woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world,
especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As
a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing
of extremely daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the
Muslim women who wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly
despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is
a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture
may be a matter of moral significance in another.

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on
others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we
may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic
cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards
(that is, of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral
issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for
some people, but understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching
implications. For one, once we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of
course, through the aid of the principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify
fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular
values and beliefs are non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit
of cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous
ones) and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here
is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right
to impose them on others. But if such standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming
people, then we may have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be
able to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and
deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards:

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be
 morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare
and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore,
prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and
values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are
understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We are
always under the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent
people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or
statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “Helping the
poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics,

namely: 1) moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans,
animals, and the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are
not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed,
moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify
them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent
people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence
over other standards and considerations, especially of self-interest; 4) moral standards are
based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just; and 5) moral
standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary
(such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and
right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette
by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge
something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or
rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, and aesthetics or even with
religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a

scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person.
Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral

standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says
“Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.

 http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/.
 https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

II- MORAL STANDARDS VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS

It is important to regard that we live in a different societies and these societies that we live connotes a
different moral beliefs and these beliefs that we experience in our life are deeply influenced by our own culture
and context. Likewise, in some instances some values that we have recognized and experienced have moral
implications while others do not have. Let us consider for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional
Muslim communities, the wearing of this is the most appropriate act that women have to do in terms of dressing
up. In fact to some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s body, such as the face and legs is despicable.
However, in many parts of the world, especially in the Western societies/countries most people don’t mind if
women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim
body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The point here is that the manner of thinking or perception is
that people in the West would likely may have pities the Muslim women who wear hijab. While some Muslims
may find women who dress up daringly dirty or dishonour. Again this proof that different cultures have
different moral standards simply to say that. What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, matter of taste hence
it is rightly to say that is considered non-moral value in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in
another. The problem here is that lies within the context of different culture that has a different moral value this
however, would impose its own cultural standards on others which may result in a clash in cultural values and
beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know violence and crime may ensue, such as religion, violence
and ethnic cleansing.

MORAL STANDARDS:

These are norms that individuals or groups have about the kind of actions believed to be morally right or
morally wrong as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad.
 Moral standards normally promote “the good,” that is the welfare and well-being of humans as well as
animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of right
obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other words,
norms plus values equal to moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our
actions or behaviours. For example, we may say “we are always under the obligation to fulfil promises “or” it is
always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.” On the other hand, values are understood as
enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “helping the
power is good” or “cheating during exams is bad.”

Moral Standards normally promote “the good”, that is the welfare and well-being of humans as well as
animals and the environment. Moral Standards, therefore, prescribe by what humans ought to do in terms of
rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In other words,
norms plus values equal to moral standards. On the one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our
actions or behaviours. For example, we may say “we are always under the obligation to fulfil promises ”or” it is
always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.” On the other hand, values are understood as
enduring beliefs or standards about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say “helping the
poor or good’ or “cheating during exams is bad.”

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely:

1.) Moral Standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the
environments, such as child abuse, rape and murder.
2.) Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies.
Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure,
we don’t need law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong.
3.) Moral are overriding that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially of
self-interest.
4.) Moral Standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just and;
5.) Moral Standards are associated with special emotions such as guilt and shame, such as right or wrong, good
or bad.
NON MORAL STANDARDS:

These refers to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a non-moral way.
Example of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad,
standards we call by which we judge something as legal or illegal, on standards of aesthetics by which we judge
act as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette, law oe even with religion.

AS we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupolous observance
of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said standards also does not pose
any threat to human well-being. So in other words, non-moral standards refers to rules that are unrelated to
moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack
ethical sense. Basic examples of these concept include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and
various house rules. Technically, religious rules, traditions and legal statutes i.e. laws and ordinances are non-
moral principles, though they can be ethically relevant depending in some factors and contexts.

The following six characteristics of moral standards further differentiate them from non- moral
standards:

1.) Moral Standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefit.

Moral Standards deal with matters which can seriously impart, that is injure or benefit human
beings. It is not the case with many non-moral standards. For instance, following or violating some
basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not necessarily affect one’s life or wellbeing.

2. Moral Standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral Standards have one overriding character and hegemonic authority. If a moral standard states
that a person has the moral obligation to do something, then he/she is supposed to do that even if it
conflict with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest. There is a general moral duty to
obey the law, but there may come a time when the injustice of an evil. Law is unbearable and thus calls
 for illegal but moral non-cooperation such as the antebellum laws calling for citizens to return slaves to
their owners.
3. Moral Standards are not established by authority figures.

Meaning to say these are not invented, formed or generated by authoritative bodies or persons such
as nations, legislative bodies, ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the process of
making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be changed nor nullified by the decisions of
particular authoritative body. One thing about these standards, nonetheless, is that its validity lies on the
soundness or adequacy of the reasons that are considered to support and justify them.

4. Moral Standards have the trait of universalizability.

Simply means that everyone should live up to moral standards, to be more accurate, however, it
entails that moral principles must apply to all who are in relevantly similar situation.

5. Moral Standards are based on impartial considerations.

This concept does not evaluate standards on the basis of the interests of certain person or group or
group, but one that gives beyond personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each person’s
interests are impartially counted as equal. Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or
prejudice, impartiality in morality requires that we give equal or adequate consideration to the interests
of all concerned parties.

6. Moral Standards are associated with special emotions.

This indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of moral standards are generally put forth as
injunction or imperative such as “Do not kill,” “Do not do unnecessary harm” and love your neighbour.
These principles are proposed for use, to advise and to influence action. Retroactive, this feature is used
to evaluate behaviour, to assign praise and blame and to produce feelings of satisfaction or guilt.

SUMMARY:
MORAL STANDARDS VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS

MORAL STANDARDS NON-MORAL STANDARDS

1. Force other to act accordingly
2. General rule of actions on behaviors,
Killing innocent people is absolutely
wrong.
3. Do not harm innocent people or don’t
steal.
4. Norms plus values is equal to Moral
Standards
1. We have no right to impose on others.
2.. Standard of etiquette, law standard of
aesthetic.
3..Don’t Text while driving.
4..Don’t talk while the mouth is full.

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the chapter, the students should be able to:

1. Understand the meaning and relevance of Moral Standards and non-moral standards;
2. Distinguish the different characteristics of Moral Standards and Non-Moral Standards ;
3. Differentiate the methods used in analysing Moral Standards and non-moral ones; and
4. Identify the tools used in dealing with Non-moral Standards.

V. LESSON CONTENT

Definition of Moral Standards and Non-moral Standards

Importance of Moral and Non- moral Standards
Characteristics of Moral and Non-moral Standards
Differentiate Moral and Non-Moral Standards.

VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Study Activity:

1. When do we say that a rule is a moral rule?

 2. When do we say that an experience is a Moral Experience?

3. Which one should be the most important for you Moral Standards or Non-Moral Standards? Why?

MORAL AND NON-MORAL STANDARDS

Contrast: Cite the differences between moral and non-moral from the most and the least important.

CONTRAST
MORAL STANDARDS NON-MORAL STANDARDS
1. 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

4. 4.

5. 5.

VII. ASSIGNMENT:

MORALITY OF THE HUMAN ACTS

Differentiate between Human Acts and Acts of Man
Elements in Determining Morality

References :
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1749-1761.
John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis splendor, August 6, 1993, nos. 71-83.
Recommended readings
St. Josemaría, Homily, “Christian Respect for Persons and their Freedom,” Christ Is Passing By,
67-72.

VIII. EVALUATION

Quiz 1

Name: _______________________________________________ Date: ____________

Name of Professor/Instructor: _____________________________ Score: ___________

I. True or False: Write T if the statement is true and F otherwise.

_____1. Moral standards based on unpractical consideration.
_____2. The danger in moral and non-moral standards culture may impose its own cultural standards on
others which may result in a clash.
_____3. Different societies have different moral beliefs and that our belief are influenced by our own
culture.
_____4. Moral standards are norms and religion
_____5. Moral Standards are not established on charged by the decisions of authoritative individuals or
bodies.
_____6. Non-moral standards are the sum of combined norm and values.
_____7. Some values that we have recognized and experienced have moral implications while others do
not have.
_____8. Non-moral standards rules that are unrelated to moral ethical considerations.

_____9. Non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference.

_____10. Law, ordinances and rule in games are moral standards..

II. Identification: Determine whether the following are Moral Standards or Non-Moral Standards Check the
letter indicating whether the given situation is a "M" Moral Standards or "NM" Non-Moral Standards.
Justify your answer below each item.

1. Wearing of hijab for the women in a traditional Muslim communities. ___ M ___NM

2. In Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring
dress ___M ___NM

3. Killing innocent people. ___M ___NM

4. Dribbling the ball in basketball. ___M ___NM

5. Don’t talk while your mouth is full ___M ___NM

6. Do not cheat . ___M ___NM

7. Dribbling the ball in basketball. ___M ___NM

8. Don’t talk while your mouth is full ___M ___NM

9. Don’t text while driving a car ___M ___NM

10. Anti-terror bill of President Duterte ___M ___N

This full case is included in The Elements of Moral Philosophy 

(Rachels and Rachels, 2012). The following is a summary of the case:

CASE NO. 1`
“ BABY THERESA”
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an anencephalic infant known to the public as “ Baby
Theresa “ was born in Florida in 1992. Anencephaly is among the worst congenital disorder.
Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brain,” and this gives
roughly the right picture, but it is not quite accurate. Important parts of the brain-the cerebrum
and cerebellum are missing, as well as the top of the skull. There is however, a brain-stem,
and so autonomic functions such as breathing and heartbeat are possible. In the United States
most cases of anencephaly are detected during pregnancy and aborted. Of those not aborted,
half are stillborn. About 300 each year are born alive, and they usually die within few days.
Baby Theresa’s story would not be remarkable except for an unusual request made by
her parents. Knowing that their baby could not live long and that, even if she could survive, she
would never have a conscious life, baby Theresa’s parents volunteered her organs for
transplant. They thought their kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and eyes should go to other children
who could benefit from them. The physicians agreed this was a good idea. At least 2,000
infants need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs available. But the
organ were not taken because Florida law does not allow the removal of organs until the donor
is dead. By the time Baby Theresa died, nine days later, it was too late for the other children-
her organs could not be transplant because they had deteriorated too much.
The newspaper stories about Baby Theresa prompted a great deal of public discussion.
Would it be have been right to remove the infant’s organs thereby causing her immediate
death, to help other children? A number of professional “ethicists” people employed by
universities, hospitals, and laws schools, whose job it is to think about such matters – were
called on by the press to comment. Surprisingly few of them agreed with the parents and
physicians. Was it really horrendous? Opinions were divided. These ethicists thought so, while
the parents and doctors did not, but we are interested in more than what people happen to
think. We want to know the truth of the matter. In fact, were parents right or wrong to volunteer
the baby’s organs for transplant? If we want to discover the truth, we have to ask what
reasons, or arguments, can be given for each side. What can be said to justify parents’
request, or to justify thinking the request was wrong.
1. Classify the moral standards and non-moral standards issues of this case

2. How do we put a value on human life?

3. What should one do when there is a conflict between the law and one's own moral
position about an issue?

4. If you were in a position to make the final decision in this case, what would it be and
why?